, in presenting a Petition from certain Inhabitant Householders of the parish of St. Mary-le- bone, expressed regret at not seeing the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his place. The Petition complained of the number of useless dogs that were about the streets, and urged upon the consideration of the House the necessity there was that precautions should be taken to prevent the mischiefs which those animals were likely to occasion. The number of persona now permitted to keep dogs free of tax amounted to three-fold the number who might have done so before the repeal of the tax on small houses, as those not assessed to the house duty were allowed to keep a dog duty free. It was doubted whether Magistrates had the power which they ought to have of directing the destruction of dogs, and one had been prevented from doing so by the threat of an action.

said, a short bill ought to be introduced for the purpose of remedying the evil complained of.

would support a measure of that sort.

thought the destruction might prove exceedingly vexatious. A tax might be better.

To be printed.

thought the difficulties which stood in the way of such a Return being made were insurmountable, but he would not oppose the Motion.

did not think that absenteeism ought to be prohibited by the Legislature. Was a man to be made a prisoner in a place merely because he had property in it? He would act up to the old saying, "those who did not like the country let them leave it." If there were a property-tax, he would levy that on the Absentee's property, as well as the property of others, but he would not levy such a tax exclusively on their property. He would punish no man for going out of the country, and he would bribe no man to stay in it.

said, that if the hon. Member near him knew the state of Ireland fully, he would see that absenteeism was an evil of the highest magnitude. It was a curse to Ireland to draw four millions sterling a year out of it without any equivalent, and by persons who contributed nothing to the taxes, nothing to the poor but increased pauperism, while they begot in the Custom House returns a great show of prosperity, in consequence of the large exports that went abroad to pay their Revenue. The absence of the landed proprietors was, in his opinion, the curse of Ireland.

differed from the hon. member for Clare: and he did not see how such a Return could be made.

wished to know from what office the hon. Member expected those Returns? If his object was to raise a question on the subject, he thought a better mode might be resorted to than merely a Motion for Papers.

Mr. Grattan withdrew his Motion.

, in presenting to the House the Petition of Mr. Charles Andrew Thomson said, that the petitioner was a gentleman who was once in very affluent circumstances, but he had been, as he averred, ruined by the operation of several Acts of Parliament. The Petitioner stated, that his father, an eminent merchant in the City of London, had, by his industry, realized a large fortune, which he invested in the funds, purchasing 300,000l. consols—that this sum stood in the name of his father in the year 1791—that it had been purchased at 92, but owing to the changes wrought in the Currency, the funds fell as low as 63, when the petitioner's father, fearing further losses, thought it advisable to sell out. The petitioner stated, that during the period alluded to, he and his father experienced a loss of one-third of their capital, by the falling of the funds from 92 to 63, and at the same time the integral value of the money, of which the residue was composed, was reduced in the ratio of from 20s. to 10s. in the pound. The petitioner and his father, in the year 1810, finding that their 300,000l. consols, which had cost them about 265,000l. sterling, in the ancient coin of the realm, were reduced in selling-price to 180,000l., exposing them to a loss of 85,000l.; finding, also, that their 180,000l. of remaining money, which their consols would still produce, was so reduced in value, as, in reality, to be worth only one-half of its nominal amount, or only about 90,000l., instead of 180,000l.; and finding their property thus melting away, they became, seriously alarmed, and determined to invest the remainder of their capital in the purchase of land. In the year 1811, the petitioner and his father purchased the estate of Northaw, in Hertfordshire, at the price of 62,000l., which they paid in ready money. They then expended 10,000l. in building houses and cottages upon the estate, and in bringing 200 acres of waste land into cultivation. In the same year they purchased several other estates, to the amount of 33,000l., for which they also paid ready money. The petitioner further stated, that in the year 1811 he purchased the estate of Pontrylas, in Hertfordshire, of Dr. Trenchard, for which he paid 60,000l. The title of the estate being considered not good, he brought an action against Dr. Trenchard, for the recovery of the deposit money; but an order of the Court of Chancery obliged him to complete his contract. In consequence of the altered state of the Currency, he was obliged to give a mortgage on his Northaw estate, to make good his obligations arising from the purchase of the other, and Dr. Trenchard was then suing the creditors of the petitioner to obtain both the estates of Northaw and Pontrylass. The petitioner being thus stripped of his whole property by the law which raised the value of the Currency in which his obligations were contracted, without reducing in a corresponding degree his obligations, had been reduced to bankruptcy and ruin. His father, the petitioner stated, in consequence of those unmerited sufferings, died of a broken heart, and left him with seven children of his own, and seventeen brothers and sisters, looking up to him for support. A case of more flagrant injustice, arising from the effects of Acts of Parliament had never been brought before the House. By the effects of those Acts, property acquired by many years' honest industry, had been transferred to others in a most unwarrantable and unjust manner. The petitioner prayed that the House would appoint a committee to inquire into the facts stated in his Petition, and to afford such redress as might appear just and right. There were thousands in the same condition as the petitioner, whose misery had been brought about by the same cause; and it was but just that that power which had been the means of their ruin, should endeavour to devise some remedy. It was not his intention to do more than move that the Petition do lie on the Table.

Ordered accordingly.

begged leave to call the attention of the House to a Petition which he held in his hand from the manufacturers of Tallow Candles, of Aberdeen,—and of Soap, at Leith and Glasgow, respecting the duty on Soap and Candles. The subject was one which he had been anxious to submit to the notice of the House, by a formal Motion, at an early period of the Session, had an opportunity offered; but when he fixed a day for bringing it on, he was prevented doing so by an act of the House which adjourned over that day. It appeared that the duty on the manufacture of soap amounted to 3d. per pound, and including the duty on tallow and barilla, the whole duty on the article was at least 120 per-cent of the price. The duty of 1d. per pound on candles amounted to about 18 per-cent. That both these articles were necessaries of life, and that a heavy tax upon them fell chiefly upon that class of persons who were least able to bear it would not be denied. He was not insensible to the relief afforded by the remission of the tax on Beer; but, without undervaluing the repeal of that tax, full as great relief, if not greater, would, he thought, have been afforded by the repeal of the duty on soap and candles. Besides, the Chancellor of the Exchequer would have avoided a battle, not yet determined, with every brewer and victualler in the kingdom. There were several criteria by which the fitness of a tax might be judged. It should not be levied on articles of necessary consumption—it should not fall on the industry and labour of the poor, nor interfere with their comforts. If, however, the House were to judge of the duty on soap and candles by any of these tests, it must appear most unjust and impolitic. They were taxes on articles of necessary consumption; they checked the industry, and diminished the comforts of the labouring poor, and prevented that cleanliness which was essential to health. It was no defence of these duties to say that they were levied upon the manufacturers of these articles, for they were repaid these taxes, which must necessarily fall on the consumers. At the same time, the tax was a source of great annoyance to the manufacturer. Another criterion by which the impolicy of the tax might be decided was, it yielded little revenue. The duties on the articles used for soap, amounted to 100 per-cent, which encouraged an evasion of the duty; and this was move particularly the case with respect to candles, which might be easily made in a private room, or any other small place where detection could be easily avoided; it was different with respect to soap, the manufacture of which required large premises, and could be scarcely carried on without detection. The facilities with which candles might be made, gave encouragement to the evasion of the duty; and an illicit trade in the article was carried on to a great extent. In Ireland, there was no duty on candles, and he did not believe that any Excise duty could be well collected in the one country, on an article of general consumption, when that article was duty free in the other. It was impossible to expect that an article which paid a duty of 100 per-cent in one part of the kingdom, and was wholly exempt from duty in the other, should not give rise to an illicit trade to a considerable extent. The persons engaged in the manufacture of candles complained, and with great justice, of the different and arbitrary manner in which the duty was collected: thus in London and Brentford the duties were required to be paid down at once, but in a district as near town as Deptford, and other parts of the country, a credit was given of two months; in some places the duty was paid in cash, in others it was paid in private Bills of Exchange; an advantage was thus given to one person in trade over the other, which was not fair. Some regulation on this subject ought to be made equally applicable to the whole trade. Another point which he wished to mention, was the drawback allowed on the exportation of soap. In some instances the manufacturer gave his bills at two or three months for the duty; he then entered the article for exportation, and immediately received the drawback in cash; so that, in fact, he received the drawback two months before he paid any duty at all. That was a practice which ought not to be allowed, for it was a direct fraud on the Revenue. In order to show the impolicy of different Excise laws in England and Ireland, he would mention that some time ago, when Glass in Ireland was free of Excise duty, the smuggling of that article to this country took place to an immense extent. When the Excise laws were equalized in the two countries, the result was a total cessation of the smuggling. He had no doubt that the same thing would happen if the laws were equalized as to soap and candles. The objection to the tax on the score of its being vexatious, particularly that on candles, was equally strong; notice must be given of the hour the utensils were to be unlocked, the weight of candles to be made, the number of rods, the number of candles on each rod, with many other particulars, the breach of any of which subjected the manufacturer to the severest penalties. Such was the case of Mr. Hale, a most worthy and respectable man, who was thrown into the Exchequer, not for any fraud, but because he had broken through some trivial rules; and this, not for his own advantage or convenience, but to save trouble to the Excise officers. He would state to the House what were the duties on soap between the years 1826 and 1829 inclusive. In 1826, they amounted to 1,253,745l.; in 1827, to 1,375,844l.; in1828, to 1,385,907l.; and in 1829, to 1,357,688l. In the last four years, therefore, the duties on the article had been stationary in amount, and in the last year they had decreased 28,000l. Could the House be surprised at this when it considered the temptations held out to the illicit trader, and the facilities with which the illicit traffic might be carried on?—The duties on candles for the same period, amounted in 1826, to 475,744l.; in 1827, to 475,255l.; in 1828, to 496,650l.; in1829, to 472,191l.: here too there was a falling-off in the last year. As to the number of licenses for the manufacture of soap and candles, in the three years ending in 1828, there had been a diminution. The number of licenses for making soap was, in 1826, 619; in 1827, 667; and in 1828, 626: being a diminution of 41, in 1828, as compared with the preceding year. The licenses for the manufacture of candles, were in 1826, 3,793; in 1827, 3,694; and in 1828, 3,509; being a diminution of 185 as compared with the preceding year. All these facts proved the decrease of the trade, which must be attributed solely to the taxes imposed on the articles, and the restrictions under which the trade was carried on. Having said thus much of the nature of these taxes, of their pressure upon the poor, and of their oppressive operation on the manufacturer, he wished to state how the evil might be remedied. In the first place, he would take off the whole 472,000l. per year candle duty. He would do away with the whole of that at once. He did not mean indeed to submit any proposition on the subject in the present Session; but he should propose that in the next. With respect to the soap duty, he would propose to repeal the half, and he had no doubt that the deficiency might be made up by increased consumption, and putting an end to that illicit traffic by which the dishonest man thrives at the expense of the honest tradesman, to the injury of the revenue and the morals of the country. The reduction of the duty from 28s. to 14s. would, he believed, have the most beneficial effects. The loss to the revenue by the illicit manufacture of soap and candles amounted to no less a sum, he was warranted in asserting, than 617,312l. Taking the annual import of tallow from Russia at 50,000 tons, and 100,000 tons as the produce of home slaughter, there were 150,000 tons of tallow which ought to pay duty, in the shape of the manufactured articles. Not above 92,000 tons, however, paid duty. There were 53,000 tons manufactured into candles, 23,000 tons manufactured into soap, and about 16,000 tons which are used in manufactures. In the whole, only 92,000 tons were accounted for as paying duty, so that there was a difference of; 58,000 tons, which he believed were illicitly manufactured, and the duty upon which was annually lost to the revenue. The way he would take to supply any deficiency of revenue would be, to levy an additional tax on tallow when imported, and he would say, that as Russia levied a very considerable export duty on this commodity, it would only be an act of self-defence in us to levy an import duty on it. A duty of 4l. or 5l. per ton would go a long way to fill up the deficiency occasioned by remitting the duty on the manufactured article. At any rate, the taxes he proposed to reduce pressed with great severity on the poorer classes, and on every species of industry. They affected every man in the; country, but the poorest most. The loss to the revenue would be only 700,000l., which the Government might replace from other sources. He would not trespass further on the attention of the House, except to declare that he would next Session, if he had a seat in Parliament, bring forward a substantive motion on the subject. He moved that the Petition be brought up.

