said, he held in his hand a Petition on a subject as interesting as any that had ever been considered within the walls of that House. It proceeded from an individual who had been induced to exile himself from his country in consequence of those notorious and flagrant acts of spies and informers, by which the legislature had been excited to adopt the measures of the last session of parliament. This petition referred to two documents—affidavits sworn before the mayor of Philadelphia, whose hand-writing was attested by the British consul. One of those affidavits was signed by William Stevens, a person who was implicated in the various transactions that had induced parliament to consent to the suspension of the constitution; the other signed by Charles Pendrill, who was also implicated in the same transactions. These affidavits placed the whole matter in the most clear and explicit point of view, showing that those transactions were attributable to the machinations and efforts of the spies and informers, and chiefly of Oliver. They described indeed such practices on the part of Oliver, that he was persuaded the House would feel it incumbent on them to institute an inquiry into the subject. The propriety and necessity of such an inquiry was obvious, and he trusted that ministers would not oppose it. He would add, that the petition was exceedingly respectful; perhaps, indeed, the most so he had ever had the honour to present. It was from a great political writer, who had thought it necessary to leave the country when the suspension of the Habeas Corpus act was in the contemplation of the legislature. It was not necessary for him to enter into the subject matter of it, but it prayed the House to take into consideration the annexed public documents. It stated various matters; and among others the conviction of the petitioner that it was in the contemplation of ministers to establish a kind of superintendence or censorship over the press.

observed, that the noble lord was, perhaps, not aware that the appendix containing the affidavits could not with propriety be presented. The House might receive the petition, but would not receive any appendix. He thought it important to mention this to the noble lord at present, as, if he had rightly collected the tenor of the noble lord's observations, the noble lord had referred to papers annexed to the petition. It would be for the noble lord to consider how far the petition itself would be intelligible without the affidavits.

replied, that he would not say that the word "annexed" occurred in the petition, although it certainly referred to the affidavits to which he had alluded.

The Petition was then brought up, and read by the clerk. It purported to come from William Cobbett, of Botley, Hants, now residing at North Hampstead, in the state of New York, and dated March 7,1818. He stated his feelings of veneration for the numerous acts of justice and liberality performed by the honourable House, and prayed with all humility to approach the sanctuary of the laws. He prayed for their consideration of the effects resulting from the artifices of spies, informers, and designing men, and prostituted lawyers; and lamented the consequence of the House deferring their conscientious consideration of the important matters about which the documents would give some communication. He had met two of his countrymen in Philadelphia, who had related much of the practices of Oliver, the spy. They had drawn up their statements voluntarily and authenticated them upon oath before the mayor of Philadelphia. These statements they delivered to the petitioner, who now presumed to submit them to the House, and to place them in their undefiled hands for proper examination. The petition made some strong remarks on the conduct and language of Mr. Cross, on the Derby trials, and on the notorious colonel Fletcher, who attended a meeting at Manchester. After the exe- cution of Brandreth, he observed that it was stated in two ministerial prints, that there was an intention on the part of government to check or stop the publication and circulation of a certain description of writings. He had thought it his duty to the House and the country to submit this petition with the documents added to it, especially as the latter were drawn up voluntarily. The persons who signed them were not at present in want of subsistence; what they required they could obtain by their industry, under the protection of a free country. The petitioner concluded with praying, that the House would retrace its steps, and inquire into the origin of the events which led Brandreth and his companions to the block.

On the question that the Petition do lie on the table,

observed, that he was one of those who were disposed to throw the doors of the House wide open to the petitions of the people. But if he correctly understood the object of this petition, it did not complain of any grievance which the petitioner had personally suffered, but called on the House to take up, generally, the consideration of a subject on which the petitioner had himself formed an opinion; which opinion was founded OR certain affidavits annexed to the petition, from persons who, for reasons best known to themselves, had left their country, and who stated circumstances within their knowledge, affecting the general administration of justice. This was a description of petition utterly inadmissible. But if it had not been so; if the petitioner had made any personal complaint, still he must have objected to the reception of the petition, involving as it did, a libel against a most respectable individual, who had excited general admiration by his talents, firmness, and judgment—he spoke of Mr. Cross. Because Mr. Cross happened to state that his unfortunate clients had, among others, been the victims of inflammatory publications, the petitioner arrogated to himself that he was the individual alluded to as the author of those publications, and took the opportunity of libelling the gentleman in question, and ascribing to him the most improper motives. The petition also contained another libel on colonel Fletcher, a most respectable magistrate in the county of Lancashire. The circumstance, however, that the petition complained of no grievance personal to the petitioner, was, he was persuaded, quite sufficient to induce the House not to receive it.

said, that he considered the petition as being respectfully worded, and that the matter it contained was of high importance. He had, therefore, thought it his duty to present it, that the circumstances to which it adverted might be again brought under their consideration. He had, however, no objection to withdraw the petition on account of the word "annexed" being used in it as applying to the documents; but which he had not before noticed. He would do so, not from any certainty that another petition would be presented by the present petitioner, but to give the earliest intimation to the two persons who had made the affidavits, that their way of proceeding had been irregular, so that they might adopt a preferable mode. For himself, he thought that if the government valued their own character at home, or in the eyes of all the world, they would embrace any opportunity of investigation for clearing away the the scandal.

wished to know whether the petition itself would be entered on the Journals.

replied, that the fact would shortly be stated, that such a petition had been offered, and allowed to be withdrawn, but nothing more.

was glad to hear that, for he should have objected most strongly to allow charges against individuals, of the nature of those comprehended in the petition, to appear on their Journals, the House not having the power to punish the man by whom those charges were brought forward.

The Petition was then withdrawn.

rose to make his promised motion for the Correspondence between the Home Department and the Commissioners of Inquiry into the Courts of Justice in Scotland, respecting the Commissaries and the Commissary Clerks. The noble lord said, that his object was not general, but principally confined to the county which he had the honour to represent. His complaint was, that offices, the abolition of which had been strongly recommended by the commissions appointed to inquire into them, had nevertheless been filled up by government, and that they had been filled up for unconstitutional purposes. In conse- quence of proceedings in parliament, a commission had been appointed to inquire into the courts of justice in England, Scotland and Ireland, certainly against the inclination of government, as the inquiry affected Scotland at least; and their hostility had not subsided; for although a report from that commission was made four years ago, no single measure had been founded on it with respect to Scotland. That had not been the case with those parts of the report which related to England and Ireland. Why Scotland alone was omitted he was at a Joss to conjecture. Although the commission appointed for the purpose had, after the investigation of the inferior commissary courts, recommended their abolition, ministers had nevertheless since thought fit to make appointments in those courts. They had also utterly neglected the recommendation of former commissions on the subject. The commission appointed by royal warrant in 1808 had stated, that in their opinion the proceedings before the inferior commissary courts were unnecessary and inconvenient, and that the business should be transferred to the sheriff's courts. In pursuance of the recommendation of the former commission, the late Lord Advocate introduced a bill into the House expressly for the abolition of the offices of the commissary clerks; but in consequence of some informality in the details, it did not receive the sanction of the House. It appeared, that notwithstanding the recommendation of the commissioners to abolish the office of commissary clerk, and that that office in the county with which he was connected, had been filled nearly two years, by a gentleman appointed by the court of session, and who, on the abolition of the office, would have been entitled to no compensation, his majesty's secretary of state named another person to that office, whose appointment was for life, and who, on the abolition of the office, must receive a suitable compensation. This appointment he believed to have been made merely to serve election purposes. His majesty's ministers had it in their power to convict him of making an erroneous assertion by assenting to his motion. The office had been bestowed for the sake of adding to the number of freeholders in the interest adverse to his (lord A. H.'s), in the county of Lanark. The appointment was not only made in opposition to the representation of the com- missioners, but sir Ilay Campbell, the head of the commission, wrote particularly to the home department on the subject. The home department was also warned against this appointment, in a memorial from that I part of the country. On what justifiable principle could his majesty's ministers, in opposition to such powerful recommendations and admonitions, make this new appointment for life, which entitled the receiver of it to compensation on the abolition of the office, when it was already filled by a person who, on its abolition, would have been entitled to no compensation? The noble lord concluded with moving, "That an humble Address be presented to his royal highness the Prince Regent, that he will be graciously pleased to give directions that there be laid before this House, a Copy of any Letter, or the Substance of any Communication that may have been made by the Commissioners for inquiring into the duties and emoluments of the officers, clerks, and ministers of justice, of the courts of Scotland, or by any one of them, to the secretary of state for the home department, relative to the inexpediency of filling up any office in the Commissary Courts:—"Also, a Copy or the substance of any similar communication that may have been made to the secretary of state for the home department, from any of the commissaries, or commissary clerks, of the said Courts."

