The Statesman.
London, England, 1818-02-25 00:00:00

sod therefore ought not to be ca,
Baronet thess.argued. that-nrucis
from thie‘ritaistanOiliOully oT
City seNjurin4laint rot
d.festdvst-tk% ' coystittfui den of,.
Bridite-hou.e Committee, whose conduct
tiered -perfectly proper. Tine Ilostoetable
neat adverted to the seixore of the Orphan's Fond,
in the time n Charles the Second, when 1750,0001.
was taken from the City Treasury. The Par-
liament of that time saw their could not repay
the sum, and therefore gave them the duty on coals.
Every shilling of that sum was now paid-,-there was
now no Orphans' Fund—and he would endeavour,
peat year, to have the title changed, since it occa.
*Wired People to say that the Corporation possessed,
mosrey bet ougine to Orphans; and that they were'
unjust, ungrateful, sod embenkful.--[4l laugh.]—
They had, in the execution of that which the House
sanctioned, created a debt of 34,0001. That sum
ought to he granted to them to liquidate the debt,(
and they would never trouble the House more.,
[neer, bear!]—The Hon. Baronet concluded by:
moving, as an Amendment, " That there be laid be.
fore this House an AcConsit of the several payments
and,daties composing the Orphans' Fund, fur the last
Fit years, together with the annual charges on the
lame, with the debts which remain outstanding and
chargeable on the same Fund."
Mr. Serjeaut ONSLOW said, mdwithalanding
the %epilogs speech which the lion. Baionet bad de
livered, he had not heard one word in answer to the
trtotiou of his lion. Friend. When the Corporation
called for a coutinuatien of a duty on coals, they
certainly had a right to state some strong grounds for
coming to the House with such a proposition. The
Hon. Baronet load designated the speech of the lion.
Mover as very gross one. But really he could not
see how the lion. Mover, in speaking of the misap-
plication and malversation of funds, •could use any
other terms than those he had adopted. The Corpo-
ration, itappeared, had squandered away very large
sums of looney. This they certainly had a tight to
do, provided the money were their own ; but the
case was very different when it belonged I. others.—
The Corporation according to the Hon. Baronet, had
been very generous. But that was anew sort of
generosity which made away with funds that did not
belong to those who made use of them. Those funds
were applied to the purchase of trinkets—to the
giving of grand entertainments—and to various other
purposes foreign to the use for which they were in-
tended. This, he conceived, to be no inducement to
the House to grant more money. The Hon. Baronet
alluded to the time of Charles 11. Now it ought not
to be forgotten that what took place then had im-
posed a most grievous as on the City of London,
and en the neighbouring counties,. which ought to
I.e removed as speedily as possible. The manner its
which the Hots. Birenet had treated the question was
an unanswerable ground for agreeing to the motion.
The honour of the City of London ought to make
the Corporation anxious that it should be carried,
and he certainly should vote fer it.
Mr. Alderman WOOD contended, that the City
of London had not easbeetled any pert of the
Bridge.louse Estate--is no one instance had they
made gifts of any part of that property. With re.
spect to the '24,0001. said. to be expended on an en.
tertainment 'to the Liheratori of Europe—this was
for two dinners—one of .them to the Duke of Wel-
lington, cost 5,0001.• and though he had opposed
the war, he had mosed for that very dinner. The
Hon. Gentleman who brought forward, the motion,
and the ilnuourahle and Learned Gentleman, did
not seem to be aware, when they spoke of missp.
plication of the proceeds of the Bridge-house Estate,
that the county so which they belonged had borrowed
money from that Estate (or the purpose of mskitig
a sewer in St: George's-fields, an object of the
greatest utility, for which, however, they yield not
otherwise obtain funds.
Another item of espence on that Estate was for
the erection of a Justice-hall in Southwark, which
was built at the earnest request of the People of the
Borough, who complained that small offences were
not prosecuted of account of the distance of the
Sessions at Guildford. The espence of this was
1,2001. It was to be recollected that the Bridge at
Blackfriars had been built out of the fund
which had been said to have been applied solely to
the benefit of the City of London. The building of
that Bridge, and the other comsnunications, had in.,
creased the rental of Surrey 500.0001. The City of
London too, it should be recollected, paid 11,5001.
yearly towards the Orphans' Fond. The City now
only asked for 17,0001. from this fend ; and, though
they were not alarmed at a scrutiny, he did not
think such a request as this warranted the House in
calling for their Accounts. The Prison to which
this was to he applied was principally for Middlesex
Debtors. There were now 400 prisoners in it who
did not belong to the City of London ; and 3,0001.
a year additional expense was incurred by removiag
them from Newgate. It had been said, that' In 're-
turn for their supporting the Jails of the County of
Middlesex, the City had the fines paid' by those who
declined the office of Sheriff; but it was to be re-
membered, that these fines were only paid by Chi-
sens—eo other pereons in the County of Middlesex
were Habil! to serve that office, which was an eapence
of 2,5001. to any one who undertook it.
Mr. BARCLAY contended Southwark received
no benefit from the monies. paid out of the City
Funds. Blackfriars-bridge, if it was a benefit to
Surrey, had also beets a benefit to London. As to
the money which had been borrowed for the sewers
in St. George's-fields, it was on good security, and
would be repaid. dany other sums, issued from
the came Fund, world, he feared, 'tenet be returned.
If the City was to apply in forma pauperis for
money to maintain its own Prisons, whets London.
bridge was to be rebuilt they might expect a similar
application. The City now said, they had received
money already from the Orphans' Fund for the
same purpose. It was the duty of the House to
see that this was not unnecessarily increased. If,
when they called for the accounts, it appeared that
the City had fairly expended its mostey—thas It bad
been jest to its creditors- as well as gesiereii--it
would be proper to relieve them ; but if the money
had beets squandered, be did not think be should do
his duty if he supported them in such a course. He
. .
supported the motion.
Sir. J. SHAW said, that wbeo the City of Loa-