did not think that a proper time to enter into a discussion of all the topics which the hon. Member had brought under the notice of the House. Indeed, he thought he should best consult the public interest, and the convenience of the House, if he were to refrain from taking any notice of the hon. Gentleman's remarks; he must, however, express his dissent from many of the hon. Gentleman's propositions; and when the proper time arrived, he should be ready to show that many of his arguments were unfounded, and his calculations inaccurate. It was very easy for any gentleman to take hold of any tax, and inquire into the restrictions which were imposed in order to ensure its collection, and then to make out a very strong case against that particular tax, as vexatious and oppressive. Hon. Members might in that manner go through the whole Excise Laws, and find every Excise Duty vexatious and oppressive; nothing could be easier. Hon. Members did occasionally enter into such statements, and after they had made out their case, they each of them called on him to consent to some pet tax being repealed. He had no doubt that every tax was an evil; and it would be very desirous if taxation could be dispensed with; but the person who stood in the situation in which he unfortunately stood, who had to provide for the discharge of the interest on the National Debt, and for the ordinary expenses of the Government, found it very often to be his duty to resist these applications for the extensive reduction of taxation which, in his opinion, had been at present as much reduced as possible. The hon. Member said if the duty on soap and candles, instead of the duty on beer, had been reduced, the Government would not have been annoyed by all the opposition it had met with on account of the Beer Bill. But if the hon. Member thought other taxes could be reduced, affecting different interests, without opposition, he was much mistaken. If he were to follow the hon. Member's advice and abolish the duty on candles, and impose an additional tax on tallow, granting a drawback to those who used it in manufactures, he should soon find that the linen and woollen manufacturers, whose interests would be affected by such a measure, would get up as vigorous an opposition to a bill to carry the hon. Member's plan into effect, as was now got up against throwing open the trade in beer. If the hon. Member were to try himself, he would find the subject more beset with difficulties than he seemed to apprehend.

knew that the various duties imposed by the Government had been under consideration in various counties of Scotland, and the people had all come to one resolution—namely, that there was no duty so oppressive and vexatious as the Excise duty on soap and candles. He had presented a Petition on the subject, complaining of the vexatious prosecutions caused by these duties; and he was satisfied, that if all the offences committed against the Excise laws imposing these duties, through ignorance only, were rigorously prosecuted, such an extreme degree of wretchedness and misery would be created as had, perhaps, never been equalled. He knew that if a farmer, or a peasant, made a candle out of the tallow of a sheep that died, he was liable to a penalty. The law allowed a rush to be drawn once through the melted tallow; but if it were drawn twice through, the person who drew it was liable to a penalty of 100l., one-fourth only of which could be remitted. If the persons who were liable to commit this offence—who were sometimes almost compelled to commit it by their wants, and were frequently invited to commit it, by its offering an honest means of supplying themselves, were to be prosecuted, they would be ruined, their property would be sold, and they would be compelled to rot in a gaol, because they could not pay the penalties imposed by the Excise. He acknowledged that the country was much indebted to the Chancellor of the Exchequer for the reduction of taxation he had already made; but he believed that the abolition of the tax on soap and candles would have been tenfold more advantageous to the people than the abolition of the tax on beer. If the hon. Member brought forward any motion on the subject, he should have his decided support, which he knew would be agreeable to his constituents and to all the people of Scotland.

expressed his satisfaction at the luminous speech of the hon. Member who had presented the Petition, and thought the subject well deserving of attention. In particular he complained of the partial manner in which the tax was levied. The manufacturers in London and Southwark, in Brentford and Hammersmith, because they were situated in what was called the Home District, had to pay their duties to the Excise every week, while the manufacturers at Deptford, Bromley, and places not further off, paid their duties only at the end of six weeks. This was in his opinion very improper; and the manner of levying these duties ought to be equalized. He knew a manufacturer of the name of Hales, a constituent of his, and a very honest man—a man less likely to defraud the Revenue he did not know—who had suffered very severely from these Excise laws. A servant of Mr. Hales, with the concurrence of the Exciseman, postponed commencing work beyond the time for which notice had been given. For this he was prosecuted, and when carried in to the Court of the Exchequer, he was advised by his own attorney to compromise the matter, which he did for 300l., and his expenses amounted to 150l. more. This was a case that ought to have been stopped by the Commissioners of the Excise, and he thought if they were to do their duty, and look into the circumstances of cases before they prosecuted them, much vexation might be avoided. He knew that the right hon. Gentleman could not repeal these taxes, that they could not be spared; but he might prevent a great deal of evil by having the laws concerning them administered on a more liberal system.

enforced the propriety of levying a higher duty on tallow when imported. If Russia levied a high export tax on that article, it was our duty to levy a large import tax, and encourage the produce of our own soil.

wished to say a few words on the subject, as he had a Petition to present on it, and if he addressed the House then, he should have no occasion to do so at a later period. He would first say a few words on what fell from the Chancellor of the Exchequer. When the right hon. Gentleman said he could not spare the money—that he must deny—he had a surplus revenue of upwards of 2,000,000l. which he might spare to give relief to the people, for the revenue obtained by the tax on candles only amounted to 45,000l. For this sum 2,500 manufacturers were kept under the rod of the Excise, which was so severely laid on, that 300 persons had given up the business within a year. Last year 2,800 persons had taken out licenses to manufacture soap and candles, and this year there was only 2,500. It was impossible for the manufacturers to carry on their business under such odious and vexatious regulations. Nor was it possible for any man, not the most honest man in the country to carry on this business without incurring very severe penalties every week, if the Excise office acted up to the severity of the law. He had consulted a manufacturer and an exciseman on this subject, and he was satisfied that the business could not be carried on in obedience to the laws. As to the loss sustained by the Revenue, that might be compensated by an additional duty on tallow. At present Russia levied a duty of 2s. 6d. the cwt. on tallow exported, and we had a duty of 3s. 6d. on the import, making together a duty of 6s. on the cwt. Augmenting the import duty must give a greater Revenue without costing so much to collect it. The duty now received by the Exchequer on candles did not amount to above Id. per pound, but that imposed, in fact, a tax on the people of 3d. or 4d. for every pound of candles they used. The hon. Member, it is true, proposed that the Motion should be brought forward next year; but at that time the right hon. Gentleman might not be in his present office, nor might he (Mr. Hume) be in Parliament—God knew where they might be next year! He knew that the right hon. Gentleman would be happy to remain, but what changes might happen before that time could not be known. He would not, therefore, if it were his business, postpone the Motion till next year; he would bring it forward this Session. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said, he could not spare the money. Let him but bring in the bill to raise the duty on Russian tallow to 7s. or 8s. per cwt., by which he might raise 200,000l. he would find no difficulty in passing such a bill; and he might immediately abolish the Excise duty on candles. That was levied on the farmers, on manufacturers, and other persons who felt it most severely. By abolishing this tax the Government would relieve an extensive manufacture from vexatious restrictions, which impeded the progress of the manufacture, and raised the price of a necessary of life to the industrious and poorest class. These restrictions were the cause why the manufacture was not improved. But he would go further also, and reduce the duty on soap. On it there was a direct tax of 3d. per pound. There was also a tax on tallow, a tax on barilla, a tax on rosin, which made the taxes on soap direct and indirect 4d. per pound, which every man had to pay before he could use a single pound of soap. There was another inducement to lower the tax which he would mention. He was anxious to see the duties equalized in England, Ireland, and Scotland. The taxes ought to be the same in every part of the empire, but he would never raise an Irish tax to the level of an English one. He would lower the English high tax to a level with the Irish low tax. If the Irish Members, who were in general very bad voters, would only attend, they might, perhaps, get such a thing accomplished. The Scotch Members were bad voters, but the Irish were worse; though, owing to a rebellion of the latter, he had once the misfortune to be in a majority. A bill was brought in relating to Scotland, and the opposition carried its point because, on that night there happened to be a rebellion amongst the Gentlemen from Ireland. They were 100, and if they would only attend and vote, no doubt a question for equalising the duties in all parts of the empire might be carried. But the inducement he was about to speak of was directed to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He found that the exports of soap to Ireland, in 1827, amounted to 239,000 pounds; in 1828, to 859,000 pounds; and in 1829, to 2,645,000 pounds. Why, if the Irish used all the soap they imported they must be the cleanest people under the sun. Every individual who came over here from that country would be as bright as a new pin. The fact unfortunately was, that the soap was not used by the Irish, it was exported in such large quantities only to be smuggled back into England. It was sold in Cork for 2½d. per pound. The Chancellor of the Exchequer then might benefit by lowering the duties on soap and candles; and he hoped that the Session would not be allowed to pass away without commuting these taxes for some other, if they could not be, as he desired they should, abolish- ed. He encouraged his hon. friend to bring forward his motion even this Session, and if it were supported as he had suggested, he had no doubt that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would come into their terms.

said, that the right hon. Gentleman had no reason to complain of not having the means to reduce these taxes, when there were masses of property in the country, and numberless enjoyments possessed by the rich for which no taxes whatever was paid. Since the peace twenty-two millions of taxes had been reduced, but they were the Property-tax, the tax on French wines, and various taxes which affected the opulent, while not one tax had been removed from the necessaries of life, or from the articles which were used by the poor and the industrious.

The Petition brought up, and to be printed.

presented two other petitions on the same subject, and expressed his regret that he could not bring forward the subject this Session, and if he were not there next Session, he trusted some Member more able would take up the subject.