said, that as far as he could collect the meaning of what had fallen from the noble lord, his first object seemed to be a complaint against his majesty's ministers, for not carrying into effect by some legislative measure—for that was the only way in which they could be carried into effect—the suggestions made by commissioners appointed to inquire into the offices of the courts of justice in Scotland, to abolish certain offices in that country. How far ministers were bound, more than any other members of the legislature, to propose to the legislature any measure for giving effect to any suggestions of this description, was a question into which he did not then mean to enter. But it was obvious, that when a charge of misconduct was brought against any public officer, it was necessary to show that he had been guilty of a violation of some existing law. The next charge was, that an appointment had taken place to an office, which office had been recommended to be abolished by various persons. The next charge was, that such appoint- ment had not only been made improperly, but made corruptly, with a view to certain election purposes; and that his noble relation (lord Sidmouth) had been applied to on the subject by a right hon. friend beside him (Mr. W. Dundas), on whose recommendation the appointment was made. With respect to the nature of the office in question, he could not be supposed to be acquainted, and what he was about to state, was communicated to him by a learned lord now absent. He had been told, that the commissary courts in Scotland were of the nature of our inferior ecclesiastical courts, and that without them, among other things, no probate of a will could be obtained. He had been told also, that the business of these courts could not be carried on without a subordinate officer, called a clerk. The usual course on the death or resignation of any of these clerks, was for the court of session to take on themselves the appointment of a clerk, ad interim, to discharge the duties of the office, till government had time to appoint a successor. This appointment of the court of session, which had not the right of patronage, took place for no longer a period than till the pleasure of his majesty's ministers could be known. This office was one, which the person legally appointed to ought to hold quamdiu se bene gesserit.—Thus much with regard to the nature of the office, and the necessity there was of some person being appointed to it. The noble lord had stated truly, that a bill was brought in by a late Lord Advocate for the abolition of the office; but that bill did not receive the sanction of parliament, and how this failure could support the noble lord, he was at a loss to know. It was true this abolition had also been recommended by the commissioners; but he was informed that great objections existed as to the transfer recommended by these commissioners. Not only the bill he had alluded to, but another had been brought in for the abolition of commissary courts; but neither of them had received the sanction of the legislature. The vacancy in the present case had been filled up according to the principles of the constitutional law of Scotland. The court of session could only appoint ad interim, and an ad interim appointment could not be construed to extend to all possible time—till parliament in its wisdom should find some other way of disposing of this office,—till some future parliament should decide whether it should be kept up or abolished. Admitting, therefore, that a representation had been made by the whole board, or by any of the commissioners, to the secretary of state for the home department, not to fill up any vacancies in this office, this would not carry the case a bit farther. But he owed it, in justice to his noble relation to say, that no representations whatever had been received by him from the board, or from any individual of the board on the subject. If he understood the noble lord right, there was no complaint against Mr. Dunlop, or any other individual named by his noble friend, as improper persons for discharging the functions of the office. If the noble lord thought he had any ground for attributing corrupt motives to his noble relation, why not bring forward a charge against him? He had the return of the dates of the different appointments. He understood that at the time the appointment in the county with which the noble lord was connected took place, the person so appointed had no vote whatever in the county. The noble lord had dealt in nothing but loose conjectures. In conclusion, he begged leave to state, that there were no such papers in existence, as those for which the noble lord had moved. That was a sufficient answer to the motion; but he wished chiefly to rest his opposition on principle.

said, with respect to the Scotch commissioners, he had to state his perfect and entire approbation of the proceedings of the gentlemen on the commission. He believed that they had done their duty fairly and honourably; and if ministers did not choose to carry their views into execution, they were not answerable. The right hon. gentleman had been pleased to say, that his majesty's ministers could not be considered more bound than any other members to carry the views of these commissioners into execution. But it would be in the recollection of the House, that when he took the liberty of calling their attention to the indisposition shown by the ministers of the Crown to carry the views of the commissioners into execution, a noble lord opposite said, it was very unfair to prejudge his majesty's ministers, and not to leave them sufficient time to carry into execution the recommendation of the commissioners. He had stated thus much, because, if ministers did not choose to carry into execution the recommenda- tions of the commissioners; and if, on the other hand, they endeavoured to prevent other members from carrying those recommendations into execution, it was perfectly useless to appoint any such commissioners. He had great pleasure in stating, that, very much to the credit of the government of Ireland, the recommendations of the commissioners appointed to inquire into the courts of that country, had been acted on to the great benefit of the public. With respect to the subject of this motion, he would leave it to gentlemen more conversant with the subject than himself. He would only say, that ministers, in filling up an office of which parliamentary commissioners had recommended the abolition, had been guilty of a high abuse of authority.

, in answer to the complaint of the right hon. baronet of the inattention of ministers, in not bringing forward sooner some measure for carrying; into execution the views of the commissioners, stated, that the report of the commissioners had only been presented in February last. Were ministers to be arraigned because they did not choose to abolish, hand over head, an office of so much importance as that of commissary clerk. To find a substitute for the commissary courts would be attended with considerable difficulty. Ten years ago, the abolition of this office was recommended: two years afterwards a bill was brought in for that purpose, but it did not pass. Was the Crown not to exercise the right of appointing a legal officer, till parliament thought proper to pronounce an opinion whether that office ought or ought not to be abolished?

said, it was not possible for any person who would look at the circumstances which were admitted to have occurred, without concluding that the office in question had been filled up for the purposes of a job, in some quarter or other, to entitle the person who was thus unnecessarily nominated to an office for life to a compensation to which he would otherwise have had no claim. Four years before the appointment of the commission a bill had been brought in by his majesty's government to abolish those offices, which, on account of some objections to the details, had been rejected, The abolition of those offices had been approved of by the heads of all the courts of justice in Scotland. Commissioners had been appointed to inquire, (among others), into those offices, and had reported that they should be abolished; yet pending this inquiry the ad interim officer was displaced and a person appointed for life, who, it was certain, would in a year's time be removed, and to whom, on that account, a compensation would be granted. The appointment by the court of session, it was said, was equivocal. It was not equivocal; it had been submitted to from time immemorial, and was perfectly legal. It was said also, that it was an anomaly to appoint a judicial officer pro tempore. But the officer in question was the commissary clerk, not the commissary—a ministerial and not a judicial officer. What object, therefore, was there in continuing an ad interim appointment which had already continued two years, unless the sinister object of giving a person a claim on the public money for political purposes? He cared nothing about the politics of the county of Lanark as connected with this subject. The question was, whether the House of Commons and the country had been properly treated in this profuse waste of the public money? It had been said that no letter such as that which had been moved for had been received by the secretary of state. What objection, then, could there be to a return which would set that question at rest? If the motion was refused, he was constrained to believe there had been such a letter.

was of opinion that the appointment was perfectly just. The report was made on the 27th of June, and the individual was appointed by lord Sid-mouth on the 12th of March preceding, so that his lordship must have been ignorant of the intentions of the commissioners with respect to those offices.

in reply, observed that his arguments applied, not to one office, but to twenty three. The report recommended the abolition of twenty-three commissaries and twenty-three clerks, whom government, acting on the principle they had adopted in this instance, would have the power of continuing. It had been asked, why, the Crown should be debarred from filling up these offices? He answered, because the Crown had appointed commissioners to inquire whether it was proper they should exist. He was as certain as he could be of any thing which he had not actually witnessed, that an intimation had been given to the secretary of state that it was the opinion of the commissioners that the office in question should not be filled up. If the ministers would agree to any motion, framed so as to ascertain this fact, they might, if it were incorrect, convict him of a grave error.

The motion was negatived.

rose, agreeably to his notice, to move for a committee to inquire into the means of more effectually preventing the Forgery of the Bank of England Notes, and to report their opinion thereon to the House. He said, that notwithstanding all he had before heard, he could not, till he had been made acquainted with their final determination, have supposed that those persons who had, he thought, too much weight in that House, namely, the Bank Directors, would resist this motion, the natural result of the course of inquiry on which the House had already entered. By agreeing to the motions which he had proposed, the House had already established an important principle, that the concerns of the Bank of England, connected with an evil so enormous as the increase of forgeries, should not be considered as out of the reach of the cognizance of parliament. The argument on which the Bank had relied had been finally over-ruled—yet that pretence, flimsy as it was, that the concerns of the Bank must be considered only as those of a private company, had been relied upon till the House was on the very point of dividing; but the Bank Directors, apprehensive of the result of that appeal, had consented to the motion for an account of the expense incurred by the Bank in prosecutions for forging their notes, or for knowingly uttering or possessing such notes. But though the Bank Directors had now determined to resist farther inquiry, he was not without hopes, that if those independent members who had deservedly so much weight, as well with the House as with the country, would again show themselves, neither the ministers nor the Bank Directors would press for a division in which they would anticipate a defeat.

In calling the attention of the House once more to this subject, he wished to spare both their, time and their patience. To dwell on the unspeakable importance of the subject would be a waste of both. It had been admitted on the former discussion, that the magnitude of the evil called for inquiry; and it appeared the unanimous sense of the House that some measure was necessary to mitigate, at least, this evil it. Few questions had excited more interest among the public at large, and perhaps the greatest interest had been felt among the quietest part of the community—among those who took the least interest in the ordinary course of political affairs, or in those questions which most agitated that House,—at the course of guilt and blood which had followed the stoppage of cash payments. But to dwell on the magnitude of the evil was unnecessary. He would only recall to the recollection of the House, that, for twelve years before the suspension of cash-payments, there had been only one capital execution for forgery of banknotes. It was the rarest of all criminal cases. For many years not a single instance of it had occurred. In the last seven years not less than 101 persons had suffered death for that crime,—that crime, for which, in twelve years, only one person had suffered. The crime which had been so rare and unfrequent, had been the most frequent and the most fatal. There was another point of view in which this evil appeared still more striking and horrible. For this crime, for which, in all the kingdom and in twelve years, only one person had suffered, forty-four had suffered in London and Middlesex in the last seven years. Executions for forgery now stood at the head of the list of capital punishments: they were far more numerous than executions for murder—than executions for burglary; they were double all the executions for robbery of all sorts, and much greater than executions for all other offences taken together [Hear, hear!]. He implored the House to pause before they determined that they would not take any steps, if not to remove this evil (and he feared without the resumption of cash payments it could not be entirely removed), at least to mitigate it. How would they answer to their constituents—how would they answer to their consciences—that they had left that to be performed by others, which they owed to the people of England at once to perform themselves? If the facts he had stated were not enough to force the imperative claims of this growing evil upon their attention, the returns of prosecutions in the late years—in 1816, 1817, and three months of 1818—would exhibit an increase almost so great as to bid defiance to belief. In the three months of this year the number was so great, that if the whole year was equally fertile in crime, it would exhibit three times the number of the last year; yet the last year was worse than any which had preceded it.

