Star.
London, England, 1821-05-26 00:00:00

1,4

A
1..

complaining that he had been unjustly dismissed
from the Ake of At rney4„ieneral, which he ld
some Years ago in S Licone. The held
some years ago in Sierra Leone. The Petitioner
imputed his dismissal to the circumstance of his
having forwarded a Memorial from the Inhabitants
of Sierra Leone, which contained charges against
Governor Maxwell.—The Petition having been read,
Mr. WARRE stated, that as this Petition coin•
prised an attack upon the character of Governor
Maxwell, he thought it his duty to remind the House
that an award had been made by a Court of Justice
against Governor Maxwell; but so peculiar were the
circumstances of the case that his Hon. and Learned
Friend, the Member for Winchilsea, rose in his place
ih this frlouse, and expressed his opinion that some
means ought to be adopted to save Governor Max-
well tr..ni the expenses which had thus devolved
upon him. He wished to know what had been done
on that
Mr. tIOULBURN confirmed what the Hon. Gen-
tlemai, ha just stated, and said, that in consequence
of the jeculiarities of the case, the Government had
taken upon itself the payment of the award. With
respect to the present Petitione:, delicacy toward his
present situation induced him to forbear from say-
ing all that was within his knowledge concerning the
circumstances of his case.
Mt. C. HUTCIIINSON bore-a high testimony to
the character of Dr.. Thorpe, who had been much

respected in his profession.
Mr. SCARLETT said, that he had been concerned
in the ac ;ion which was brought by a very honourable
man againA Governor Maxwell, and in which one
thousand pounds damages were given against the
Goverimr ; hut at the same time he felt it his duty to
say, that nothing appeared on the trial to implicate
the character of the Governor.
After a few words from Mr. GOLILBURN, the Peti-
tion was ordered to be printed.

CRIMINAL LAW.
Sir JAMES MACKINTOSH brought up the
Report of the Committee on the Forgery Punishment
Mitigation Bill, which being received, he said he had
some amendments to propose ; but, before he should,
do so, he would beg the House to recollect the situ.'
ation in which this Bill now stood. It was agreed
to, in principle at least, by what he thought a very
considerab.e majority in a House of two hundred
and fift% Members; and the Members who thought
that it was fit that the punishment for forgery ought
to be reduced, comprised several hankers and mer-
catntile men, the most eminent in this metropolis, and
therefore is the whole commercial world. He did
not state this for the purpose of drawing any infer-
ence which would prevent any Member from dis-
cussing this BM at any of its future stages, but to
thew, that in proposing the amendments which he
was about to offer, he had deferred to the judgment
and pinions of a majority of those who supported
the Bib. To their opinions he had sacrificed his own;
and though be felt that in this instance he made
important sacrifices, yet he felt it also to be his duty
to do so, in order to meet their views. He should
now propose those amendments, in order that they
might be printed with the 13111, and placed in the
hands tit Members. He would further propose, that
if an; tion. Members had amendments to offer, they
would bring them forward on the third reaiing i.f
the Bill, when the discussion nigh: be taken on the
whole Mil. With this understanding, the Mn. and
Learned Member concluded with moving, that for-
geries in cases of personal property, marriage entries
and licenses, and last wills, codicils, or other testa-
mentary papers, be added to the exceptions of the Bill.
Mr. CBIPPS conceived that forgeries of country
banker; notes should also be added to the exceptions.
It was well known that country bankers were not in
the habit of refusing to pay notes which bore even
the semblance of their own, because, it they did so,
their credit would be destroyed. It was, therefore,
so much the more material that they should be pro-
tected from the depredations which they might suffer
from crimes of this description.
Sir JAMES MACKINTOSH suggested to the
Hon. Member to propose his Amendment on the