The Petitions to be printed.

, adverting to the discussion respecting Ceylon on a former evening, begged to ask the right hon. Secretary (Sir G. Murray) if an order had been sent out by Earl Bathurst, directing the annulling of the regulation which allowed the Governor to supersede a Writ of Habeas Corpus, why was it that Sir Edward Barnes had disobeyed that order?

said, that Earl Bathurst had sent out the order, but it proved deficient in some technicalities, and Sir Edward Barnes sent it home in an amended form, for the approbation of the Government. He was confident, however, that after an express order had been sent out, disapproving of the practice which existed before, no Governor would presume again to adopt the same course.

then asked, if it was the intention of the Government to lay on the Table of the House the charges brought against General Darling, the Governor of New South Wales?

said, it was not the in- tention of the Government to lay the charges before the House until General Darling had an opportunity of putting in his answer. He had always been of opinion, that it was extremely unfair to allow charges of this kind to go forth to the public, and to be kept hanging over the head of a public officer, subject to all the comments and statements which might be made on them, perhaps for twelve months, before he had the means of knowing what was even alleged against him.

, while they were on the subject of the Colonies, begged to ask if he had rightly understood the right hon. Gentleman the other night, when he declared, that after the Government Commission now sitting to inquire into the state of the Colonies had made their report, it was intended to present a regular financial statement every year, for the colonies exclusively?

said, it was undoubtedly the decided intention of the Government to adopt the course mentioned by the hon. Baronet.

expressed his surprise that, although this Estimate was even larger than the last, no explanation of the items had been attempted by his Majesty's Government. The House, he was confident, would feel as much surprise as he did when they were made acquainted with the extent of the sums lavished on this branch of the service. They were to be found in a Return lately laid on the Table; and although that Return included the expenses of a period when the present Government could not be said to be personally accountable (the year 1825), yet many of the Ministers he saw opposite were then in power, and the Return was brought down to a period beyond the year 1828, since which, the present Government had held uninterrupted sway. It was not his intention to detain the House with many observations on the extravagance of spending such sums on countries which could not require so much parade and show on the part of the representatives of this country as some of the ancient monarchies. He should at once proceed to put the House in possession of the items of which he complained, and the first he found on the list was the Special Mission sent oat in 1825. In that year Mr. Morier was despatched on a special mission to Mexico. He remained five months altogether at his post, and he received 3,656l., with a sum of 1,670l. for the expenses of his journey home, making on the whole 5,326l. for five months' service. In the next year Mr. Morier was sent out again. He was three months at his post, and he received 1,506l, going out, 755l. for travelling expenses coming home, and 300l. for his passage in a King's ship, making in the aggregate a sum of just 8,987l. for eight months' service in Mexico. The House would probably suppose that a sum so large was all that was required for the proper representation of England in the new State of Mexico, but it would not be a little surprised to find, that at the time these missions were sent out there was a resident Consul in Mexico—Mr. Ward—who received for his services the following sums:—in the year 1825, he received 10,913l.; in 1826, 5598l.; in 1827 he received 2,523l. and 828l. for passage-money; so that, in the space of twenty-five months, Mr. Ward's Mission to Mexico cost 19,862l. Having thus disposed of the first and second commissions, it might be supposed the expense was at an end; but then there came a third person—a Secretary to the commission—whose charge was more extraordinary still. This gentleman was at his post five months, for which he received 500l. or 100l. a month; but then came the extra-extraordinary portion of the charge—Mr. Thompson, the Secretary, held the situation of one of the clerks of the Ordnance Board, and there was a charge for compensation to the amount of 380l. for loss of what did the House think? of salary in the Ordnance-office—for the loss of salary for the performance of duties he could not perform, because he was receiving 100l. a month to perform duties elsewhere. This gentleman, too, not content with the salary for his services in Mexico, had taken an excursion into Guatemala, for which he charged 600l.; so that altogether the ex- penses of the missions to Mexico in two years were about 31,857l. He would next call the attention of the Committee to the appointment of Mr. Cockburn on the mission to Colombia. On his appointment in 1825, he received 3,325l. for his outfit, and, in 1826, a salary of 6,300l., making altogether 9,600l., although he never went to Bogota, but passed three months at the Caraccas, and three weeks of it at the house of the English Consul. Mr. Cockburn crossed the Atlantic twice at the public expense. In 1827 (having returned to England), he received 3,778l.; and when he went out again, therefore, it was to be supposed that it was for the purpose of actively discharging his duties. He never went to Bogota, however, and returned to England the bearer of his own despatches; for which, as he (Sir James Graham) understood, the Foreign office did not think him justifiable. In the first year of his mission, Mr. Cockburn had been employed three weeks; in the second year nine weeks; and for those services he received above 13,000l. It might now be expected that Mr. Cockburn and the public were at least quits. While Lord Dudley and Ward continued at the head of Foreign Affairs that was the case; but when that noble Lord went out of office, by some mysterious influence which he did not understand, a sum of 1,664l. was granted in 1828 "to complete Mr. Cock-burn's allowance" [a laugh]. Thus Mr. Cockburn obtained in the whole a sum of 15,975l. for twelve or thirteen weeks' residence at his post: or rather for not residing there at all; after which he fell back on a pension of 1,600l. a year. It was but justice to a very unassuming individual, Colonel Campbell, who had performed five years' faithful service, and had always been at his post, to state that he had been superseded for the purpose of making room for other persons. After what had occurred, it might have been supposed that his Majesty's Government would shut the door against any further expense on this score. Not so. They started afresh with Mr. Chad. Mr. Chad was appointed to proceed to Bogota in 1828; and received 1,666l. for his outfit; and a delay taking place in his departure, he received 1,334l. more, making 3,040l. in 1828. In 1829 Mr. Chad received 2,062l. All this time he was residing in London. So that he received 5,100l. of the public money and never went at all. The third gentleman appointed was Mr. Turner. Mr. Turner, in 1829, received 2,500l. for his outfit; a third of his salary, amounting to 2,500l., the rent of a house in Colombia, although living in this country, and 528l. for his passage; making altogether 4,955l. for Mr. Turner in the year 1829. All this, be it observed, took place under the control of Lord Aberdeen and the other members of a government which affected to plume itself on economy. There was another item which it would be unfair to omit. It related to an individual who was an old friend of his, and whom he allowed it was a meritorious act on the part of Government to employ—he meant Mr. Henry Fox. And yet the manner in which that gentleman's appointment was managed rendered it a complete job. When he was appointed, in 1828, to go out to Buenos Ayres, he was at Naples, and received 1,500l. for an outfit. At the present moment he was in Italy, and not only had he received his salary in 1829, but had received an advance of 1,000l. For Lord Strangford's special mission to the Brazils there was a charge of 6,786l. The object of that mission remained unexplained. As far as could be judged from appearances, it was of a nature hostile to the liberties of Portugal. He would conclude by moving a reduction of the proposed vote, and the following were the specific grounds of that reduction:—

That was the sum which he should move to deduct from the proposed vote. He had stated the facts of this extravagant expenditure; but he was bound also to say, that if his Majesty's Government or the House fancied that the condition of the labouring classes in this country had so improved of late that it became no longer necessary to think of economy, they were in a most grievous error. It was true that the milder weather of the present season, and some improvements in particular branches of manufacture had somewhat lessened the distress of the people. But still, the rate of wages was such, and the prices of the necessaries of life were so enhanced by heavy taxation, by the operation of the Corn-laws, and by other circumstances, some of which were, perhaps, in- evitable, that the labouring classes were suffering the most grinding distress. Under these circumstances, they looked towards the proceedings of that House with the utmost anxiety. He was sometimes afraid of pursuing the course which he nevertheless felt it to be his duty to pursue. He was sometimes afraid of laying too bare and naked to the public view the abuses of the State, lest it should weaken the attachment of the people to the institutions of the country. But if all persuasion failed to induce his Majesty's Ministers to adopt rigid plans of economy, there was no alternative but to let the people distinctly see the practices of which they were the victims. The time for dallying was past; and he called on the House to mark, by the vote that evening, the sense which was generally entertained of the extravagant expenditure in question. Let the House recollect the circumstances of national difficulty and distress under which they had met, and the recommendations to economy in the Speech from the Throne. Yet they had passed the Army Estimates and the Navy Estimates, as proposed by Ministers, without the reduction of a single shilling; notwithstanding the numerous items which his hon. friend near him had pointed out as capable of being advantageously reduced. Not a reduction had been made, with one solitary exception, and that as paltry as the spirit which had rendered it necessary—he meant the reduction of the pensions that had been granted to the two sons of Cabinet Ministers. The honourable Baronet concluded, amidst loud cheers, with moving to reduce the proposed grant to 18,809l.