A circumstance which he must allude to was the expensiveness of these prosecutions. In the observations he had to make on this part of the subject, he meant nothing invidious or accusatory to the gentlemen of the Bank: he adverted only to the system, and to the duty which that system now imposed upon the House. The expenses of prosecutions for forgery on the part of the Bank of England last year were 30,000l.; in the present year, in which prosecutions had made such gigantic strides, in the three months of which returns had been made, the expense was within a few hundreds of 20,000l. The general average struck him as extremely alarming. It was 265l. for each individual prosecuted. This was not only monstrous in itself, but very alarming in its tendency. It was not the same expense for every individual: six were often prosecuted at the same expense as one. The same indictment, the same counsel, the same witnesses, might be sufficient. At the beginning of those prosecutions the expenses were greater. They were in some instances 342l., 340l., 263l., but the average was 265l. for each individual prosecuted. He mentioned these enormous and suspicious expenses, not as a charge against the Bank, but as an additional reason why the House should investigate the subject by a committee of its own, and trust no other authority. In former years the forgeries had been chiefly confined to small notes; by the last returns it appeared that a proportionate increase of forgeries for larger notes had now occurred; a melancholy proof that the skill and boldness of the criminals in the forgery of small notes, had tempted them to try their fortune on large notes. If these attempts became more frequent, though the paper currency should be brought back to its sound state, it would for some time retain a taint by the forgeries of the larger notes. He could now venture to say, that the severity of punishment had had no effect in diminishing or suppressing the crime. Though he might have asserted this from his general observation, and from the facts connected with this subject, he was still more strongly fortified in it, by the declaration of a most respectable judge at the last assizes of Lancaster—he meant the lord chief baron. That learned judge, whom he named only to testify his respect for him, had stated, that the previous punishments had produced no effect, for the crimes of those on whom he had passed sentence of death had been all committed since the executions at the last assizes; and that therefore (unless some other means could be devised), it only remained for him to execute the law in its severity. As a judge this was the only course which remained for him; but by the parenthesis which he had inserted he had recommended to the legislature to deliver him from the necessity of cruel and inefficacious punishments. It was no wonder that in the county where the executions had been so frequent as to draw forth these observations from the bench, the attention of the inhabitants should be attracted to it. A few days ago a petition had been presented from Liverpool by the right hon. gentleman opposite, (Mr. Canning), which deserved to be read, as well for the liberality of its principles as for the precision of its language. The petitioners stated, that "they contemplated with feelings of deep concern the alarming increase of the crimes of forging and uttering forged Bank of England notes, and the consequent frequency of capital punishments in this country, by which our national character suffered in the estimation of other countries, and the great principles of humanity were in danger of being gradually impaired." They said, "that without presuming to decide whether the Bank of England have in past time done every thing which might have been done towards preventing the forgery and the circulation of forged notes, they believed the nation were not generally convinced that due pains had been taken, and were of opinion that, in proportion as their prosecutions multiplied, the claim of the public was strengthened to be satisfied that no more effectual measures could be adopted for checking frauds and forgeries and the awful consequences which ensued from them; and that though the Directors of the Bank of England had for many years past been considering of means to prevent the forgery of its notes, yet no effectual measures having been adopted, the anxiety of the petitioners upon the subject could not now be removed without an inquiry into it being instituted by the great council of the na- tion. They also stated, "that as the evils in question existed in the county of Lancaster in an extraordinary and enormous degree, owing to the Bank of England notes constituting the whole medium of circulation, in small notes, of that populous trading district, it was the opinion of the petitioners that, if it should be found impracticable to check these forgeries, a regard to the credit and security of mercantile transactions, as well as to public morals, would render it expedient to encourage, as much as possible, the introduction and circulation of the notes of private bankers, it being found that the forgeries of private Bank notes were very few in number when compared with those of the Bank of England notes." The town of Liverpool, it was to be recollected, was the second commercial town in the empire. This petition had been unanimously agreed to at a public meeting of all parties in politics. He appealed to the right hon. gentleman (Mr. Canning), for whom many present at the meeting had voted, whether the opinion of such a meeting on such a subject was not of the highest moment. But he must farther remark, that this meeting was held in the county of Lancaster, where, unfortunately, great experience had been afforded of the effects of the system; where the prejudice had been strong against private banks, and in favour of the Bank of England, ever since the unfortunate failures in 1798. Every circumstance which could give weight and authority to such an application enforced the prayer of the petitioners, when they called for inquiry by the great council of the nation. The House of Commons—he would say it with due deference—the House of Commons could not with impunity to its character, refuse to instistitute an immediate inquiry [Hear, hear!].

He must apologize for occupying the time of the House so long; but he felt it due to the House, to the Bank, and to the public, to state explicitly his view of the subject. The summary of the home office, of the state of crimes, no man living could read without affliction and alarm. No failure of commerce, no disasters in war, no danger to our finances, could appear so alarming to those who considered the real foundation of national security and prosperity as this summary. It appeared, from this document, that from the year 1805 to the year 1811, the number of capital punishments was 390. From 1811 to 1818, it was 580; which number, as he was reminded by his excellent friend near him (Mr. Bennet), whose attention had been so constantly and so honourably directed to this most important of all subjects, was as in the proportion of one to eight to the whole number of crimes. He was aware that the number of crimes was not in itself a criterion of the morality of a nation. Many nations full of activity and wealth, abounding in temptations, and in the qualities which, when misdirected, were productive of criminality, would afford a longer list of offences, than the records of a lethargic people, who had no virtues, though they had not many crimes. Yet when in the same nation the crimes increased, it must be taken as an evidence of a change of morals for the worse. This was not the time to enter into the discussion, but if he were casually called on to name them, he should not allude to the causes to which it had often been attributed. It appeared to him to depend more on what might be called the economical condition of the people, than on what were called moral causes—on the ebbs and flows of demand and supply—on the fluctuation of wages and prices—evils inseparably connected with an inconvertible paper money. Variations such as these were enough to make the ignorant think that they were the sport of some malignant demon, against whom their most strenuous efforts were often fruitless; and from this probably they derived a desperate and gambling character. By the vicissitudes of a long war—by the return of peace—by that worst of scourges, an inconvertible paper money, which no nation but this had ever been able to bear up against—had this been effected.

The number of lives actually taken away by the severity of the laws, was not indeed a full criterion of the evil. They could not fail to compare the number thus taken away with the number of ordinary deaths, and to find that it formed a very small proportion. But this was not the fair view of it. Death was not itself an evil. Death in the performance of duty might be the happiest consummation of life. But a life of misery and of crime, terminated by a death of suffering and shame; a father in his life-time struggling to support his children by the desperate expedients which distress and crime suggested, and leaving by his death an ex- ample of unutterable distress and lasting infamy, was the greatest evil which could befall men. He would say nothing of the loss arising to the public from the present system, although they were very great. An hon. baronet (sir James Graham) had stated, that one half of the Bank notes circulated in the northern counties were forged. He might here suggest to the consideration of the House, that the principal sufferers in point of pecuniary loss were to be found in the class of small tradesmen—a description of persons eminently entitled to the protection of the laws. Yet but too many of them were reconciled to submit to forgery and fraud, rather than engage in litigation, or expose themselves to suspicion and the danger of further loss. A lesson indeed of a very impressive nature, had recently been taught to persons of this description—a tradesman who had a 5l. note, which was pronounced a forgery at the Bank, took proceedings in the Marshalsea court against the parent of the girl from whom he thought he received it. In this, however, he was mistaken; but this mistake arose from the resemblance of the girl to Emma Connor, of whom the House had already heard, and who was known to have been active in circulating forged notes in the tradesman's neighbourhood. The consequence of the mistake was, that the tradesman incurred costs to the amount of 23l., so that he was altogether a loser, through this forgery and effort to vindicate himself, to the extent of 28l. The statement of this single fact, was sufficient to prove the existence of hundreds of a similar nature. Instances of the destruction of forged notes must be numerous; because, to many, the positive loss would appear a much smaller evil than the imputation to which they might be subjected by retaining them in their possession. The class of people to whom he had just alluded, were, in a peculiar degree, afraid of defending themselves under such circumstances, because they felt that even suspicion might prove their ruin.

Having stated thus much, he now came to consider more immediately the grounds upon which his proposition for inquiry rested. And here he must express his hope that the common sense of the House would not again be insulted by the assertion, that the affairs of the Bank of England being those of a private company were beyond the reach and authority of parliament. He trusted that the House and the country would not again be insulted by the pretence that it would not be becoming to interfere with the conduct of the Bank, on the ground, forsooth, that it formed a company of private traders, who were entitled to manage their affairs according to their own judgment, without any legislative control; for this Bank was notoriously a public company of whose conduct that House was not only entitled, but, on this occasion, especially bound to take cognizance. If, however, the Bank were merely private traders, and their conduct was productive of such consequences to the country as those he had stated, it was the duty of that House, as the guardian of public justice and morailty, to take notice of such conduct, and endeavour to provide some remedy for the mischief which it occasioned. But the fact was, that from the connexion subsisting between the Bank and the government, the Mint might as well be regarded as a private company as the Bank of England. Any evil then, resulting from the system of the Bank, was obviously a proper subject for the consideration of that House, and the conduct of the Bank itself rendered the interposition of, the House the more necessary in this instance; for it was remarkable, that within the twenty-one years which had elapsed since the restriction upon cash payments was enacted, the Bank had not taken a single step to save the public from the evils of forgery, while they had adopted abundant measures to save themselves [Hear, hear!]. He did not mean to say, that they had not adopted abundant precautions for their own security, but they had entirely overlooked that of the unfortunate people of England; in consequence of which oversight the liability of the public to be plundered and harassed remained the same as it was in the year 1797. Had not, then, the public a right to expect that some inquiry would be instituted by that House, in order to ascertain whether their liability to suffer was the consequence of the supineness of the Bank, or whether any remedy could be devised to put an end to, or to diminish that liability? Such an inquiry was, he maintained, the imperative duty of the House of Commons, and the people required and expected from it the performance of that duty. If upon inquiry the evil which he had described was found irremediable, that discovery would serve to guide the judgment of the House in determining upon the policy of continuing that system of restraining cash payments, which gave birth to such an accumulation of evil. The Bank itself, indeed, should consider that an inquiry ought to be instituted, in consequence of the strong prejudice prevailing against it, and that nothing could serve to remove that prejudice, but a rigorous, thorough, and efficient inquiry.