third reading.
Mr. GRENFELL concurred with the Hon. Mem-

ber for Cirencester, that the country bankers notes
required protection.
Mr. J. MARTIN said, that with respect to the'
punishment for forgery, perhaps transportation for
life might be deemed sufficient.
Mr. H. G. BENNETT said he did not consider!,
transportation any punishment at all. Imprisonment,
with hard labour, would be much more effectual.
Mr. A. BAKING said, he saw no reason for the
exception in this Bill in favour of Bank of England
notes, if it was not equally extended to others. The
principle of a milder punishment being, more effec-
tual for diminishing crime, was the principle upon
which the whole measure was founded. Now, if that
were so, it must produce the effect generally ; and,
therefore, he did not see why any exception should
remain, if the principle were a true one in its opera-
tion. He agreed that transportation was an inade-
quate punishment, and, if no other punishment was
substituted, he, for one, would vote against the Bill.
Mr. J. SMITH confessed that transportation did
not appear to him adequate; he thought that impri-
sonment and hard labour would be much more likely
to repress the crime of forgery.
Mr. LOCKHART was proceeding to make some ob-
jections to the Bill, when
Sir JAMES MACKINTOSH suggested, that the
Hon. Member might more advantageously defer his
observations to the third reading. He should only
add his hope, that if this Bill, with its amended ex-
ceptions, should be found effectual, the Legislature
ould afterwards lessen the number of the exceptions;
and, under this hope, he moved them with the less
reluctance.
After a few words from Mr. J. MARTIN,
Mr. PIERCE recommended an exception for trans-
fers of Stock.
Sir JAMES MACKINTOSH moved, in conse-
quence, in exception with respect to transfers of Bank
Stock.—The several Amendments were agreed to.
Sir JAMES MACKINTOSH then moved another
Amendment, making the punishment imprisonment
for not less than three years, and not exceeding fourteen.
Mr. A. BARING said, he should rather see the Bill
pass with a positive punishment of fourteen years.—
This he conceived no more than a sufficient punish-
ment, considering that the crime was previously pu-
capitally.

Mr. ARBUTHNOT explained the manner in which'
the bills of the Foreign Commissariat Departments
were drawn and paid, and which, he contended, was
the most expeditious and practicable mode devised.
Mr. BARING asked why the Accounts were not
clearly and explicitly drawn out in detail? He
wished to know also why the horses taken in Egypt,
in 1801, by Lord Hutchinson, should be remunerated
for this year? Also the stores taken at Tarragonit
by Lord William Bentinck ?
Mr. ARBUTHNOT said, that the practice of re-
munerating Officers for meritorious services had been
an old one. The remuneration could not be given
until the value of the horses had been ascertaineJ.--
He was willing to shew every Paper to the Hon.
Member, if he would make application to him for
that purpose at the Treasury.
Lord PALMERSTON said, that the practice was,
to give all the prizes taken by the Navy to the sailors.
Why should not the same practice take place in re-
lation to the Army? Why at Tarragona, when half
the prize-money had been given to the Navy, should
the soldiers be deprived of their share? The prizes
always belonged to the Crown, but they were usually
given to the captors, as a reward. The bills were
stated in the accounts as they had been paid, and

not as they had been drawn.
Sir J. YORKE asked why the break-waters of
Heligoland should have cost £BOOO, which had been '
paid to Benjamin Smith for that purpose?
Mr. GOULBURN said that the Military, Naval,
and Commissariat expenses %, ere
.included in that
grant. Heligoland was not in future to he a place
of expense to England.
Di. LUSHINGTON expressed his detestation of
the system of licensing during the war. Heligoland
had cost much, and it ought not to have been le-