said, he had listened with considerable attention to the grounds on which the hon. Baronet proposed the reduction he had moved; but he confessed that he could not see why, because in the years 1825, 1826, 1827, and 1828, there might have been an expenditure exceeding what the hon. Baronet thought proper, that they should therefore make in 1830 an arbitrary reduction, such as the present. He would remind the House, that if there had been no reduction by the House of the Estimates proposed by his Majesty's Government, that might, in some degree at least, be attributed to the fact that the Estimates prepared by Government had fallen short of those of the preceding year by 1,100,000l.—a circumstance which had been hailed by several of the hon. Gentlemen opposite as beyond their expectation. It was not fair to cast a slur on Ministers for not being economical, when they had thus incontrovertibly proved their disposition to be so. They had been economical also, not by weakening the force of the country, but by a diligent examination of the expenditure in all the subordinate ramifications. He came now to the immediate question. Had there been shown any disposition to reduce this particular estimate or not? What were the facts? In 1826 the expenditure for diplomatic services was 459,500l.; and in 1829 it was only 366,000l.; being within 7,000l. of a reduction of 100,000l. Surely this was some indication of the attention which Government had paid to the subject. But did he say that Government was content with the reduction already made? Far from it. But our ministers were dispersed in various parts of the world, and reduction must be preceded by previous communications. The Government had shown its disposition, and that disposition was still in active operation. By the arrangements which Lord Aberdeen was making, he entertained great expectations that the expense of the diplomatic services of South America would be brought within the sum charged on the Civil List for the European missions. So much for the general estimate. He would now proceed to particular points. The hon. Baronet had begun with stating the expenditure of 1825 on the different missions to South America. He (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) admitted that they were large. No one could deny it who saw the accounts on the Table. But when first the South American States were called into existence, it was impossible accurately to estimate the expense of living in those countries. It was thought by Mr. Canning, when Mr. Ward was sent to Mexico, that as it was a kind of experimental mission, some latitude should be given to the individual engaged in it, by which Ministers might be subsequently enabled to ascertain the proper amount. If, however, the expenditure of that period were brought forward now as a proof that Government were not at present disposed to economy, it appeared to him to be a most inconclusive proceeding. The next point to which the hon. Baronet had alluded was, the appointment of Mr. Cockburn to a mission to Colombia. It was undoubtedly true, that during the three years of his appointment Mr. Cock-burn had resided in England for eight months. In justice, however, to Mr. Cock-burn, he must state the circumstances which had occasioned his absence from the country to which he had been deputed. Mr. Cockburn, having been appointed in the beginning of 1825, received for his outfit the usual sum of half his year's salary. He proceeded to South America, and arrived at the Caraccas. It was true that he did not go to Bogota, the capital; but he was sure the hon. Baronet must know the grounds on which his absence was to be accounted for. Not long after his arrival he attempted to proceed thither, but was prevented by a fever, which reduced him to a condition of such imbecility that he was carried on board ship in a state of complete insensibility, and it was thought by those who were personally interested in him, that it was not possible he could survive. He was conveyed to Jamaica, and thence to England. When he presented himself to Mr. Canning, such was his altered appearance, that Mr. Canning not only approved of his return, but prolonged his leave of absence. According to the hon. Baronet's opinion, because Mr. Cockburn was incapacitated by illness from fulfilling the duties of his office, he ought to have been deprived of his salary. Mr. On Cockburn's recovery, and on his return to South America, when he arrived at the Caraccas, he found Bolivar there. Being accredited to the country of which Bolivar was the President, it was certainly not very unjustifiable on his part to wait at the Caraccas with him, rather than to proceed up the country and wait for him at Bogota. From the Caraccas Mr. Cockburn proceeded to Carthagena with Bolivar, and there had, with that distinguished individual, various most important and useful communications—so important, that he thought he should best consult the public service by a personal communication of them to his own Government; and therefore, at the request of Bolivar, as well as on the suggestions of his own judgment, he returned from Carthagena to lay those communications before his Majesty's Ministers. It might or might not be that, in so doing, Mr. Cockburn judged erroneously; but the question for his Majesty's Government to consider was, whether the error was such as to entitle them to deprive him of the salary, to which, in the ordinary course of things, he was entitled up to the period of his arrival. The decision was, that there had not been the criminal misconduct which would justly subject him to any such mulct. He now came to the cases of Mr. Chad and Mr. Fox—As to the appointment of Mr. Chad, there was nothing in it in the slightest degree irregular; and it could not be denied that his salary did by no means exceed the expenses necessary in the situation which he held. In reply to the objection respecting his outfit, he had to observe, that an official functionary going out there, had not only to take with him mere matters of luxury, but, in fact, every article of the most common necessity; he therefore thought the House would agree with him, that the outfit in question did not exceed what it ought to have been. He fully agreed in all that had been said with respect to the character of Mr. Fox, and he thought that when his case was calmly and impartially considered, it would be admitted, that what had been done respecting him was not done, as had been alleged, with any view to promote party purposes. He was at the present moment on his passage to Buenos Ayres, and if he did not go thither on the instant of his appointment, it was because the disturbance which had then broken out at Buenos Ayres rendered it un-advisable. The House, he was persuaded, could not but feel that most of the objections raised to this vote were extremely ill-founded; the more especially as it did not exceed the votes of antecedent years.

said, that 27,421l. was the actual amount of the expenditure of last year.

said, that though that sum might be the whole of the money paid within the year, yet it was not the whole of the expense incurred. bills were drawn by the different functionaries, all of which did not happen to fall due within the year. The vote last year was 28,000l., and the estimate for the present was the same; and, in the next year, the whole expenditure would be paid out of the money granted in the Civil List.

would oppose any reduction of the reward granted to Mr. Cockburn for his valuable services. In consequence of the divided state of the government of Colombia, it was necessary to appoint some person whose prudence could be depended upon, to negociate with Bolivar respecting matters which concerned the interest both of this country and that Republic. Mr. Cockburn was selected to perform that delicate duty, and in consequence met Bolivar at the Caraccas, and inspired that General with so much confidence, that he considered Mr. Cockburn the most fitting person to whom to intrust that information which he wished to communicate to the British Government. He implored and conjured Mr. Cockburn, as the friend of Colombia, and the friend of his own country, to return to England, and give to the Government those explanations which he alone could give. Mr. Cockburn hesitated for some time, and even refused to comply with the request; but at length, after accompanying Bolivar to Carthagena, returned to England. Under those circumstances, he (Sir R. Wilson) thought that Mr. Cockburn had done nothing but his duty, taking upon himself a responsibility which no civil or military servant ought to refuse to incur in the service of his country. He therefore considered that it would be most unjust and ungenerous in that House to reduce Mr. Cockburn's income, as a punishment for his return to this country.

said, that notwithstanding the gallant Officer had risen to defend Government—

loudly denied that he rose for the purpose of defending the Government. He had only volunteered to speak the truth, and that which was just,—a course which he should pursue to the last moment of his existence.

had no wish to assign a false motive for the gallant Officer's conduct, but he asked the gallant Officer whether, in defending his friend (for such he presumed Mr. Cockburn to be) he had not strenuously supported the arguments of the right hon. Gentleman opposite. However, the statement of the hon. member for Cumberland (Sir James Graham) still remained unshaken, and Mr. Cock-burn's salary could not be called any thing but monstrous and extravagant. He had never heard a more inefficient defence than that which the right hon. Gentleman opposite had attempted to set up. The extravagance of the items was monstrous. Mr. Ward received, to defray his travelling expenses from London to Vera Cruz, no less than 1,700l. a sum sufficient to have taken him round the world; and Mr. Cockburn 600l. for house-rent in Caraccas for three weeks. He could not agree in the gallant Officer's view of the propriety of Mr. Cockburn's departure from Colombia. From the disturbed state of the country, it might have been expected that events of the most serious importance would take place, and that his absence would prove highly detrimental to the interests of this country. The gallant Officer complained of the injustice of mulcting Mr. Cockburn; but did not Lord Dudley, who was well acquainted with all the facts of the case, mulct that gentleman? But Mr. Cockburn's case was not the only one respecting which the Government ought to be censured for extravagance. It appeared by the paper on the Table, that the hon. Robert Gordon received a whole year's salary as minister to the Brazils while he was detained more than the half of that year in London. In conclusion, he regretted that the hon. Baronet had not brought the Consular Department under the notice of the House. The subject was one which required the serious inquiry of a committee, and the conduct of the Minister through whom such malversation had taken place ought to be investigated.

An hon. Member thought, that Mr. Chad having been detained in England in consequence of the disturbed state of Colombia, it would have been unjust to have made him pay his own expenses in London without remuneration, especially when his salary there was only half of that to which he was entitled on going abroad.

said, the Government professed economy, and in almost every instance disappointed the expectations which those professions excited. The Amendment of his hon. friend, the member for Cumberland, ought to be agreed to, were it only for the purpose of showing that the House disapproved of the conduct of his Majesty's Government. He held in his hand a memorandum made last year, to which he should presently call attention, but first he must be allowed to observe, that nothing could be more preposterous than the expense to which the country was put on account of our diplomatic missions. In a comparison with the American ministers, our ministers had very little to boast of, and they cost their country infinitely more. The memorandum made last year of the expectations held out from the other side of the House was in these words—"that measures were in preparation by which it was expected that in the ensuing Session considerable reductions would be made in this department." Now, instead of a reduction, there was an increase; and he wished to know how that was to he met but by a refusal of the supplies? If the House would but just pay a little attention to the papers, they would see what all this boasted economy of the Chancellor of the Exchequer came to. In 1828 the sum in this department was 445,000l. In 1829 it was put down at 407,000., and for the last year it was fixed at 366,000l., forming an apparent reduction of 40,000l. But the fair way of examining it was to see what the average of the years from 1788 to 1793 was. The expenses in this branch, at that period, were 113,000l. Even in 1816 they only amounted to 226,000l., which, though too much, was greatly less than the amount charged of late years. The point to which he wished to direct the attention of the House was this:—His Majesty's Ministers had promised reduction; no reduction was made, and any expectation that it would be made, unless insisted on by the House, was perfectly hopeless.

said, there was no man more sensible than he was of the necessity of attending to economy, and of reducing as much as possible the expenditure of the country; and, under the influence of that impression, and bearing in mind the distressed state of the country, he had voted for a modification of the Address to the Crown the first night of the Session, But though the House was bound to pay the strictest attention to a question of this nature, yet he could not avoid saying, that economising might be carried too far; he rather recommended the House to look forward to future reductions in other years, than interfere with the existing arrangements. The effort to get everything performed at the lowest possible price, without due attention to the manner in which the duties might be performed, reminded him of an anecdote of a man who expressed considerable surprise on hearing the price of a very valuable picture, that that quantity of paint and canvass could cost so much money, ignorant of the years of toil, and the many rare acquirements necessary to the artist of a great work. He hoped he might be allowed to apply this to the present case; he begged, however, to assure the House, that in doing so he always wished to see the public service performed upon as cheap terms as possible, and to see reduction carried as far as it possibly could. He thought that it was in the minor appointments, rather than in those of ambassadors, that the retrenchments might most judiciously be made. In Naples, Denmark, Sweden, and Norway, where there were maritime interests to support, it might be very well to have ministers; but there were other places where the general opinion was, that there was no necessity for a representative of this country. Tuscany was one of those instances; though the noble Lord himself, who occupied that station, had uniformly succeeded in conciliating the esteem and regard of all who came in contact with him. In Germany, also, he conceived that there was room for retrenchment. Bavaria, Saxony, and Wurtemberg were places of so small importance, that he thought this country would be sufficiently represented in all those places by keeping a minister at Frankfort. From the assurances that had been given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, he trusted that another year would not be suffered to pass away without retrenchment taking place, such as would prove satisfactory to the House of Commons. From what he had heard stated, he thought that a satisfactory answer had been given to the most [important allegations of the hon. Baronet. He was certainly most unwilling to believe that his late lamented relative (Mr. Canning), when at the head of the Foreign Department, would have authorised any improper expenditure. The first expenses that had taken place with respect to South America were all experimental; and necessarily so, for it was impossible to calculate what those expenses would be; of course a great portion of them was obliged to be left to the honour of those employed in the service; and, unless there were particular circumstances to attract his attention, the Secretary of State could not look into the charges with that minuteness which he would in cases where the salary was fixed. He would conclude by impressing on the Government and the House the necessity that there was for carrying retrenchment into execution, not only in that branch, but in every other branch of the public service, though on the other side, due care was to be taken that every facility was afforded to the discharge of their important functions.