It was, however, not merely with a view to guide the judgment of the House, as to the policy of continuing the restriction of cash-payments, or to vindicate the character of the Bank, that the inquiry he proposed was necessary, but in order to diminish crime, to stop the course of blood, and to spare the feelings of the public from that horrible carnage which the present system occasioned. It was indeed mainly with a view to put an end to these events, as well as to promote the interests of morality, that he pressed for this inquiry. He did not mean to attribute any thing more exceptionable to the directors of the Bank, than the failings which commonly belonged to mankind, when he observed, that they were rather too much attached to routine and custom, to encourage projects of improvement. They were, he feared, too apt to discountenance and dismiss such projects by some compendious remark, or old maxim, which might be learned from our grandmothers; therefore, he apprehended that adequate encouragement had not been held out for the exertion of skill and talent to devise an improved mode of fabricating bank-notes. But it ought to be recollected, that new projects, in the present case, did not go to increase or put to hazard a certain good, but aimed exclusively at the suppression of a monstrous evil. Since the last discussion of this subject in the House, he had seen many ingenious artists and scientific persons, and was induced, from their representations, to believe that, although the evil could not be entirely suppressed whilst the circulation of small notes continued, it might be considerably mitigated. In the United States of America, already an example of national happiness, and likely soon to become one of wise legislation also, he had been informed that a paper currency existed to the amount of twenty millions sterling. America might, therefore, be fairly stated to be the second country in the world with respect to a paper circulation, as she undoubtedly was in the character of a shipping and commercial commonwealth. Her paper currency was, however, convertible into money; forgery was not a capital offence, and the crime was of rare occurrence. The circumstances of America might be unfavourable to the commission of the offence; but it was nevertheless remarkable, that the banks in that country, not having the assistance of the gibbet to depend on, had employed the utmost ingenuity in the fabrication of their notes. He repeated, that he meant not to hold out the prospect of totally preventing forgery; but he felt that it was incumbent upon the House to do all that was within its power to reduce the evil; and this he must deem practicable from what he had heard; for he was informed, by very competent authority, that any boy, who was six months under the instruction of an engraver, could easily contrive to forge a Bank of England note—not, however, so as to impose upon the Bank itself; for those concerned in managing that establishment, took good care to provide against that, but so as to impose upon that class of the people whom it was peculiarly the duty of that House to protect. It was the duty of the Bank also, to seek the protection of the people from these forgeries, especially as their circulation was so extensive, and it ill became the Directors to decline any effort whatever towards preventing forgery, merely from the belief that complete success was unattainable. According to his impression, which he hoped was also the impression of the House, this subject was worthy of inquiry, if the result were only to save one life, or to reduce in any degree that bloodshed which so much afflicted the country under the existing system. He could not, indeed, imagine an object more deserving the attention of the House. It was not only to the prevention of the crime of forgery that its being rendered more difficult would tend. It would have the effect of lessening the number of other crimes; for every species of crime when carried to any extent excited to others. It was the nature of all crime to have its action and reaction, and where once a great temptation to violate the law broke down the moral principle in a large portion of society, it Invariably generated a great number of offences. There was no one crime which presented such little difficulty to its commission as forgery. It was not a species of offence which required any degree of physical force or animal courage, which the generality of other crimes called into action.

It was equally tempting to all—and old men, women, and almost children, were alike exposed to its temptations, and equally associated in its commission. Men of talent too, who in general were not exposed to the commission of other crimes by like temptations, were found engaged in it. If, then, no steps were taken to render the difficulties of this crime greater, the legislature would be opening a school for the encouragement of a particular vice in those who were not from age or situation likely to be influenced by the ordinary incentives—moral depravity. To return, however, to the question which he was about to submit, he would ask the House, whether, after they had proceeded to the extent to which they had gone in the consideration of the subject, they would now declare all they had done to be useless, refuse to put the seal to their past resolutions, and transfer the duty of investigation to the care of others. In the belief that this was not the course which they would think it right or becoming to pursue, he should conclude by moving,

"That a Committee be appointed to inquire into the means of more effectually preventing the Forgery of Notes of the Bank of England, and to report their opinion thereupon to the House."

rose, he said, not to depreciate the importance of the subject before the House, but to recommend what appeared to his mind a more effectual mode of attaining the object in view than that proposed by the hon. and learned gentleman. To investigate this subject would require a degree of patient research and scientific knowledge, which was not, he, with all deference, apprehended, to be looked for in a committee of that House, and therefore he thought it more advisable to have such an investigation conducted by a special commission, consisting of fully qualified persons, and having an opportunity of consulting the first artists in the country. He therefore proposed to move for the appointment of such a commission. Many advantages would belong to such a commission, which could not appertain to a committee of that House; for while the labours of the committee must be limited by the duration of the session, those of the commission would be subject to no such limitation. While every man must desire to remove the evil of forgery, no man could deny that a great deal of difficulty belonged to the attempt. He had heard of many plans for such a fabrication of notes as could not be imitated; some, indeed, had been suggested to himself, but on consulting with competent persons he had found the projectors were much too sanguine. Still he thought it right that every possible skill should be exercised for such a desirable purpose. While he would not be too sanguine, he was as unwilling as any man to despair. Therefore he was an advocate for inquiry. He should not have felt it necessary on the present occasion to say any thing farther on this subject than merely to move the address, were it not that he conceived some observations of the hon. and learned gentleman required one or two words from him in the way of explanation. The evil, as he had just stated, was a great one, and called for some redress. Independently of the number of crimes to which it gave the temptation, there was, besides, that uncertainty with respect to property which it tended to create; but admitting these, he did conceive that there were considerable deductions to be made from the statement of the hon. and learned mover. It would appear from that statement, that the crime of forgery was comparatively unknown before the restriction of cash-payments by the Bank. This he conceived was rather an exaggerated statement. Forgery was almost as much known and practised long before the present day as it was now. In the middle of the last century, the number of persons executed for forgery were greater in a given period of time, than they were in the same period of late years. In the years 1749, 1750, 1751, and 1752, the number of persons executed for forgery in London and Middlesex amounted to nineteen, and in the last four years the number was only eighteen. He spoke here of various kinds of forgeries, for he had not data sufficient to state the particulars. The late accounts were more accurate. In the years 1811, 1812, and 1813, the number of persons executed for forgeries in the United Kingdom was 110, and in the last three years, the number did not exceed 91. But while it appeared that the crime of forgery was not increasing, it was manifest from the returns made to the House of Commons, that other crimes had increased in the same period very considerably. The total number of persons committed to prison charged with crimes during the last three years were 19,087, while the number in the three preceding years little exceeded 17,000. In the last year the number of persons imprisoned on different charges in London and Middlesex, considerably exceeded that of the preceding year. So that the statement which described the crime of forgery to be increasing in a much greater, or even in so great a proportion as other offences, was, according to the returns which he had mentioned, considerably exaggerated. As to the grand panacea which the hon. and learned gentleman prescribed for the prevention of this great increase of crime, he could not conceive how it applied. The resumption of cash payments would not have that tendency to suppress crime which the hon. and learned gentleman seemed to think, and to prove this, he had only to look at the great increase of the crime of coining which had taken place within the last few years. The number of persons indicted for coining in the years 1811, 1812, and 1813, amounted to 392, and in the years 1815, 1816, and 1817, they were as high as 624. This increase had taken place during a period of the restriction of cash-payments, and showed, that while forgery was not on the increase, the crime of coining gained ground in proportion with other offences. If it was so great during the restriction, how much greater might it not be expected to be after the restriction should cease? It was not, then, to the restriction of cash payments, or to any neglect on the part of the Bank that this increase of the crime of forgery could be attributed. Forgery was a crime which he feared had always existed in a commercial and enlightened country, where education was generally diffused, and the means of committing the offence were always at hand. In the earlier annals of the country, the crimes committed against society required strength and violence; fraud and craft were the qualities which distinguished a modern criminal. This, however, only rendered it the more imperiously necessary for the House to pay attention to every means of discouraging and preventing the growth of the evil. With this impression, he should move, to leave out from the word "That" to the end of the question, in order to add the words, "an humble Address be presented to his royal highness the Prince Regent, that he will be graciously pleased to issue a commission under the great seal, for the appointment of commissioners to consider or the best means of preventing the forgery of promissory notes issued by the Bank of Eng- land and other bankers, and other negotiable securities."

expressed a decided preference for the mode of inquiry proposed by the hon. and learned gentleman. That mode of inquiry would, he was convinced, be much more satisfactory to the country at large than the amendment. The right hon. gentleman did not appear to be aware of the degree of alarm and anxiety which prevailed in the country upon this subject, or of the necessity of promptly taking the most effectual means of quieting that alarm. There was perhaps no subject more deserving the attention of that House, nor one to which it would be more creditable to its character to devote its time. It would, of course, be open to the proposed committee to collect every necessary information, and to consult artists and scientific persons of all descriptions. He could not, then, conceive why such a committee should be deemed incompetent to a thorough investigation of this interesting subject. The hon. and learned mover had very properly referred to the petition from Liverpool, and he would also refer to the petition from his constituents at Birmingham, to show the necessity of every possible exertion to put an end to the evil complained of.