buratto of the

be tivown on the City,, because within this shire They
bad been posessed'of that branch of the Royal Pre.
roptive ? The City had acted liberally in malting
the Impsovement which was deemed necessary in their
New Jail without obtaining any pledge from Persia•

meet; but he hoped the Bosse would net now desert
them. Ile should support the amendment.
Mr. Alderman ATKINS supported the amendment.
Mr: BENNETT said, that the New Prison In
Whitecross-street, which had been spoken of, was
one of the worst contrived and most•discreditable he
had ever seen. The men in that Prison were sepa.
rated—the London debtors and the Middlesex
debtors ' • but the women were all mixed together.—
As to the pledge which was said to have bees given,
that the espence of the elteration -in that Prison
should be•made good by Parliament, it was neither
.more nor less thin this—wheo the Commktee oa
Jails visited that Prison, they saw that en one port
there nag a wall which obstructed the circulation of
stir, and the Committee said, that if the wall was
veiled down, and it was made to appear that the
money was expended properly, they should support
an application to Parliament for that sum. But it
did not follow from this, that he should not support
the present motion for en enquiry into the meaner in
which they had disposed of their funds.—[flear !)
To the questions which had been asked as to the
disposal of their money, answer had beeirgiven by
an eulogium en their Prisons. But as the Honour- I
able Baronet (Sir W. Curtis) confessed that he had
been mistaken in a statement on the former occasion,
which Will on nothing less than the whole point at
issue, thiy might think it possible that he had been
mistaken in some-of his statements on the present oc-
casion. As to the state of Newgate, a Gentleman who
had recently visited it was of opinion, that his account
of it had not been over coloured. His object was to
impress on the House, that these Prisons should be
made schools of reform, and not schools of crime;
and that they should not be made places of torture,
by want of food, and want of rest, and deprivation
of health. lie supported the motion.
Mr. GRENFELL wished to know shelter the
sum. which the City demanded, would cause the con-
tiouance of the Tax on Coals to the Orphans' Fund,
longer than it otherwise would
Sir W. CUlt'l'lS said, the Tan was to Continue
till 1837 ; but twit if the sum demanded were grant-
ed, it would not continue longer.
Mr. H. SUMNER said, that this Tex was limited
to 1837, but was to expire so much sooner, as the
sums charged on it should be discharged. The grant
now demanded would, therefore, prolong the dura.
tion of the Tax. The manner in which t'..4 City had
first acquired the controul of this fund was very sus-
picions, es they gevea bribe of 10001. to Mr. Speaker
Trevor, who had been obliged to put the question on
his own expulsion.
The H )use
divided—
Farthe original Motive
Agaimt is

• . 11

Mninfity . . 1S
EXECUTIONS FOR FORGERIES ON THE BANK

OF' ENGLAND.