said, he had no doubt that the House would be extremely happy to avail itself of the right hon. Gentleman's information when the European missions came under consideration; but at present the observations of the right hon. Gentleman were hardly applicable to the subject more immediately before the House. To the objections that had been taken to the present vote, it appeared to him that no answer had been given; and the case of Mr. Gordon was one that most particularly called for explanation; he certainly thought that a Cabinet Minister ought to be so good as to explain why 5,500l had been paid to that gentleman for doing little more than nothing. He did not wish to deny or depreciate the services of that gentleman, but they were all aware of his connections, and he was astonished that a sense of decency and decorum had not prevented the taking of such a step. He should have thought that, under the circumstances, they would rather have been disposed to cut away the salaries of relations than thus obtrude them upon the country. He did not mean to say that gentlemen, because they were the brothers of Secretaries of State for the Foreign Department, were to be deprived of their just meed of reward; but when there was any doubt in the case, he thought delicacy ought to be allowed to have some little weight, and that those who of course followed politics for honour, and not for profit, ought to tell their brothers that such uncalled-for pensions could not be allowed. With respect to South America, he was one of those that wished that every encouragement should be given to its rising Republics, and God knew that we had done little enough for the cause of liberty; and therefore, he had no desire to check any countenance being afforded to those States. But at the same time there was a medium to be observed; and they were not to be told every day, that because something was going to be done, there was to be an unlimited call upon the public purse. As to this being a personal attack, such an idea was quite out of the question; on the contrary, instead of persons of such connections holding these situations, he should be much better pleased if it were Tom, or Dick, or Harry, whom nobody knew, because they might then be able to attack and expose such poor devils without being alarmed as to what friends it might summon to the field. He was not accus- tomed to meddle with these matters, but certainly, on turning over the papers, he had been struck with this as a most monstrous sum; and that it was a case incapable of defence appeared from no one on the other side getting up to defend it. That reduction to a certain extent had taken place was true, and no one would pretend to deny it; but at the same time no one could conscientiously deny that it was nothing to what ought to have taken place. They were not there to revoke what had been paid to Mr. Gordon or to Mr. any one else. The money was gone, and therefore, past praying for. But they were there to try to persuade Parliament not to trust too much to the representations of Ministers. It was no personal object that they had in view; all that they were attacking was the system—a system of confidence which had been too often shown, and on which the House of Commons ought never to proceed. He was ready to admit that gentlemen sent from England to represent it in foreign countries were not exactly in the same situation as the ambassadors of other countries. Such a system might be wrong, but it had long been in practice. But that system might be carried too far; and when a gentleman was sent to the Brazils, and it turned out that, instead of being there, he was here, he thought that it was impossible for the House of Commons to allow such a vote to pass till something like a security had been given, that there should be no recurrence of what had happened in this instance.

explained to the hon. Gentleman that he was under a mistake when he said that Mr. Gordon had been in this country all the time. The fact was, that from the time of his accepting the appointment, he either was in the Brazils, or on the sea on his journey, until September. From September to January, 1829, it was true that he was in this country; but during that period, though he was still engaged in business connected with his appointment, he only received half his regular salary; and in January, 1829, his salary ceased altogether, though it was not till April in that year that he had ceased to be employed in the affairs of his office.

observed, that shortly after he became a Member of that House, he recollected Mr. Canning stating, that he felt it to be his duty to enter on a series of experimental diplomacies to ascertain what relations could be established between this country and South America. He at the same time stated, that it was impracticable for him to define what the nature or extent of those diplomacies might be; but he did state, that as the necessaries of life were much enhanced in value in those countries, it would be necessary to make allowance for that circumstance. It was with this view that we entered upon the course then proposed. The new States of South America standing chiefly in need of maritime support, they naturally turned their attention to England and America; and while England felt that it would be desirable to find in those States a market for her exports, she could not help seeing that in America she had a dangerous rival. The right hon. Gentleman had at a former period stated, that the exports from this country to South America amounted to nine millions annually. Either this was true, or it was not; and on this chiefly would depend the question for the consideration of Parliament, whether our relations with those States ought still to be maintained; and if the decision was in favour of their being maintained, he hoped that the Committee would not cut down the estimates, as had been proposed by the hon. Gentlemen on the other side.

said, that the question was, not whether they should cut down the missions to South America, but whether they were to keep gentlemen nominally there, but really at home, or else on the high seas, pleasantly voyaging between England and America, but doing no duty at all. He could hardly be persuaded that Government would refuse to consent to the Amendment of the hon. Baronet, without further reasons being given for that refusal. The right hon. Gentleman had rested upon the Estimates of last year; but his hon. friend had taken a leaf from his own book, and in the reductions he had proposed to make, he had cut off nothing useful or serviceable, but only such things as were encouraging a profligate and shameful expenditure. He agreed with the hon. member for Westminster, that there was no desire to attack individuals; on the contrary, he thought that those very individuals had no less right to complain than the public, for they had a right to complain—of being kept in London, and receiving a salary for doing nothing. The mere amount of money wasted in outfits was enormous; from the documents it appeared, that the charge in four years had been no less than 7,166l. It might be very true that Mr. Cockburn's health was such as to preclude his residence in South America, and that there were very sufficient reasons for not sending Mr. Chad or Mr. Turner there, but all that could be said, if this were the case, was, that there had been a great want of care on the part of Government in not managing their appointments so as to avoid the expense of three outfits I before one person was really sent out to undertake the duty. In the case of Consuls, the arrangement was, that if they were absent from their posts, a reduction from their salary was made for the support of a deputy. Even in the case of Mr. Ricketts, whom ill health prevented from attending to his duty, 900l. a year was deducted for a deputy. But no such thing was the case with Mr. Cockburn; and yet this gentleman had his deputy too. Altogether his Chargé d'Affaires had received at the rate of 1,885l. a year; and on the whole it appeared, that the enormous sum of 17,779l. had been paid by the public, for which Mr. Cockburn had only discharged a few weeks of actual service.

wished to say a few words to the Committee before they decided upon the Amendment. In reference to what had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir Stratford Canning), he must say that his respect for the talents and character of that right hon. Gentleman would induce him to give every consideration to his opinions. He had spoken of the conduct of his late right hon. relative as was natural and becoming. What however was the conduct of that right hon. Gentleman; what was the course the late Mr. Canning pursued when an exception was taken to an expenditure of the description under the consideration of the Committee? Why, he at once said, "I am desirous to have a committee of the House of Commons to examine into the subject minutely, and I shall at once submit every item of the accounts." How marked was the difference between the conduct of the present Ministry, and that of Mr. Canning, who, although not boasting of economy as loudly as those now in power, with the noble and gallant spirit that distinguished him, stood forth at once the advocate of full and free inquiry, instead of preventing explanation, and taking every opportunity of suppressing information, It had been said that he had un- fairly stated the case of Mr. Cockburn. He referred to that case as an illustration, because Mr. Cockburn ceased his functions in 1828, in order to prove the necessity of the reduction he had proposed. His hon. and gallant friend was angry at the imputation; he seemed to think that a reflection had been cast upon this gentleman's character; but he could assure his hon. and gallant friend, that he was ignorant of the circumstance of Mr. Cockburn's illness. As to what had been said by the right hon. Gentleman opposite (the Chancellor of the Exchequer), his own recollection was distinct upon the point, and it entirely agreed with what had been stated by his hon. friend, the member for Aberdeen. Last year such a pledge as that he mentioned, was given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer; yet the right hon. Gentleman now coolly came forward, and asked for a grant even larger than that of last year by the sum of 570l. As to Mr. Cockburn, it seemed to be implied that he must have known that he was unwell; but he would repeat, that he had no such knowledge, and indeed, he was persuaded that both the House and his hon. and gallant friend knew him too well to imagine that he would propose that a public officer should be deprived of his salary when it pleased the Almighty to deprive him of his health. He had stated what he thought, namely, that it was rather too much to give 6,000l. a year to a gentleman, for doing nothing, besides 600l. for a house which he did not occupy. He did not ask the House to adopt any measure relative to the extravagance of the last year; all he wished was, that such extravagance might not be continued. The specific ground of the reduction he sought for was this—that in 1829, there was an expenditure of 9,191l., which would not be necessary in 1830, unless similar events should occur, or unless there was a determination to allow abuses to continue. First, there was the sum for Lord Strangford, 4,050l., then there was Mr. Chad's outfit in 1829, 2,062l., which, unless the South American ambassadors were to be kept in London without doing any duty, would not occur again this year. Next came the outfit for Mr. Turner, 2,500l., and the excess of the estimate, 579l., over that of last year, making in the whole the sum he had before mentioned of 9,191l. These were the grounds of his proposition. He did not wish to cast any reflections, but he called upon the House to decide whether the Commons were not bound, under the present circumstances of the country, to prevent all unnecessary expenses, whenever it was in their power to do so.

The Committee then divided—For the Amendment 99; Against it 118—Majority 19.

said, he had an Amendment to propose to the Bill, which was the same as that he had proposed in the Committee. He was not aware that the first question that night would be for the third reading of the Bill; he conceived that the motion would be for the bringing up of the Report; and he intended then to move his amendments, but he must now introduce them in another shape—that of a rider to the Bill. The first clause he meant to propose to add, would be the same as he had proposed in the Committee. He intended by that proposition to repeal the penalty of death for all cases of Forgery, except the case of forging wills, which he retained against his own inclination, making a sacrifice of his own opinion, out of deference to the opinions of a great many Members, who observed, accurately enough, that there was some peculiarity in the crime. He should propose, then, to repeal the capital punishment in all cases of Forgery, except the case he had mentioned, which was distinguished from others. In place of this punishment he meant to give a power to every court before which a person was convicted of forgery, to sentence that person to imprisonment, with or without hard labour, for any period not exceeding fourteen years. The same court should also have a power to substitute for imprisonment, banishment to any penal colony, also for a term not exceeding fourteen years. He should propose also that the court should not only have the power to inflict either of these punishments, but to accumulate them both, when the enormity of the offence should, in its opinion, justify such an accumulation of punishment. He should also propose to vest a power in the Crown, to make a regulation for the treatment of persons transported for Forgery, so that the crime might be marked as one of the greatest enormity and danger, ranking next after the crimes of personal violence. He should wish, in addition, to take away the power which was possessed by the Governors of our penal colonies, at least by the Governor of New South Wales, of mitigating in cases of forgery, the punishment inflicted for that offence. He proposed this in order that persons of education, such as those who generally com- mitted forgery, and who being very often persons, on account of that education, useful for public situations in a colony, might not escape the punishment to which they were condemned. He meant to take away the power of remitting or relaxing the punishment of persons convicted of forgery, except it was obtained through representations to his Majesty. He did not intend to infringe on the prerogative of the Crown, but short of its exercise no remission of punishment should be granted to persons convicted of forgery. These were the objects of the clauses he meant to propose. He should be prepared to bring up these clauses in a few minutes, and the first Amendment he should move would be in the first paragraph of page three, line seven, to the words "and shall suffer the punishment of death," to be left out. He would then, as the clauses on account of being engrossed could not be immediately brought up, formally propose that a clause for taking away the punishment of death in all cases of forgery, except that of forging wills be added.