congratulated the right hon. the chancellor of the exchequer on having suffered prudence to step in and prevent him from coming to battle that night by opposing the motion of his hon. and learned friend. So far from the crime of forgery being on the decline, it had arisen to a most alarming degree within the last year, I and was still going on. Indeed, as had been shown by his hon. and learned friend, the in crease in the first three months of this year was almost incredible; the indictments being nearly equal to those of the whole of the three years alluded to. From the very paper alluded to by the right hon. gentleman it would be found that in 1811 43 persons were indicted for forgeries on the Bank, or uttering such notes; in 1812, 67; in 1813, 95; in 1814, 63; in 1815, 71; in 1817, 162; and in the first three months of the present year, 112. He would say, that the number of criminals was so excessive that government dared not put the sentence of the law in execution on those who were convicted. But the Bank had assumed to itself the right of dispensing with the law, by omitting the capital part of the charge against whom they pleased, and bringing them up to plead guilty to the smaller offence. Thus it appeared, that no less than 200 persons had pleaded guilty in three years of having forged Bank notes in their possession. In the middle of the last century those persons would not have been suffered to plead guilty, but would all have been executed if convicted. Therefore the right hon. gentleman's principle was erroneous. Was it right that the Bank should decide on who was to suffer capital punishment? At the last sessions for London twelve persons were sentenced to fourteen years transportation, and two, one of whom was an unfortunate woman, had been selected to suffer death. By whom were they selected? Not by the judges. The solicitor of the Bank held up the list of prisoners, and said that those numbered so and so, were the persons to be tried for the capital offence. Who allowed them? He made no charge against the solicitor; he believed he was a very respectable person, who only did as he was directed. But who could say that the next solicitor to the Bank might be equally respectable, or that he might not take bribes from prisoners to let them plead to the smaller offence, and thus save their lives. The hon. gentleman then alluded to the well-known observation made in answer to the applications for the life of Dr. Dodd; and contended that on this principle the two hundred and odd persons lately convicted ought to have been executed! With regard to the unfortunate woman, the Bank were appealed to, but their consciences were divided, and government declined interfering. He wished to know on what principle those two persons were selected out of the twelve, that we might ascertain whether or not we had equal laws for all persons at all times. He noticed several cases in which the parties had been permitted to plead guilty, and desired to know why the person had been so favoured, who had seduced the two boys to crime, whose case had recently been brought before the public—a person who had been connected with the Birmingham forgers, whose whole family had been implicated in such transactions, whose brother had been transported for the same offence, and whose father had been engaged in making false keys? Why, he wished to know, had this man been spared, while a boy of eighteen years of age had been pursued to conviction, who now lay in the condemned cell, and who, unless more mercy were shown to him than had been extended to the unhappy female who lately suffered, must shortly be executed—He then compared the executions which had taken place since the year 1811 up to the present time, with the number of convictions procured within the same period. In the year 1811 these had amounted to one in five; in 1812 they were one in three; in 1813, one in five; in 1814, one in ten; in 1815, one in seven; in 1816, one in seven; and in the last year, one in nine. In the present year the executions were more numerous in proportion to the convictions; but while the law was thus irregularly carried into execution, property was felt to be less secure than it would be where a milder punishment was awarded, with the certainty of the sentence pronounced being carried into effect. From the experience of those who had been in the habit of attending criminals sentenced to die, from twelve to twenty years; he had heard, that those who suffered for forgery were, in many cases, far from feeling that they had committed a great moral offence against the law of God. Their conduct was frequently marked by resentment against their prosecutors and indignation at the selection made which doomed them to death. It was thus that the few hours which intervened between the order for their execution and their being led out to die were passed, and when they came on the scaffold, what were the feelings excited among the crowd. They were any thing but what ought to be excited by such a spectacle. The culprits were objects of compassion, and the selection of them for punishment a subject of general indignation. The frequency of prosecutions tended greatly to harden the public mind. This he illustrated by an anecdote of a poor boy, who being recently turned out of Newgate destitute and pennyless, and in such a state that he might be said to have no friend but the gaoler, no home but a prison, was a few days afterwards detected picking pockets in sight of the scaffold, on which an execution was about to take place. When brought into the prison, he was asked by the ordinary, how he could make up his mind to commit a robbery at the moment when the unhappy culprits were about to be launched into eternity. The boy answered, that was just the moment for him, as when all eyes were fixed on the victims the pockets were left unguarded. Such was the effect of executions. Upon the whole of this case, both from what he personally knew, and from what he had heard from others, he felt it his duty to concur in the motion of his hon. and learned friend, and he trusted that it would receive the support of every member in the House.

declared, that it was always the practice of the Bank Directors studiously to investigate every case of forgery with a view to ascertain where lenity ought to be extended, and where prosecution ought to be followed up. But he could most conscientiously state, that their disposition was always towards lenity. As to the infliction of punishment, or the grant of mercy, after conviction, the Bank had nothing to do with such proceedings. If, through the commission proposed, or by any other means, the crime of forgery could be prevented, or rendered more difficult, he could assure the House, that the Directors of the Bank would feel the most cordial satisfaction.

said, that according to the arguments of the hon. member who spoke last but one, the committee, if appointed, ought to inquire, not only into the case of forging Bank of England notes, but into the whole criminal laws of the country. This, it would seem, was the object of the hon. member. But could the House so forget what was the nature of our constitution—could they so forget what was the character of those who presided in our courts, and who reported the convictions to the Crown, as to accede to the proposition of the hon. gentleman? It appeared to him, that the result of his speech was, to bring into odium and disrepute, not only the laws themselves, but the judges who administered those laws. The inquiry which he proposed would branch out into subjects the most unfit, the most inconvenient, and the most improper. At the same time, he felt himself bound to admit that the hon. and learned mover, in his very able, eloquent, and ingenious speech on this subject, did not seem to contemplate such an inquiry: he specially guarded himself against imputing blame to the Bank, or wishing a committee to be granted to find articles of impeachment against them: but he wished that the House should institute some inquiry of an immediate nature, to check the growth and arrest the progress of this alarming evil. He (Mr. Huskisson) must say, that a committee of the House of Commons did not seem to him to be the fittest mode of carrying on such an inquiry. If there were any suspicion that the Bank of England had negligently, for he would not say criminally, suffered these prosecutions to take place, then the House might institute those inquisitorial functions which belonged to that branch of the legislature; but at this period of the session he thought that such an inquiry would be nugatory. He did not know what course the committee could pursue but to endeavour to discover the extent of the evil, of which there existed no doubt, and to recommend to the Crown to institute a commission to ascertain by artists, or others, the best mode of checking the evil of forgery. In order to prevent loss of time, and to render the measure most beneficial to the country, he contended that his right hon. friend had proposed the best course for the House to adopt; the other would only create delay, and destroy the benefits which it sought to obtain. It was not, therefore, because he was not sensible of all the inconveniences which the hon. and learned gentleman had so eloquently described, that he should support the motion of his right hon. friend. He thought it necessary, indeed, that some measures should be immediately adopted; for although the Bank, and those who issued their notes, could ascertain whether they were good or not, it was not in the power of the holder of a note to say whether it was genuine, nor could he compel another to receive it in payment, if he conceived it not to be genuine. This was not the case with the coin of the realm. He was surprised, however, to hear the hon. gentleman who spoke last but one say, that those who committed the crime of forgery, so far from being convinced of their guilt, considered themselves almost as being meritorious. If the House were to have a committee to inculcate such doctrines as these, they had better put an end to all transactions except those which depended upon barter, inasmuch as men could not exist except by defrauding and plundering one another.

said, it was a great inducement to him to vote for the motion of his hon. and learned friend, because he did not know that there existed any disposition on the part of the right hon. gentleman opposite to institute such an inquiry. He thought that his hon. friend, the member for Shrewsbury, had not been fairly used by the right hon. gentleman who had just sat down. His hon.

friend did not propose that the committee should inquire into all the criminal laws, neither did he attack the character of the judges, nor the mode in which they administered the laws; but he stated, that great mischief arose, and great discontent was excited in the minds of the people, from a selection of cases. Sir Samuel said, he also thought that it was a sort of discretion that was most mischievous: it created that feeling in the public which made it impossible to consider the crime of forgery in the way that it was formerly considered. He did not mean to say that it was to be considered as a light offence, but it was a prevailing opinion that it was an offence for which men ought not to suffer death. So strong was this feeling, that men frequently suffered great losses rather than press the execution of the laws to that extent. He thought that the system now acted upon led to all those mischievous consequences which his hon. friend had so ably pointed out. In every case of selection the people criticised the distinction, and thought that great injustice had been committed.

in explanation, said, he had not asserted that forgery ought to be punished with death. On this subject he was not called upon to give an opinion; but if he were to do so, he thought it would go rather the other way.

observed, that the principle of inquiry was admitted on both sides, the only question was, which would be the better mode, by a committee of the House or a commission? To him it appeared, that a committee would be the better mode, as it had been found in almost every instance of inquiry. Much had been said about the efforts made to call in Bank notes; but why was not an effectual method taken for the purpose? At a time when old silver was to be collected in, it was found practicable to send silver to different parts of the country for the purpose. Why could not geld be sent into the country to provide for the calling in of notes? If this was done, all notes found to be forgeries might be prevented from farther circulation. Under all the circumstances of the case, a committee ought to be appointed, and it would be their fault, if they did not provide a remedy against the evil.