Sir JAMES MACINTOSH said he rose now to
submit to the Mouse the motion of which be had
given notice respecting forgeries on the Batik of
England. • There was a part of his intended motion,
as to the "silences of Bank prosecutions, which he
postponed till Tuesday neat, because the Chancellor
of the Exchequer was not now in his place. His ob-
ject was to bring under the view of the House, the
evil of the multiplication of crimes, by stopping
Bank payments. For this purpose be was w mose
for the numbers of trials, convictions, and executions,
for forgeries on the Bank of England, for 14 years
previously to 1797, and for all the time since that
period. That the number of convictions and ezecu•
lions were fewer, in earlier years, would be admit-
ted without argument. But he could prove to the
House a rapidity of increase which must surprise
them. When the question of continuing the Bank
Restriction was discussed in 1812, it was argued
that prosecutions were much more nonierous since
the Restriction had been imposed. It was easily
foreseen that the multiplication of small notes :could
afford facility and suggest temptations to forgery.—
Bat if any man had said that forgeries would in cot,-
sequence be multiplied a hundredfold, be would have
got no credit for his statement. Yet the fact would
be found to prove, that for 14 years preceding 1797,
there were only four convictions for forgery on
the Bank of England.; from that period to 1811,
there were 448 ; so that the number was more
than centupled, by the suspension of cash•pey.
ments, and the profuse issue of Bank-notes.—
ft might be 'opposed that, according to the increase
of forgeries on the Batik, there was an abatement of
forgeries on the coin of the rea1m.....44 order, there.
fore, to ascertain the real increase or ebatemenrof
crime, he moved for the numbers prosecuted for
coining or altering the current coin, gold or silver,
during the fourteen years preceding the Restriction,
and during the period since then to the 25th of
February, 1818, distinguishing the convictions and
punishments.
Mr. BENNETT suggested that the motion shoold
be for the numbers committed or procecated during
the several periods.
'Sir JAM ES MACINTOSH. acceded.

Mt. GRENFELL expressed his thanks to the
Honourable Mower for his very humane and well-
timed exertions. It evidently was important to know
whet proportion of .crimes and punishments arose
from one or two poond notes. Almost all who were
convicted of these forgeries were low persOns who
could not have an opportunity of committing the
same crime as to notes of a higher amount. He
therefore hoped. he would move for some further
Papers on Tuesday.
Mr. LOCKHART hoped that the conduct of the
Honourable Mover would not excite improper com-
miseration for criminals, such as those is question.
The great profits of the Hank ought to have diTosed"
them to encourage artists and chemists to try their
ingenei(y in 'contriving paper and colonist which
could be neither mistaken nor imitated.

lust terrors or law.

p

4

General TIIOIINTOI rejoiced that I:sulsplie
which he had brought forward before ungurcessfully,
was now Mt,ly to berzettended with surciss. If. hiid
understood that not less than 30,000 forged NHL
antes were annually-retained. 'ibis was a very seri.
outs - . •
-, The **void motions were ease({{ •
Adjourned at half.past Right{: 4
. .
THREE PRIZES Or THIRTY THO.HSANA PotstaDs.
tiII‘E.:HUIQR"F.h CAPITA-La.—TWELVE PIPE!: op
Portr:—WIiONF.SDAY NEXT, 111% OF MARCH,
LOTTERY.I3R4WP. . : •

• . . .
PRICE Of STOCKS THIS PAY Ay.orug (rcLocic.
Hank Stock O. pew Can. riper iwki.
3 per Cent. Red. AM • India Bonds g, 96 p
9 per Cent. Consals 791 j Stock.
Com* foe Ace. 79k1 bon lien. 914 15-16
4• per Cent. 119 ii - ItWieener Bids /5 OP

• !!•

THE ST47'4lS' MAN.

LONDON:

i .
. .
f--1 . .4--:)il
0. r *l)s
-P.) 5-)- • 1. -, -.1. Pl-.
TTIE STArI'ESMAN, .
. , . . _
called for. The lion. don purchafed fptiser%C. town the %neva . . e'r
~.. jii,:fiTs S!t. A )1164113.104, Ilidikkoill esn..tA ea.,
sis (*theologises°. arusek_covel otlllfildielfig4boy were ,plc A., to nit; In '-der to an, di,cossion at present on chemiral colnufgt
prifietkil ifiad 10 tlfe"r etilitinsisttilitessitill;! !Ling stiotrailkoqiur coon-";;but e could say th he was es unwillin , testi as
P 1.90 theildlniind tieii,: tet fill shoaisicaib`tities, the Sbetiffs .of •wltioh tate Honourable
~41, priannt and the,".4prn oppAieif -*lib* King, tikr' Majesty:did- not improper cammisetrhaietoTso,thniuti:ifeititittilr;se. lairge
ose conduct be contd. maintain the Jails. Why therefore should the sole 1 forward nothing