rose to second the Motion. He did not mean, he said, then to enter into all the arguments that might be urged on the general question; he should apply his observations to remove the strong impression which had been made on the House on a former evening, by the speech of the right hon. Baronet. As that speech did not relate to party politics, and as it had been said that the subject was not discussed as a party measure, he trusted that his remarks would not be looked on as dictated by the least spirit of hostility. The facts on which the right hon. Baronet had laid the most stress—though he thought that right hon. Baronet in error—but the facts on which he had laid the most stress, and which made the greatest impression on the House on the last debate, were the enormous amount of the transactions of the London bankers, and the few cases of Forgery which occurred in them. The right hon. Baronet stated, that through the Clearinghouse, during four days in March, no less than ten millions of money passed. The right hon. Baronet also stated, in conjunction with the enormous amount of business, that there were only four cases of Forgery prosecuted by the London bankers last year. Coupling this great amount of money transactions with the few prosecu- tions, he argued that the system worked well; that property was, in fact, protected, and the crime of Forgery prevented, by the severity of the law. The right hon. Baronet was not aware, he was sure, when he made this statement of the facts of the case, that this enormous sum of ten millions sterling all consisted of bankers' cheques, which were not liable to forgery, and which he might say it was almost impossible to forge. The House would see that this must be so the instant he mentioned it. In the City, it was well known, that the cheques of the bankers, exchanged at the Clearing-house, were not subject to this species of fraud. These cheques were generally drawn by some well-known persons, and the bankers on whom they were drawn did not pay them till the following day. In the first place, then, there was no chance of forgery, because the property passed through the Clearing-house consisted of cheques on bankers. In the next place, they were drawn generally by well-known persons; and in the third place, the amount of them was not paid till the following day. There was time to inquire into the validity of cheques before they were exchanged at the Clearing-house, and forgeries of them when they occurred, which was very rare, were always detected before the cheques went to the Clearinghouse. But to remove all doubts on this head, he would read a letter which he had received from a person who, it would be admitted by all who knew him, was well qualified to give a correct opinion. It was signed Wm. Thomas, who was a well known bill-broker in Lombard-street. The writer stated, that he had been for the last thirty-nine years employed in the banking business; for twenty years he had been clerk in a banking-house, and for twelve years he had been Inspector of the Clearing-house. He stated, that while he was in these two situations he had never known a forged check paid in at the Clearinghouse, and in his opinion it was not possible that the bankers should suffer from any forgery passed through the Clearinghouse. At the Clearing-house, then, it was not possible that there should be any forgery. It was admitted by intelligent bankers, that they did not depend on the severity of the law, but on the means they employed of their own, for protection against forgery. Some bankers in Lombard-street would prosecute, and others would not; and it was a curious fact, which was well known, that the chief forgeries had taken place on those who would prosecute. The one class, relying on the severity of the law, do not take any means to protect themselves—the other class, knowing that the severity of the law is no protection, take means to defend their property against forgery. There was another curious fact he would mention. One banker had the courage to be examined before the committee to inquire into the Criminal Law, and he stated in evidence, that he would in no case prosecute for forgery. He felt that this was opening the door to fraud, and he was apprehensive that the banker would suffer from his statement. Ten years after giving this evidence, he had asked him if he had suffered from the evidence he had given? The answer was, that he had not met with one case of forgery, and had not paid one forged cheque. He considered himself out of the pale of the law, and had taken precautions sufficient to defend his property from the attacks of the forgers. Another fact on which the right hon. Baronet had laid great stress, was the great amount of business transacted by the Bank of England. He had spoken of the great sums it had in circulation, amounting to upwards of 25,000,000., and of the vast number of accounts kept there, and he had added, that during the present year there had been only two forgeries committed on that great corporation. He did not at all doubt the fact—that he was ready to admit—but he could not agree to the inference the right hon. Baronet had drawn. He had stated this vast amount of property in conjunction with few cases of crime, to prove that the operation of the law was beneficial, and that this obvious protection of property was caused by the severity of the law. If it were admitted that the severity of the law operated to produce this protection, the argument would be successful. If it could be shown that the rarity of prosecutions arose from other circumstances, this argument would fall to the ground. If the severity of the law in its operation had brought about this result, that severity must have had the same operation at all times. It should have had the same effect ten years ago as now. Since that time the small notes have been withdrawn from circulation. What was the effect of the severity of the law when they were in circulation? Not only did it not prevent the commission of forgery, but that crime was committed almost with impunity. There were some curious facts, however, on this subject, which were well known, and were deserving of the attention of the House. During the year 1817, there were no less than 31,180 forged Bank-notes presented at the Bank of England; 31,180 capital crimes were committed, and committed, in a great measure, with impunity. That statement shewed, then, that the Bank of England was protected, not by the severity of the law, but by the withdrawal of the 1l. and 2l. Bank-notes. Another curious circumstance which this illustrated was the chance of escape, In general this could be only vaguely stated, and could not be determined with any precision; but in this case the circumstances were known. He would state the facts. The number of capital crimes was then 31,180. Of these 142 were prosecuted, 60 convicted, and 14 executed; showing that it was 200 to 1 that the crime would not be prosecuted, 500 to 1 that it would not be convicted, and 2,000 to 1 that the person who committed it would not be executed. This example shewed that the severity of the law produced immunity, and encouraged the commission of the crime. There was another fact which he would bring before the House, which was, in his mind, more conclusive, and had been sufficient to banish doubt from his mind, whenever anything had happened to unsettle his judgment, and convinced him that capital punishment was not necessary. What was the point at issue? The argument urged in favour of capital punishment was, that it protected property by its extreme severity. He would banish from his mind all notion of the unfitness of the punishment, and of its disproportion to the offence. He would say nothing of the right of the Legislature to inflict death, though he must own it was a point on which he felt strongly, he agreeing with the language of the petition he had presented, which said "that the Creator, the Lord and Giver of Life, had not given to any Monarch or Legislature, however legitimate, wise, or powerful, the right to exercise unlimited discretion, and inflict the punishment of death for every offence it might think fit." He did not intend to appeal to any feelings, to any sentiments, he would grant for the sake of argument that property must be protected at the expense of justice and compassion and at all hazards. Putting out of view the precepts of humanity and religion, he would put the question at issue on the fact, whether the extreme rigour of the law had the effect of repressing crime and protecting property? There were some facts to which he would call the attention of the House. A few years ago the Legislature had acted at the same time in two opposite directions. In the one case it had made a crime which had before been punished with fine and imprisonment a capital felony; in the other, a crime that was before punishable with death, was, about the same time, ordered to be only punished with transportation. He meant to call on the House to consider the consequence of these changes. The one case was for the protection of the Excise. By some omission or other of the Legislature, the forging of stamps under the Excise-laws was only subject to fine and imprisonment; and when that omission was discovered, it was made punishable with death. What was the effect? Mr. Carr the Solicitor to the Excise, was examined before the Committee of 1819, and he was asked what had been the result of the alteration, and if the measure had answered expectations? The reply was "No, we were better off as we were before; the increased rigour of the law has been a change for the worse. We were better protected by the former lenity than by the present rigour; and fraudulent practices against the Revenue have increased." The other case was the law relating to bleaching grounds. In many cases, where the severity of the punishment had been remitted, the frequency of the crime had fallen off in a proportion to that remission. In the case of the linen bleachers of the North of Ireland that effect was most remarkable. The linen bleachers, suffering from a long course of depredations, applied to the Legislature for a diminution of the punishment inflicted on those guilty of stealing in bleach-ing-grounds. The Legislature gave them the boon they required; and what was the consequence? Why, that the crime had not increased, and that the number of convictions had increased. He had received but the other day a communication from a gentleman in one of the counties of Ulster, which placed this fact in a remarkable point of view. That gentleman took two periods of years from 1820 to 1829. In the first five years, when the punishment was death, there were sixty-one commitments for offence. In the next four, when the punishment was transportation, there were thirty-seven commitments. The right hon. Baronet (Sir R. Peel) seemed, with some justice, to consider the convictions as a better criterion in these cases than the commitments. Now the return to that subject was more curious still. Of the sixty-one commitments there were only three convictions; of the thirty-seven commitments there were seventeen convictions, making just one-half the proportion of the convictions to the commitments, when people were brought to prosecute in the certainty that the capital part of the punishment would not be inflicted. He thought this decisive of the preference of a mild to a severe punishment; and the only question was, why it could be contended that the Bankers were not entitled to the same favour as that extended to the other classes of the community. The petition of the Bankers of England had been already read to the House; but this petition, signed by 1,000 bankers, was so important, that he could not refrain from quoting a passage of it:—"Your petitioners find by experience, that the penalty of death prevents the punishment of crime, and injures the property it was intended to protect." The hon. Member then stated, that he had received a variety of letters from bankers throughout the country, which he had intended to read, but they were too numerous. All complained that the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir R. Peel) had not gone far enough; that he could not be acquainted with the situation of bankers in the country; that forgeries were committed on them with impunity, for those who were forged upon would not prosecute; whereas, if the penalty were less than death, no consideration of trouble, of expense, or of inconvenience, would prevent them from prosecuting to conviction. One of them said, "I know of innumerable cases in which parties have refused to prosecute," so that nothing surprised him (Mr. Buxton) more than to see, notwithstanding this repugnance, the number of prosecutions. Many of the parties to whom he referred complained of the language he had used on a former occasion, and that he had appeared to give his approbation to the course which had been pursued by the right hon. Secretary. He had certainly given that support be- cause he felt that it was deserved. The right hon. Gentleman had been a very active reformer of the criminal law, and had cleared our Statute-book of a mass of ancient rubbish. In one of his speeches, the right hon. Gentleman had described our criminal law as the most sanguinary in the world; and he had observed, "I have been the instrument in many cases of mitigating the severity of the law, and I can assure the House that in no instance has any obstruction to justice arisen from such mitigation." He was now obliged to admit that the right hon. Gentleman's speech and his bill were at variance, as appeared evident to himself, for he had made an apology for not going further, by saying that the public were not yet ripe for the improvement. But the public were now fully ripe; the bankers had come forward and said, "Give us the protection which would result from a milder law." Then he hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would consent to the reformation of his own bill, and would raise it to what he (Mr. Buxton) believed to be his own principle, as well as to what had been asked by the bankers of the country.