said, he must express to the House the great surprise and pain with which he had heard the speech of the hon. member for Shrewsbury. The hon. member had asked, why the solicitor of the Bank of England selected one case for mercy, and another for prosecution? Now the fact was, that he selected no case whatever. The Bank solicitor had no authority of that kind; he acted under the direction of his employers: and as to the Directors, they judged of every case with the utmost solicitude. They were governed in their proceedings, not by a regard for their own interest and safety, but for the protection of the public; the expenses were paid out of the funds of the corporation, and for the express purpose of saving harmless those who had been imposed upon by forged notes, and who were unable, to bear the expenses. It was not the practice of the Bank to interfere after judgment: but in the case of the woman who lately suffered death, he believed it would be found that it was totally impossible, from the whole course of her life, for the executive government to have selected a more proper object for punishment. He was convinced in his mind, that the crime of forgery, notwithstanding what had been said that night, had become less frequent, as contrasted with the growth of other crimes. Nor was it to be wondered at that there should be a large number in the returns of persons tried for forgery during the latter years, when it was found that the general returns of persons indicted for various offences, in 1811, amounted to 5,337, whilst in 1817 they amounted to 13,932, a proportion of nearly three to one. He could assure the House, that the Bank would be happy to concur in such measures as might be deemed most practicable for preventing the forgery of their notes; but it would be perfectly idle to adopt a project that might be submitted to them from day to day, and which might be copied by their engraver in three or four days. He had witnessed their patient attention to the subject, and he would add, that they would spare no expense to adopt such a plan as might be found most effectual for checking the evil. The reason why they detained the notes after the word "forged" had been stamped upon them, was, that in cases in which they had gone out again, that word had been erased by a chemical process. At the same time, the Bank always gave an undertaking to produce the notes in any part of England that might be required, for the purposes of justice.

strongly defended the conduct of the Bank, and replied to the charges brought against the Bank direction. The whole of the evil of forgery had been attributed to the restriction on cash payments, but he thought most unjustly. It was true that there had been an increase of the offence since 1797, but the increase had been gradual from that period up to 1817, and could not be attributed to the restriction alone. There had been an increase of other crimes as well as that of forgery. In proof of this he might direct the attention of the House to the state of the gaols of Warwick, Lancaster, and York. This multiplication of offences had been owing to the pressure of the times, which equally prompted men to forgery as to other offences. He admitted the magnitude of the evil, which resulted from the facilities of forging Bank notes; and he was sure that no body of men lamented its existence more, or looked with greater anxiety to the discovery of a remedy, than the Bank Directors. If parliament, by the appointment of a committee of inquiry, or if the Crown, by any means that lay within its power, should find out a plan by which forgeries could be either diminished or entirely checked, they would confer not only a great obligation on the country, but a favour on the Bank that would be gratefully received by that corporation, who now not only incurred a heavy expense in prosecutions to protect the public, but were, on account of their very anxiety to do their duty, held up as persons who delighted in bringing men to trial and punishment. Nay, in the eagerness of crimination, they were exposed to charges the most inconsistent and destructive of each other, being accused at one time of prosecuting with too much severity, and at another time of interfering too much to procure a mitigation of punishment. He found himself called upon, when he heard such charges brought against a body of men whom he knew not to deserve them—he felt that it was a justice which he owed them, and which he regretted he had so long delayed to render—to say that they had done their duty to the public, and that the accusations of negligence in looking out for the means of prevention, or severity in calling for punishment, or caprice in selecting the objects of it, were unfounded. He was sorry to hear it said by an hon. gentleman, that it was left to the solicitor of the Bank, however respectable that individual might be, to determine on the objects of capital prosecution. This was a misrepresentation that was not in the least countenanced by fact. No such discretion was intrusted to the Bank solicitor. He received his instructions from the direction, like any other law agent in a similar situation with regard to individuals; and it was his duty to follow those instructions, laying the prosecution which he was directed to institute before the proper court. The Directors themselves examined the circumstances of every particular case, and proceeded according to the views which such an investigation suggested. When in doubt or difficulty, they asked the opinion of counsel (though in such cases they did not apply to their regular counsel), and were guided by the legal advice they received. It did not appear fair, therefore, to make charges of this kind against the Directors. Discourses, like some of those which had been heard that night, were not calculated to inform, but to mislead the public with regard to the character of men who showed the utmost anxiety to execute properly their important duties; who took the greatest pains to authorize only such prosecutions as could be supported by evidence of guilt; and who left to no agent what they themselves conceived they were called upon to perform. He would go farther and ask, to what such charges tended? Did those who made them wish no prosecutions for forgery instituted? Then let them come forward and move for a repeal of the law, instead of allowing it to remain as it was, and making the execution of it a ground of accusation against men who did their utmost to execute it with wisdom and leniency—But the Directors were not only blamed for carrying the law into execution in some cases, but for not executing it in others. Was it, then, meant to be asserted, that every offence that might be prosecuted capitally, ought to be so prosecuted? The motto of the Bank would then indeed be, "hang, hang, hang." If all offenders were not to be prosecuted capitally, and if in cases where a milder punishment was prayed, the Bank was to be blamed, then let the House declare what conduct the Directors were to pursue; let the proper line be marked out for them; let no discretion be allowed; let them be told, when a capital prosecution was to be instituted and when the offender was to enjoy impunity, or to suffer a mitigated penalty. His hon. and learned friend had attributed the increase of forgeries to the Bank restriction, and had referred back, as a proof of his position, to the period previous to 1797, when they were comparatively few; but it ought to be recollected, that the number must then have been smaller from the nature of things, as from the diminished paper circulation of that time there were fewer opportunities of forging—He had thus felt himself called upon to defend the conduct of the Bank, because he thought it unjustly attacked. Those who directed charges against it, while they pretended to monopolize all humanity and justice, and accused the Directors of delighting only in prosecution and punishment, showed that they did not possess the qualities which they arrogated, and which they refused to others. That the increase of forgeries was a great evil he was willing to allow; and the Bank Directors likewise allowed and lamented the fact. They professed their utmost willingness to attend to any suggestion for checking the evil, and would receive with gratitude any offer of a remedy. Many projects had been already examined by them, and others would be attended to; but when it was considered that many experiments which had been tried had ended in failure, he thought it was not asking too much from the opponents of the Bank to allow two things—first, that the Directors had not been idle or negligent; and, secondly, that a remedy was not so easy a thing as some people seemed to think. He would recommend to the hon. general (the member for Liverpool), before he ventured again to accuse the Bank of making no attempts to prevent forgery, to be a little better informed, and to inquire into what they had really done.

said, he did not think that strict justice had been done on either side in this debate. His honourable friends near him did not wish to monopolize all the humanity of the House, as they had been charged with a desire of doing; nor did the Bank and the opponents of the motion appear so averse to a remedy for an acknowledged evil as had been insinuated. All must acknowledge, that the prevention of forgery was a difficult undertaking, though most would confess that every thing had not been attempted which might have been done. The Bank appeared to him to have committed one error in acting too much after the restriction as they had done before it, though in very altered circumstances. They had acted wrong, in his opinion, in withholding from the public that criterion by which they themselves were enabled to determine a forgery. The Bank inspectors and clerks had marks by which they distinguished between a forged note and a true one, but they kept these marks from the holders of these notes, and thus deprived them of all means of detecting imposition. In America there was a laborious, and, he believed, a successful attempt made to prevent the forgery of paper dollars. In Scotland, too, it was known that there had been no forgeries, though the circulation of that country was small notes as well as in this. This must be attributed to the nature of the notes themselves. For the last twenty years no new attempt had been made to prevent forgeries of the Bank of England notes. The Bank had not done all that it could to remedy the evil complained of, and the public was joined by the House in thinking so. The House now with one accord had agreed to take some method to inquire into the subject; and the only question was, whether the method proposed in the motion or in the amendment was the best? He was of opinion that a committee could best sift the subject, and would bring sufficient skill, diligence, and impartiality to the examination of any proposed remedy.

observed, that there was but one opinion in the House as to the necessity of adopting some measure to check the evil complained of; and the question now to be decided was, what would be the best course to pursue. He differed from the hon. and learned gentleman who had brought it forward, and should vote for the amendment of his right hon. friend; but he only did so because in his conscience he believed the course which he had suggested would be most likely to supply an efficient remedy. If a committee were appointed, however competent it might be to conduct the inquiry, he could not look for their coming to any practical conclusion in the present session. A commission would not be liable to that interruption which a committee of that House must anticipate, and from their diligence he expected that a conclusion would be come to, which, though not a speedy one, and though not one that would do away all difficulties, yet still would be as satisfactory as could be expected from the nature of the subject. The question was proved to be one of great difficulty. This necessarily resulted from the speech of the hon. Bank Director who had last addressed the House, in whatever way his statements were received. But the last speaker thought the Bank had not done enough to prevent forgeries, as, though they had formed a criterion for themselves by which they could distinguish a good note from a bad one, they had never communicated the secret to the country at large. This inconvenience, he apprehended, must continue, unless some one should discover a way by which the means of detecting a forgery might be communicated to every body, without any danger being incurred of such knowledge being made use of to produce a new counterfeit. To prevent forgeries, it seemed desirable that something more artificial and more elaborate in its execution should be provided. All came to this at last—that the Bank note would he less likely to be forged, if it were, like one of Raphael's pictures, or the Venus de Medici, so finely executed that imitation was almost hopeless. Stimulated as talent would be by the rewards that he anticipated the inquiry about to be undertaken would hold out to successful exertion in this way, he thought it would be a disparagement of the art of engraving not to look forward to a considerable, if not to a decisive improvement. Though he admitted the evil complained of to be of such magnitude as to call for an inquiry into the best means of checking it, yet he did not believe the increase of forgeries, as compared with the increase of other crime, so great as had been asserted from the returns made to the Secretary of state's office, it appeared that in 1813 there had been eighty-three committals for forgery. In 1817 there were ninety-eight. Here was a lamentable increase, but it was nothing like what was generally imagined to have taken place. In 1813 there had been committed for coining 189. The committals for the same offence in 1817 were 346. In the former year the committals for burglaries were 287. In 1817 they were 627. For larceny there were committed in 1813, 4,600. In 1817,9,300. Thus it would be seen that there had been a greater increase in other crimes than in forgeries. He hoped, however, that from having made these statements, it would not be for a moment supposed that he meant to say there was not such an increase of forgery as to call for the interference of the House.