rained after the war.
Mr. GOULBURN thought it would have been in-
expedient to have given up that place until the secu-
rity for peace had been established as now.
Mr. HUME asked, why the Army Contracts for
provisions abroad should have cost more during the
last ten years than the Contracts for the Navy?
Would not the Navy Board therefore be usefully
employed in purchasing provisions both for the
Army and Navy ? He thought, that it would be so.
One establishment solely would be a great saving.
With regard to the prize-money, why had it not
been granted at the proper time to the Army ? Where
did the cause of delay lie? Two-thirds of the persons
who deserved it, were perhaps no mote; delay, was
therefore highly improper. By a regulation made
in 1764., no public money was to be expended on
public works abroad unless it was absolutely neces-
sary ; and yet there had been expenditure to a large
amount without any previous estimate. He had ob-
jected when the Army Estimates were before the
House to two Inspectors of Army Clothing, and yet
now they were called upon to vote a considerable
sum for two persons filling these offices. There wa,
an item for training the Militia of Trinidad ; be
wished to know why that charge was introduced,
since all the other Colonies paid for that service
themselves? He had also wished to know why they
were called upon in the Army Extraordinaries to pay
1.7000 for the expenses of Guernsey and Jersey?.
There was also a charge for the lonian Islands for
the Militia, although there was not a man kept up.
This establishment then was only for the patronage
of the Officers. If there was such facility in obtain-
ing money, if the Authorities abroad could draw bills
on England, and his Majesty's Paymaster-General
would accept to an uniinnted amount, there would
be no end to the colonial expenditure. There was
a charge of eleven thousand pounds for the expenses
of managing the Dutch Loan; he was at a loss to
know what this had to do with Ai my Estraordinaries.
There was also 1:2,800 charged for private Secre-
taries to the Governors of Colonies. He should pro-
pose to strike out this from the Army Extraordinaries,
because these duties were of a civil nature; indeed,
he thought they were altogether unnecessary, but if
their services were indispensable, the charge ought to
have been placed to the proper account. He had
one observation to make respecting the charges for
building a house for Bonaparte, in the island of St.
Helena. He had heard that the Commissioners de-
puted to watch Bonaparte by Russia, Austria, and
Prussia, were paid by the English Commissary. Was
that the case ? He concluded by signifying his in-
tention to move an Amendment, reducing the pro-
posed vote £36,000, unless he should hear explana-
tions to induce him to alter his opinion.
Mr. GOULBURN said, the British Government
did not pay the expenses of the foreign Commis-
sioners. The charges for St. Helena were for the
completion of the building and additional furniture.
He admitted there was no good reason why the pri-
vate Secretaries of Civil Governors should be intro-
duced in the Army Extraordinaries. All he could
say was, that it had been the usual practice. He de-
fended necessity of those Officers at considerable
length, and contended that they were indispensable.
The Marquis of LONDONDERRY said, that the
foreign Commissioners stationed at St. Helena were
paid by their respective Governments ; two of them
had been withdrawn.
Lord PALMERSTON explained why the:Chief In-
spectors of Army Clothing were included in the Army
Extraordinaries.
Colonel GRUSSET said the Militia of Guernsey
and Jersey amounted to 6,000 men, that the charges
alluded to were for the Inspectors, and for the whole
military expenses of the Islands.
Mr. HUME, after a few observations, said that he
should press his Amendment.
The question was put, that, instead of £1,000,000,
a sum not exceeding £964,000 should be allowed for
Army Extraordinartes.
After a few words from Mr. HUSKISSON and Mr.
GIPPS,
Mr. MABERLY said, he thought the statements
were most unintelligible. He knew that the particu-
lars could not be made up by the 28th March, when
the annual accounts were required to be presented to
the House ; but they might be detailed by the 4th of
June, and the particulars set forth under each head.
He thought the Commissariat might perform the du.
ties of the Colonial Agents, and that expense might
be saved. He also thought that the Inspectors of
Army Clothing Were useless.
Mr. ARBUTHNOT observed, that the sum of
£1,000,000 was intended to make up deficiencies in
votes of money granted by the House last year.
With respect to the 'remaining sum of £lOO,OOO on

the score of Extraordinaries, he hoped that CI .vt,z,
:sent would be able next year, to furni.li the Huts.
with the precise items of each of these heads of ex.
penditure—(Hear.)
Sir C. LONG said, he felt himself obliged to the
Hon. Member for Aberdeen ter his advice. As to
the services of the Military Secretary, the met its of
that Officer were before the Committee, and would
be proportionably remunerated. He trusted, from
the regulations which had been adopted since the
commencement of his career as Paymaster, and the
several Bills he had brought in to facilitate the pay.
ment of Prize-money to the Army, that no just
ground of complaint now existed as to the actual
delay which at present occurred in the I:3quieut of
Prize-money.
Colonel DAVIES bore testimony to the readiness
with which the prize-money for Waterloo, as well as
in other cases, had been disbursed.
Mr. BENNETT said, he was determined to adopt
the system of reduction of expenditure. He tilt in.
disposed to giant the sum of £131,000 to
M.Kensie, as well as to the totals of severa. triter
grants now proposed. To the grant for Net south
Wales he had the strongest objection, because the
country was supporting convict. abroa,t at an e:penie
of £231,000 annually, in a state t‘ bitch the Solicitor-
General had five }ears ago coillesaed h.id cea>edto
be one of punishment, but was rather a pia,:e devoted
to the encouragement of clime. Under these circum-
stances, he should move that the sum now demanded
should be reduced to £900,000• _

Mr. HUME explained, and the Amendment w
withdrawn. _ . .