was acquainted with many bankers, and had received many letters, all agreeing in the sentiments contained in the letters referred to by the hon. Member (Mr. Buxton). There was one case of a banker who had been often forged upon, and he had paid the bills out of his own pocket rather than suffer the offenders to be prosecuted. In another case, a banker had been forged upon twenty or thirty times, by the same individual, but inconsequence of the severity of the law, he had refused to take any measures against him. There never was a case more completely made out than that of the unwillingness of the public that this severe law should continue in force. The feeling had been entirely on one side, for whilst the Table had been loaded with petitions against the continuance of the existing law, not a single petition had been presented in its favour. The expression had not been confined to any particular class; it had proceeded from every class; and if hon. Members would take a map of England, he would defy them to put their finger upon any place from which a petition had not come. The public feeling was even stronger than had been expressed. Many persons engaged in trade had abstained from avowing their sentiments, for fear that the knowledge of their unwillingness to prosecute would leave their property without any protection. An attorney in the country had informed him, that he had several clients who had been forged upon, who refused to prosecute; but they declined appearing as petitioners to the House, lest they might expose their property to depredation. With respect to the Bill, headmitted that it had some merit as being a good digest of the law of forgery; but as a practical mitigation of the law, it was of no value whatever. It was only necessary to look into other countries—France, for instance: hardly any instance took place there of the punishment of death for such a crime. Let a forged Bank of England note be passed in France, the utmost punishment would be branding and the galleys for five years. But if a forged note of France be uttered here, we put the criminal to death. Might it not be better to try the system of the latter country? Forgery was only a species of robbery, and to punish it with such severity was to confound the distinctions of guilt. The doctrine he held was no novelty; it was inculcated in one of our oldest Statutes—a Statute of Henry 8th. Some allusion had been made on a former night to the expense of prosecutions. Let the right hon. Gentleman appoint a public prosecutor, or adopt any other expedient to obviate the evil; but unless it were accompanied by some mitigation of the criminal law, his reform would not be effectual.

began by complaining that the hon. member for Weymouth had strained facts and drawn exaggerated conclusions not warranted by the facts. Every man, both in the House and out of it, must be so anxious not to impose the slightest unnecessary punishment, that it seemed invidious for a person to advocate the continuance of the law as it stood. It might be imagined that his right hon. friend had proposed to extend the punishment of forgery instead of diminishing it. If he had come down and taken away the capital punishment for any such offence, that would have been treated as a great boon; but as the Bill was a consolidation of the laws regarding forgery, it seemed to be regarded as an increase of the punishment. But he would call the attention of the House to one clause in the Bill, which abolished capital punishment for forging deeds. He thought that a dangerous alteration; but his right hon. friend thought otherwise, and had inserted the clause. In advocating the law as it stood, he had the satisfaction of thinking that he was contributing to deter persons from the commission of crime, and doing what was just and right, in protecting the property of those on whom forgery was committed. The Legislature ought not to reserve all its tenderness for the offender; some should be shown towards those who suffered from his crime. The number and description of persons who committed the offence went a long way to justify the law. These persons were always men of education, and they calculated on the probability of escaping with impunity. They were generally persons deeply in the confidence, and familiar with the habits of business and mode of writing of those on whom they forged. Looking, therefore, at the description of persons who committed the offence, and at the means and opportunities they had of committing it, if the punishment of death were justifiable by the laws of God and man, it was justifiable in reference to this crime. Some of those who opposed the application of this punishment to forgery, were opposed to capital punishment altogether. There could be no doubt that that respectable body, the Quakers, had set their mind upon doing away with the penalty of death for forgery; but they were also prepared for abolishing it as the punishment for every other offence. Was the country prepared for this? Was it prepared to bring our criminal code down to the level of the opinions of that respectable body? Because they had prejudices upon this point, were the people therefore to have this protection taken from them? As to the petitions being all on one side, the reason was, that all the activity had been on one side, and none on the other. All this activity had arisen from the Quakers; but the opinions held by that respectable body on this subject he could not hold. He must say, that he thought the appalling punishment of death, executed as it was with so much ignominy in the public streets, where criminals were suspended before a gazing populace, was greatly calculated to deter men from the commission of crime. He had not, however, understood his right hon. friend to bind himself not to extend the lesser punishment to other cases than were included in this Bill; all he had understood his right hon. friend to say was, that they must proceed with caution. He saw no secondary punishment which could be expected to act so strongly for the prevention of crime as the greater punishment. His hon. and learned friend opposite (Mr. Brougham) had said, that out of 117 convictions, the punishment of death had been inflicted only in twenty-four cases; but he did not think that the argument his learned friend had drawn from this was a legitimate one; for although the secondary punishment was here inflicted upon so many, and the capital punishment on so few, yet the terror of the greater punishment hung over all. He did not think that, although the chances might be nine or ten to one against a man being hanged, the man would have the less terror of that punishment. It was the greatest of all punishments, and the uncertainty attending the infliction of it did not lessen the fear of it, much less could the chances of nine or ten to one have that effect. From the conduct of the present Government there ought to result the greatest confidence that the utmost penalty of the law would only be carried into effect in cases which required it. If they took a secondary punishment, it must be the maximum of punishment, and then they would find it necessary to relax again; for few men would agree that, in every case, the maximum of punishment, whatever that maximum might be, should be inflicted. They had now secondary punishments for cases which required such punishments, and they had also the penalty of death for extreme cases. If they were to mitigate the law, as now proposed, they would still have to contend with public sympathy, and as there were al-, ready persons too conscientious to prosecute, because the penalty of the offence might be death, so they would have others refuse to prosecute because the punishment might still be greater than, in their opinion, the offence deserved. For his own part, he should not now, and much less if the punishment were mitigated, have any hesitation in prosecuting for such an offence; yet they had seen that others were actuated by a different feeling. Such were the Quakers, and other conscientious persons, who could not bring themselves to prosecute for cases to which the penalty of death was attached; but, as he had before observed, it was impossible to tell how far the scruples of personsmight be carried, even though other punishments should be substituted for that of death.

said, that on a former occasion the right hon. Secretary had declared this to be no party or political question, and had assured them that he did not consider it to be a question on which the supporters of Government were expected to vote in favour of the Bill. If this assurance were sincerely given, he must say that the decision of the former evening was a matter of astonishment to him, for he thought the question must have prevailed if it had been left to stand or fall by its own merits. To-night, however, that assurance would be put to the test; and if the question were lost, he confessed that he should find it very difficult to believe that ministerial influence had not contributed to the defeat. In advocating the mitigation of this part of our criminal code, he begged leave to say, that he proceeded not upon considerations of humanity, and that he did not participate in that conscientious feeling which prevented some persons from consenting to the infliction of the punishment of death. But while he disclaimed this compassionate sentimentality, allow him to say, that it was far more creditable than the vindictive sentimentality of the learned Solicitor General, who had condemned even some of the mitigations of punishment contained in the Bill of the right hon. Secretary. He admitted that, for certain cases of forgery, involving breach of trust, and the ruin of widows and orphans, no punishment was too severe. They might deserve roasting at a slow fire, but such individual cases ought not to determine the Legislature to make a general law; neither would it be right with compassionating sentimentality to follow the criminal into the condemned cell, and see him horror-stricken at the fate which awaited him. That would be as improper a basis for Legislation, as pointing to an individual who had beggared numerous families, and defrauded all who trusted him. The vote he should that night give would be founded on no such grounds, but upon the conviction, that if they meant the law to be executed, they must mitigate the severity of it. They could not punish forgery with death, and it was vain for them to flatter themselves that they could. They might bring in a paper called a bill; they might read it three times; they might send it up to the Lords, who might agree to it, and read it three times also; it might receive the Royal assent; it might be sent to the King's printer, and be placed among the rest of the Statutes—and then they might say that they had made a law which would punish forgery by death. But if they said so, they deceived themselves,—for they would only have added another to the number of those pages in our Statute-book which were the scorn of criminals, and the disgust of sober men—mere abortions of laws, which were dead before they were born. To make it a law they must get it acted upon; but this, it had been seen, was beyond their power. In the first place, men would not prosecute. It had been said, that the Bank of England always prosecuted, and doubtless that was true; but then the Bank was a corporation, and Lord Coke told them that a corporation had no soul. The question was, would individual members of society prosecute? Experience had shewn that they would not. The right hon. Secretary, indeed, had said that the Bank prosecutions were a fair measure of the number of prosecutions generally; but as it appeared to him, the contrary was true; for the Bank prosecuted in every case, and for this very reason, therefore, its prosecutions could not be taken as a fair measure of the whole. The right hon. Secretary had admitted that a disinclination to prosecute did exist, and while the right hon. Gentleman gave to some the credit of acting upon conscientious feelings, he said that many were hypocrites, and that they made their consciences a stalking-horse to cover their real motives, which were to save the expenses of a prosecution. Now this, instead of being an argument against the mitigation of punishment, appeared to him to constitute of itself one of the great abuses of the present system; it gave people an excuse which was universally admitted to be good in the case of forgery, but which would be at once laughed at if it were put forward in cases of arson or murder; and if there were as much of this counterfeit coin abroad as the right hon. Gentleman supposed there was, it was a proof that much sterling Currency must exist, or the former could never circulate. But, suppose they got a prosecutor, then the case went before the Grand Jury, where bills, though supported by the clearest evidence, were constantly thrown out. It was only the other day that Mr. Hobler said this repeatedly occurred. However, let the Grand Jury find a true bill, then it went down to Court with the names of reluctant witnesses on its back, and what reception it met with in its next stage he need hardly remind the House. By the last papers connected with this subject which had been laid upon the Table, it appeared that during the nine years, ending 1828, there had been 708 persons committed on the capital charge of forgery, and that, out of these, no less than 334 had got off before the Grand Jury; while, out of 558 who had been committed on the minor charge, not capital, only fifty-seven had got off before the Grand Jury. The learned Solicitor General told them that, with regard to the punishment of death, the diminution of the chances did not diminish the fear; but allow him to tell the learned Gentleman, that the chance even of death might be reduced so low that the fear of death would have very little weight. Besides, men saw these chances differently; for instance, there was scarcely a gentleman in Westminster-hall who would refuse to go out as a judge to Bombay, and a man who could not muster up courage enough to fight a duel would forge you half a dozen acceptances in no time. Yet the climate of Bombay had been fatal to very many, and there was more danger in forging than in fighting duels. But the objection to the law was, as he had before stated, that it could not be executed. The judges, the juries, the witnesses, ay, and even the Secretary of State, too, were against it; for whatever ground the Secretary of State might take in that House, it had been shown that only one-ninth of the persons convicted had been executed. And yet this was an argument in favour of the existing law, both with the right hon. Gentleman and with the learned Solicitor General. The latter too thought that the ignominy of the punishment was not without most salutary effects; but when the drop fell, amidst cries of "shame" and "murder," all horror of the crime, all dread of the punishment was lost in disgust at the exhibition. To show to what extent this sympathy was carried, let him remind the House that, in the case of Mr. Fauntleroy, the case which was so often quoted against them, a petition, praying that the life of that man might be spared, was signed by no less than 8,000 persons. Now the case of Mr. Fauntleroy was, one would imagine, the strongest possible. The sympathy that it excited was, therefore, the more remarkable evidence of the opinions of the people with regard to capital punishments for forgery. Whatever punishment the offences of Mr. Fauntleroy might have been thought to have deserved—(some might think he deserved to be put to torture, or to be roasted by a slow fire, or to be broken on the wheel, and left to die of thirst)—yet that was not the way in which legislators ought to look at crime. The opinion of the people ought to regulate the measure of punishment. See what that opinion was, and to what measures it carried men. Juries and witnesses constantly acted in violation of the oath they had taken. He did not mean to say that such juries and such witnesses were not guilty of a great moral offence; but was he, while he admitted this, to acquit those from whom the offence came? He would not defend this conduct in juries, but, at the same time, far be it from him to defend the constructors of the law. If juries had become legislators in this respect, let the blame of so great an inconvenience rest on the heads of Ministers, who had forced men to choose between perjury and what they considered bloodguiltiness. They were teaching the people to look to juries for that laxity which, if it should become common, would be one of the greatest curses that could befall the country—a curse, however, which they could not avert, if they persisted in making popular tribunals administer unpopular laws. The knowledge and the extent of this evil might be shortly illustrated by an occurrence which took place the other day. In a prosecution of this nature, the counsel for the Crown rose and intimated to the jury that they need not be afraid of convicting the prisoners, for, though it was a capital offence, yet it was not probable the men would be hanged. The counsel on the other side said, and said very properly, that his learned friend had no right to take such a course with the jury. This occurrence showed the state to which things had arrived; the feeling of juries on these subjects were notorious, as indeed, how could it be otherwise, when they, answerable to no one, had so frequently proved that they would commit perjury and become legislators themselves rather than do the bloody drudgery which those who alone ought to legislate, thought fit to put upon them? Of this feeling it might be said, as the old chemists said of water, that it is incompressible; they might multiply restraints upon restraints, but still it would have vent, it would burst through every crevice, and ooze out at every pore. The ancient principle of legislation, which experience had proved to be utterly fallacious, was, that the more severe the law, the more effective it would be. By acting on this principle they had made the people combine to cheat the Custom-house, and they were now making juries combine to cheat the gallows. The Commons often found themselves situated with respect to the Upper House as they now found themselves situated with respect to their constituents. They passed a bill, and sent it up to the Lords, where amendments were made which were not liked by those with whom the bill originated; but the bill, with its amendments, was accepted, because such an Act was preferable to none at all, or such an alteration better than the existing law. Let them pursue the same course on the present occasion towards their constituents, whose voice was quite as powerful, though not so efficiently expressed, as the voice of the Lords. Their constituents had sent back to them the law which had been passed on this subject; they had now a favourable opportunity of re-considering it, and he did implore the House—not on considerations of humanity, but as they valued that commerce, the protection of which they professed to have so much at heart—to remove from the Statute-books those enactments which were a disgust to those who did well, and a laughing-stock to evil doers.