He was aware that such interference was necessary, but he thought it was not right to send forth to the country statements which, however unfounded, were from their nature calculated to mislead and distract the public, mind. As to the observations which had been made relative to the prerogative of the Crown in granting pardons to condemned persons, he should not attempt to weaken the force of his hon. friend's reply by speaking on the subject farther than by observing, that it was improper to call that selection for punishment, which was in fact the very converse of the principle. It was a selection for exemption. Such a power was given and used for a purpose different from a desire of punishment. It was a power the exercise of which must afford the most unspeakable satisfaction. But if blame was to be laid where the interference of the Crown had not been used, such a prerogative, instead of being a glory and a pleasure, would become a cause of anxiety and a curse. On such occasions as that of granting mercy, it was the business of the advisers of the Crown to inquire and point out the objects deserving the royal clemency, and he hoped the day should never arrive when the advisers of the Crown were to be called to account for such a conscientious discharge of their duty. On the subject more immediately before them, he should observe, that it merited their support, as being one which tended to improve the morals of society. The necessity of some alteration was admitted. That whatever had been hitherto done on the subject was ineffectual, was also admitted by those who opposed as well as those who supported the amendment. The dry question now before the House was, in what mode could they most efficaciously interfere to check an evil which was confessedly great? A commission to him appeared preferable to a committee. He should not so much object to the motion of the hon. and learned gentleman as he now did, if it had been made at the commencement of the session. But, wishing that what they did should not go merely to allay a temporary clamour, or to excite a fallacious hope,—wishing that to be done which would confer a substantial and lasting benefit on the country—he should vote for the amendment.

rose to reply. He said, he was glad to perceive that on both sides of the House the necessity of some measure of inquiry was agreed to. It was admitted, even by those who opposed the motion, that the evil was of such magnitude as to call for some interference, and that the efforts hitherto made by the Bank to put a stop to the progress of forgery were not so successful as to render farther investigation unnecessary. The only choice to be made was between the two modes of inquiry proposed. He had always heard his hon. and learned friend (sir Arthur Piggott) with the greatest deference and attention, upon this as upon every other subject. He wished, however, that in the course of his speech he had not endeavoured to convert it into a personal question; that he had argued upon the extent of the evil and the mode of remedying it, without entering into any defence of the Bank directors. No charge was brought against them. Defence therefore was unnecessary. It was however unavoidable, that they should create distrust and aversion in the public mind by that selection which was pursued in prosecutions for forgery. It was said, that he had exaggerated the increase of forgeries, and a comparative statement of crimes was produced to countenance the assertion. The plausibility of this statement rested on the number of executions for forgery, not upon the number of convictions and much less of prosecutions. He did not confine his view of the case to the number of executions alone. He had called the attention of the House to the prosecutions instituted on the ground of forgery for twenty-one years previous to the Bank Restriction, and for twenty-one years subsequent to it. In the former period there were only six prosecutions, while in the latter the number amounted to 860. During the fourteen years immediately preceding the restriction the prosecutions were but four. In the following fourteen years they were 404. It was said that in the early periods of the suspension of cash payments the progress of forgery was slow. How, then could gentlemen account for its great and rapid increase immediately after? It might be said that prosecutions for forgery were not a good criterion to judge by. For the purpose of showing this, reference was had to three or four years of the middle of the last century. The reference was useless and inapplicable to the present purpose; because, at such a distance of time, it could not be now made out, whether these prosecutions took place for forgeries upon the Bank or upon private individuals. He founded his motion upon the vast increase of convictions which had taken place within the twenty-one years. But to come to the question. The right hon. the chancellor of the exchequer said, that the necessary secrecy of such an investigation as that proposed would not be consistent with the mode of proceeding in committees of that House. How was this to be reconciled with the willingness expressed by the right hon. gentleman who spoke last to agree to the committee, if it had been proposed at the commencement of the present session? He saw no reason why a committee of the House of Commons should not be entrusted with any secrets necessary to be communicated in such an inquiry as that proposed. He could not believe that the House deserved so severe a censure as to say, that twenty one of the gentlemen who composed it were not to be trusted with secrets referring to this subject. He could not weigh the value of the objection offered by the right hon. gentleman who spoke last upon the ground of time, because he did not know when government might judge it convenient for their own purposes, to advise a dissolution of parliament. But paltry election views were not to be put in competition with a question of the highest importance to the public. No political arrangement, no interested views of party, should outweigh the paramount duty of investigating a subject in which the lives of human beings were concerned. If a royal commission were appointed, no report could be made before January or February, and in the meantime the whole evil was continued. It had been said, "and wretches hang that jurymen may dine;" but it was now for the first time urged that human beings ought to be executed in order that gentlemen might a little sooner reach their country houses. He saw no reason for delay in the appointment of a committee. The only objection to it was such as ministers alone could create by an early dissolution of parliament. All that was necessary might be done in a month. Even if more time were required, that could be no reason for delegating the functions of the House to a royal commission. The members of that House were the most proper persons to enter into the inquiry. It was objected that it was unusual to refer matters of science to a committee. Was there not a committee some time back upon weights and measures, a very complicated question which required no small knowledge of the mathematics? Was there not also a committee upon the Elgin marbles? The former committee, though nothing decisive was done in consequence of their report, still brought a very valuable body of information together. An investigation by commission would not, he was convinced, remove the distrust and jealousy of the public. They really believed that there was a compact between the Bank and the government. The appointment of a commission would then appear to them nothing more than the selection of individuals to try their own friends. The public could expect nothing from such a commission but subserviency and collusion. The report of a committee would produce quite a contrary impression. Such reports were of the highest value; they conveyed at all times most useful and important information; they I kept up the character of the House, and tended more than any thing else to support the respect of parliament. They were now called upon to desert their functions, and to delegate them to a commission chosen by the Crown, of which it was their duty to be jealous. If they did not maintain towards the Crown a proud but respectful attitude, and towards the people one of protection and support, they would injure their own character, they would fall in the confidence of the country, and alienate from themselves that respect which it was desirable by all means to increase. For these reasons, he would prefer a committee to a commission. The Directors of the Bank, and some of their friends, seemed indifferent which was appointed. He could not, therefore, agree to the amendment.

The question being put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the question:"

The Chancellor of the Exchequer then moved, "That the words, 'an humble Address be presented to his royal highness the Prince Regent, that he will be graciously pleased to issue a commission under the great seal for the appointment of commissioners to consider of the best means of preventing the forgery of promissory notes issued by the Bank of England and other bankers, and other negotiable securities,' be added instead thereof."

moved, as an amendment thereto, to leave out the words "and other bankers, and other negotiable securities," as it was evidently the object of the House that the inquiry should be confined to Bank of England notes, where alone the evil existed.

said, that he wished the investigation to be general, and not directed merely against the notes of the Bank of England.

was in favour of the commission, but he saw no pretence for empowering the commissioners to enter into the houses of bankers in the country, upon whom no forgeries had been committed.

said, that if the measure was confined exclusively to the Bank of England, it would seem like holding them up invidiously as the only banking company whose notes were liable to forgery. The measure proposed was not a penal one against the Bank of England, but a protecting one, and therefore ought to extend to all bankers who issued notes.

said, that the right hon. gentleman, by this proposition, wished to soften the inconvenience of the inquiry to the Bank directors by telling them that he thought others as bad as themselves. The whole of the debate of the evening had arisen on the general notoriety that an excessive proportion of the notes of the Bank of England, and of the Bank of England only, were forgeries. To adopt the proposition of the right hon. gentleman would be to commit a gross injustice; for it would be to proclaim to the whole country, that the notes of country bankers stood on the same footing as the notes of the Bank of England, which was not true. With such powers the inquiry would do more harm than good. But perhaps the right hon. gentleman might resort to his old expedient, and say that this proposition of his was a mistake [a laugh].

observed, that there were few cases in which he conceived that it was justifiable to move an adjournment; but that if any one ever existed, it was the present, when a motion was suddenly made affecting the interests and character of a numerous body of people. With a view, therefore, to give farther time for the consideration of so important a question, he would move, "That the House do now adjourn."—The Speaker was about to put the question of adjournment, when Mr. Lyttelton begged leave to withdraw it until the House should have expressed their sense of his noble friend's amendment to the right hon. gentleman's motion.

could see no possible reason for extending the inquiry of the commissioners to the bills and bonds of merchants, for what else did the words "and other negotiable securities" mean? There was no complaint relative to these securities. Commercial men wanted no alteration in their mode of transacting business, and he would decidedly object to have this labour superadded to the inquiry of the commissioners. The result would be, that their labours must be interminable. He had voted for the commission by the Crown, but he would object to its extension in the manner proposed.

said, the hon. gentleman was mistaken when he thought the inquiry would extend to bonds or deeds of any kind. The words "negotiable securities" in ordinary language, and so far as he knew, even in the strictest sense, meant no more than instruments such as promissory notes and bills of exchange.

begged to know whether, if the commission should be appointed according to the motion before the House, and should report that Bank of England notes, in consequence of their being legal tenders, should, to secure them against forgeries, be engraved in a most expensive way, that therefore country banks would be compelled to have their notes engraved in the same expensive manner.

said, that nothing compulsory was contemplated by the measure.

put it to the House, whether the whole tenor of what had been said since the division, did not show that the particular proposition in question, although certainly the words existed in the address moved by the right hon. gentleman, as an amendment to his hon. and learned friend's motion, never entered into the head of any member on either side of the House during the first part of the debate. It met with his unequivocal opposition.