Mr. H. G. BENNETT then moved, that the grant
should be reduced to the sum of 4:900,000.
Mr. M A BERLEY thought the Amen,.!meat was
objectionable as being too genet al, and recommended
that some more spastic seduction of the sum, appli.
cable to particular services should be proposed :is
mere likely to effect the object of reduction of expense
consistent with the wellare of the public service.
Mr. ARBUTHNOT replied.
The House then divided, when there appeared_
For the Amendment - - - 33
For the original - - - b 4
Maj-

jority - . —52
Mr. ARBUTHNOT then moved, that 1.:101,5135
should be granted for defraying the expense of the
Commissariat Set vice lot the present year.
Mr. MABERLY said he could not permit this
grant to pass without making that motion winch he
had some time ago promised to submit whe:• this
grant should be before the House. He was certain
that the Storekeeper-General's Depat Emma e as, at-
though a very expensive department, one which might
very well 'be dispensed with ; not that ne was disr.osed
to do away with this department altogether, for the
stores must be taken care of by some one, but he
should propose that the kecpit,g of the stores should
be transferred to the Ordnance Depai tm. nt. He fore.
saw there would be an objection to this t an4er,
cause the patronage of the Storekeeper s Department
would be transferred t rom the Treasury to the Sheer
of the Ordnance; yet he did hope, upon public grounds,
the Treasury would relinquish this trifling addition
of patronage, when, as he conceived, it would prose
a saving of nearly £2.0 per cent. annually, on the
amount of stores deposited in the public stores under
the system at present pursued There eas a charge
to the amount of £34,000 for the hali-pay ;he de.
Nwtment, and another of £61,000 for the the pay.
These were heavy enough in themselves, but the es-
pense he was anxious to diminish, was: that ari,ing
from the present system of maintaining separate store•
house ~ wharfs, and crai.es, throughout this country,
as well as in the Colonies, whilst the service of the
Ordnance had in all these stations similar stores,
wharfs, and cranes, applicable to the vine service,
namely, that of landing and shipping every possible
description of stores. Under these circumstances, he
trusted the House would be of opinion, that the busi•
ness of both these Departments might, with great
propriety, be conducted by one alone; and he wad
opinion, that as the service of the Ordnance cord
not be dispensed with, that the lesser should merge
in the. greater and more important, and that, in fa-
ture, there should be but one great and general depot
for stores, which should be concentrated in the Ord.
nance Department.
Mr. ARBUTHNOT said, the Storekeeper's DP
partment was much reduced. The Hon. Member IP
fended, at some length, the existing arrange
Government had already effected considerabeTed:
tions, and had every disposition to avail themselves
of any opportunity for further reduction.
Mr. HUME said, that not one shilling had bees
saved this year on the Commissariat Establishment.
The stores purchased from 1816 to 1820, amounted
only to £312,000, while the Establishment for Wog
care of these stores cost £.57,700 a-year. In 1814
the whole number of Commissaries was 800, and
now, in time of peace, there remained in commis in
250, at an expense of £61,000. He thought Oa
allowance to Mr. Herries and others, on the half-pnri
quite exorbitant.
Mr. ARBUTHNOT said, that no less than 0
Clerks had been dismissed. With respect to the m's.
ber of Commissaries, so anxious was the Governmess
to reduce them, that the pay of Commissariat OF
cers, which, in 1816, amounted to £46,000, was to
duced to £36,000. With respect to Mr. Berries, he
had been a long time in the service. He was the
private Secretary of Mr. Percival, and the perst
with whom he most intimately communicated in
sg
his financial plans. He would not have resign
his situation as Comptroller of Army Accounts, naav
he not supposed that the place he accepted was
be permanent. .
Mr. WARD said, the annual expendau
• re in ..--
Store Department was only £45,000, by which fire
million pounds of stores were to be administered-
"_
After a few words from Mr. BENNETT, Mr.WA'
Mr. ARBUTHNOT, and Mr. N. CALVERT,
Colonel DAVIES proposed as an Amend:o/4,0j
duction of £4,258 from the sum originally propose
,
The Committee then divided on the Amend'
Ayes
Noes
On the re-opening of the Gallery, Mr•Bri("Eg iraS
proposing a Vote for the Barrack Department.
Mr. N. CALVERT opposed the item altogethere
Mr. PETER MOORE said, he should adhere
the course which he had laid down, and should
fore move that the Chairman leave the Chair ands re'
port progress—(Crien No, me).
gvel
After some observations from Mr. Amer•