The question being put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Amendment,"

The House divided:

As soon as the division was over, Mr. Lyttelton moved, that the House do now adjourn. Thereupon the Chancellor of the Exchequer said, that rather than have the business of the House interrupted, he would withdraw his amendment, and make it extend to the Bank of England alone. This created some embarrassment, as the House had already voted the amendment as proposed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and it was too late to withdraw it.

said, it appeared to him that the only way of getting out of the difficulty was this: the division having taken place by which it was determined that the whole of the words moved as an amendment to the original motion should be adopted in preference to that motion, it was not competent to move that a part of those words should be left out. The only course, in his opinion, would be to negative the entire address as it stood, with the view of then moving another so framed as to omit the passage in question.

After a few words from Mr. Wynn, this recommendation was adopted, and the address was negatived. The Chancellor of the Exchequer then moved, after the word "that," to add the words "an humble Address be presented to his royal highness the Prince Regent, that he will be graciously pleased to issue a commission under the Great Seal, for the appointment of commissioners to inquire into the best means of preventing forgery of Promissory Notes issued by the Bank of England payable to bearer on demand."

observed, that he could have no objection to this proposition, if the majority had no objection to it. What pleased him most was the unhappy situation of the Bank Directors, for according to the doctrine of the noble lord, they would, by this motion of the right hon. gentleman, be invidiously held up as persons against whom alone it was necessary to take precautions [a laugh].

remonstrated against this remark of the right hon. gentleman as unfair. Using the phrase in its parliamentary sense, it was unreasonable and vexatious. The fact was simply this: his right hon. friend, finding the hon. gentleman opposite disposed to persevere in moving the question of adjournment, and being unwilling that the whole of the pub- lic business which stood for that evening should be impeded, had consented to withdraw a proposition to which no very great importance was attached.

considered it much better to retract an error than to persist in it, and thought the right hon. gentleman had shown abundant good sense and good temper on this occasion. He hoped that the majority who voted with the right hon. gentleman had also had the good fortune to convince themselves of the unimportance of the proposition in support of which they divided; and if so, he begged leave to congratulate them on their facility [Hear, hear!].

said, he was very ready to acknowledge that he had been in an error. He was sure that those members who did him the honour to vote with him for the other address, would feel that the error was in having contested a point, which, after all was not worth contending for.

The main question as amended, was then agreed to.

said, that in moving for the correspond- ence with his majesty's principal secretary of state for the home department, relative to the transportation of Count Las Cases from the Cape of Good Hope to Great Britain, and from thence to the Continent of Europe, he was anxious to give his majesty's ministers an opportunity of disproving the statements which were in circulation with respect to the treatment of that unfortunate individual. If the statement which he had received relative to the treatment of this person were true, he was sure the House would agree that he had been used with most unjustifiable severity. It appeared that he was shipped from St. Helena and carried to the Cape of Good Hope, where he was conveyed, as was stated, by order of the governor there, many miles into the interior of the country, and kept there among savages for several months; that then he was shipped for England; that when the ship in which he was conveyed had arrived in the Thames, he was not permitted to land, but that all his papers were seized, and he himself trans-shipped immediately and conveyed to Ostend. No sooner had he landed at Ostend, than he was seized as a prisoner by the government of the Netherlands, treated with great severity, and then sent as a prisoner to Frankfort, and delivered even to the Prussian government, within the territories of which he was since detained under the surveillance of the police. The House had conferred, by the Alien act, on the government of the country, a power of sending aliens, whom they suspected of dangerous designs, out of Great Britain. It would be in the recollection of the House, that when the Alien act was last passed, among other amendments he had proposed one, that aliens whom the government wished to ship out of this country, should be allowed to fix the place of their destination, if they could procure shipping within a reasonable time, in order that they might not be delivered over bound into the hands of their enemy.^* He had then been answered by the noble lord, that to suppose that the government would take the advantage of sending any person out of this country, under the Alien act, to deliver him into the hands of his enemies, was to suppose what was wholly impossible; and when he had argued, that by connexion with foreign governments all power of asylum might be taken away, and that thus the unfortunate persons who took refuge in this country from their prosecutors, might be delivered into the hands of those very persons from whom they were flying, he was told that such a supposition was altogether groundless, and the amendment was negatived. Perhaps it might not be true that count Las Cases was sent to Ostend in consequence of communications with any foreign governments. Perhaps it might not be true that advantage was taken of that communication to seize him by gens d'armes, and convey him to the Prussian dominions. But even if this was not true, an amendment ought to be introduced into the bill to prevent that from being done which was an act of great injustice. Whether or not count Las Cases ought to have been removed from St. Helena, and conveyed to this country, was a question into which he would not now enter; but at all events it was improper to take advantage of the powers given by this act in combination with any foreign government, to deliver him up to any power to which he was obnoxious. The hon. and learned gentleman concluded with moving for, "Copies of all Correspondence with his majesty's principal secretary of state for the home department, relative to the transportation of the Count Las Cases from the Cape of Good Hope to Great Britain, and thence to the Continent of Europe, together with Copies of all Orders which have been given relative thereto by the said secretary of state."

^* See Vol. 34, p. 967.

said, that if the hon. and learned gentleman had taken the trouble to inform himself with respect to the treatment of count Las Cases previous to his arrival in, and while in this country, he would have ascertained that the circumstances of that treatment were different from what he had represented them to be—he would have found that the savages to whom he had been sent at the Cape, were such persons as he would find in the house which was occupied by the governor of the Cape, to which he was sent as being one of the best houses of the settlement. The House would not be surprised that the government had thought fit to adopt precautionary measures with respect to count Las Cases, when he informed them that he had been detected in establishing a correspondence between the prisoner at St. Helena, and certain persons in Europe attached to his interest, and that part of this plan was be carried into execution in this country. The hon. and learned gentleman had said, that he had wished to procure the adoption of a regulation to aliens, not allowed to remain in this country, the power of choosing their own port, and ship, and giving their own time of departure, with the view of preventing any alien from being delivered up into the hands of his enemy,—but that parliament had thought it more advisable to give a discretionary power to government. Had count Las Cases been sent to France, then there might have been some ground for saying, that he had been given up to his enemy; but he had not been sent to France but to Ostend; and he could assure the House, that, as far as he knew, count Las Cases had not the slightest objection to Ostend, and gave no preference to any other port. The government of this country had not delivered him over to any other government, but had sent him to Ostend as the nearest port to which he could be sent, except a port of France. For whatever might have passed with other powers, who might think it more safe that persons of this description should not reside on the borders of France, the government of this country was not responsible. He had been landed at Ostend, as any other passenger would have been landed, from the packet boat. As to any alleged harshness in the seizure and detention of his papers, nothing could be more forbearing than the manner in which he was treated in this respect: his papers were sealed up with his own seal, in his own presence, by the messenger who was sent to inform him that he should not be allowed to land. They were dispatched with the seals unbroken to Ostend; and they were sent to Ostend in the belief that when they reached that place he would be there. When the papers however reached Ostend he had been removed from it, but a letter had since been received from him acknowledging the receipt of his papers in the state in which they were sealed up.

said, it was certainly very singular, that when count Las Cases arrived at Ostend two gens d'armes should be waiting to seize him. This was not likely in the case of an arrival of which no notice had been given. He trusted that the noble lord would be able to clear up this fact. What difficulty could the noble lord have in producing the papers moved for? The noble lord had said there was no communication with any foreign government on this subject; but it was cer- tainly a most extraordinary circumstance, that when a man arrives at Ostend in an English vessel, he should be by accident seized by gens d'armes waiting to apprehend him. The papers moved for would show that no communication had been made to any foreign government, to prepare it to seize count Las Cases as soon as he arrived. For the credit of the Alien bill he hoped the noble lord would consent to the production of these papers. The great point to be ascertained was, as it did appear that he was apprehended immediately on his arrival, whether this was not in consequence of a communication made from this government to another government.

said, he thought the noble lord had stated distinctly that no communication whatever had taken place with respect to the removal of count Las Cases with any other government. In no country was more tenderness shown to persons of the description of count Las Cases, than the country to the principal port of which he was sent. As to the being seized by gens d'armes immediately on landing, as this information must have been derived from count Las Cases himself, he was rather disposed to doubt it. Count Las Cases was in the habit of stating facts in such a manner as to bear a totally different impression from what the facts themselves would bear. The account he had given of the governor's house was an instance. If he represented facts in this way, which could be so easily ascertained, what credit could be due to statements in cases where no one here could know any thing respecting them? On knowing that he would arrive in this country, information was sent to his wife at Paris, that she might say where she chose to meet him. She said she would prefer meeting him in London, but if not allowed to meet him there, any other port was indifferent to her.

said, it was not denied that count Las Cases had been seized by gens d'armes, immediately on landing at Ostend; but it had been denied that any direct or indirect communication on this subject had taken place with any government of the continent. But would the noble lord affirm, that no direct or indirect communication was made to the ministers of any foreign government in this country, of the port to which they intended to convey count Las Cases?

denied that any such communication had ever taken place with the ministers of any foreign government in this country.

, in reply, said, it was certainly singular that in the country where persons like count Las Cases were treated with most tenderness, two gens d'armes should be in readiness to apprehend him on his landing. If the statement on this subject was not true, this would surely appear from the production of the papers moved for, from which no bad results could arise. He would not put the House to the trouble of dividing. He was happy to hear it stated by the noble lord that there had been no communication with any foreign government on sending count Las Cases out of this country; but he would have been still more happy to have seen this established by the production of papers.

The motion was then negatived.