said, that he perfectly concurred with those who looked upon this question as one stripped of all party and political considerations. For his own part he considered it purely on its own merits. He had presented three petitions from his constituents against the bill of the right hon. Secretary; but he had told his constituents that his own opinion did not coincide with theirs. In opposing the views of his constituents he knew that he ran a very great risk, and particularly at this time, but he thought that all who knew him would acquit him of giving his vote on this occasion because he wished to support the Government. He gave his word and honour that he did not vote for the Bill because he wished to support Ministers, but really and honestly because he thought it necessary to retain this punishment. He had examined the right hon. Home Secretary's Bill, and the right hon. member for Knaresborough's Clause, with his best attention, and the result at which he arrived was, that the Bill sufficiently discriminated between those cases to which the extreme penalty of the law should or should not apply, and that the clause provided no valid substitute for the punishment of death in the more aggravated cases of forgery. He therefore should vote for the Bill, which indeed he thought more decidedly based on principles of clemency than the proposition for commuting the punishment of death to fourteen years transportation, with a previous long solitary confinement.

was one of those who meant to vote for the right hon. Home Secretary's Bill, and he should do so without any fear of the imputation of being enrolled among those who, it had been said, were biassed in their votes by the political influence of the right hon. Gentleman. Such an imputation was most unfounded, he would say, when the conscientious characters of many of those who had voted on a former occasion, and probably would vote that evening with the right hon. Gentleman, was taken into consideration. That bill was in the spirit of moderate reform, which characterised the several improvements in our laws, of which the right hon. Home Secretary had been the official instrument, and as such was entitled to the support of every hon. Member who had voted for those improvements. He was aware that many of those who were most eager to see his right hon. friend's clause adopted professed to set little value on the measures for the improvement of the administration of justice to which he had just alluded, on the ground that they did not go far enough. The hon. member for Weymouth (Mr. F. Buxton), for example, seemed to consider them to be nothing more than a kind of small-beer reform, and that nothing had been done since the punishment of death was inflictable for other crimes than murder, for such, in fact, would be the effect of his right hon. friend's clause, if adopted. Now this was a subject on which he had bestowed more than ordinary consideration. He knew that many, he was free to admit, conscientious, theoretical sentimentalists, had maintained that be- cause in Revelation punishment of death was not declared against any crime but murder, that therefore it would be immoral, illegal, and irreligious, to inflict it for robbery, or any modification of the crime of property-spoliation. Such, however, was not the opinion of Paley, or Kippis, or Blackstone, or any other high authority in the ethics of jurisprudence. They maintained, in his mind soundly, that it did not follow, that because death was not enjoined in the Scriptures as the punishment of any crime except murder, that therefore its being extended in the progress of society to other offences was not consonant nor congruous with the divine law. For what would be the consequence of following up the theoretical principles of the class of sentimentalists to their legitimate and logically consistent extent, unless to disarm Government of its powers, by doing away with all the principles and institutions of criminal law? ["No."] He said yes; for did not the class to which he had alluded not only maintain that punishment by death was immoral, illegal, and irreligious, but also maintain, and, what was more, acted upon, the principle that all litigation was unrighteous? ["No, no," from Dr. Lushington.] He repeated, not with standing the civilian "no" which had reached his ear, that the class of sentimentalists to which he had referred, did maintain and act upon these principles, and therefore could not, in consistency, be content till there ceased to be any punishment at all. When did the hon. and learned civilian see a Quaker a suitor in Doctors' Commons, or in any Courts of Common Law? But, to return to his right hon. friend's clause. He felt in relation to that clause precisely as the hon. member for Callington had on a former occasion described himself to feel—that is, he would willingly support its adoption, were it first made clear to him that it provided a bona fide substitute for the punishment of death. But it did no such thing; and while it went to take away every existing scheme of vengeance which the present law sanctioned, it provided no substitute in its stead. What did the clause propose? Why, that the crime of forgery should be punished—instead of by hanging in any case—either by fourteen years' solitary confinement, or by fourteen years' transportation, or by both, according to circumstances. With re- spect to the first of these propositions, it appeared to him a sufficient answer to repeat what had been said on a former occasion. It was no punishment at all in cases of large forgery spoliations, for what was there to prevent the convict criminal from carry out with him the money in gold which he had defrauded some person of, and thus rendering punishment by transportation a perfect mockery of legal revenge? Then with respect to the fourteen years' solitary confinement proposition, he should like to know whether public-feeling, of which so much had been said, as being scared by the spectacle of executions for forgery, would not be still more scared by the sight of the misery of the slow, tedious, wearing, energy-consuming, punishment of solitary confinement? Would it not be, in fact, generally felt that that species of punishment was actually more severe than the punishment of death? He maintained it was, and that the existing law was far more merciful in its tendency than such a proposition. Then with respect to the third remedy of his right hon. friend—the transportation after solitary confinement—all he should say was, that every objection to either punishment singly, applied a fortiori to their union. What would be its effect? Why, justly to make forgery-criminals the objects of public pity much more than their execution at present. Was a criminal, after his fourteen years' solitary confinement, with hard tread-mill labour, by which it might be thought he had expiated his offence, had in fact become an emeritus of his prison, and therefore unrestrained by its regulations, was he to be debarred from leaving that prison, and told "now your fourteen years' transportation commences?" That would indeed be a pretty postscript to the long letter of objurgation which the right hon. Gentleman proposed first to send to the criminal. Punishment of death would be much more humane treatment. He knew that the opinion that punishment by death was as impolitic as it was cruel, in offences against property, was daily making way, was creeping over the face of public opinion. Still he was not a convert to it, and yet he would venture to say, though not a Quaker, that he felt as warmly and as deeply for the sufferings of his fellow-creatures as any theoretical sentimentalist of them all. But his was no bastard inconsistent sympathy; he was for no pseudo-morality—no small-beer relaxation of the sternness of criminal jurisprudence. He should like to know from some of the sentimental theorists how they reconciled the consistency of abolishing punishment of death in cases of forgery, with their keeping it in force for highway-robbery or spoliation of property? Surely, if it was objectionable in the one instance, it was at least equally so in the other case. If they believed their principle to be good, they should, in consistency, extend it to all offences against property besides forgery. Indeed, he thought forgery, in nine cases out of ten, to be a much more aggravated crime than the majority of robbery cases that called down the severity of the law; for the former was a deliberate, methodical, concerted violation of law, by persons generally of education and less pressed by want of the necessities of nature, while the latter were too often the pro re nata offspring of want or drunkenness, or the influence of bad associates. The hon. and learned Gentleman proceeded to argue, in answer to the hon. member for Calne, that there were two classes of forgery-criminals—one in which there was a breach of trust, and one in which there was no such breach—between whom the Bill before the House drew a very proper line of distinction. The hon. Member had alluded to the case of Fauntleroy, and had admitted that not only it was not too severely punished, but that ingenuity might, he thought, have been exercised in devising some fitting torture for that black criminal. Now, was it not strangely inconsistent in the hon. Gentleman to make such an admission, and yet contend that the clause should be adopted without any qualifying exception? How was he to provide punishment for other Fauntleroys? How could such an exception to the principle of the clause be reconciled with the required practical congruity and practical symmetry, and even the theoretical homogeneity, of the law?

should vote for the Amendment. If that were lost, and the punishment of death retained, he hoped some distinction would be made between those great forgeries which shook the very foundation of property, and those minor forgeries that were mere pecuniary frauds. The former might be punished with death; the latter, the people never would prosecute.

said, that he would at once approach that point which, after all, was the main argument for the remission of the punishment of death in cases of forgery namely, that the law, as it now existed, afforded no protection to property; but that if they remitted the punishment of death in such cases, a new protection to property would be thereby created. If this position were established by sound argument, it would unquestionably have more force with him than all the declamation which he had heard on this subject, during the present as well as on a former evening. But he would ask, if the punishment of death did not deter from the crime of forgery, why did the right hon. and learned Gentleman admit the propriety of retaining that punishment in one particular case, that of forging a will? If the right hon. and learned Gentleman really thought that, by remitting the punishment of death, he gave additional security to property, why did he retain that punishment in this instance? The right hon. and learned Gentleman said, that he would not, to-night, go so far as he had formerly done; and then, with what appeared to him to be a great inconsistency, he proposed that the punishment of death for forgery should be abolished in all cases except where the forgery of a will took place. The hon. member for Weymouth stated, that he would not support the proposition of the right hon. and learned Gentleman on any religious or conscientious scruple which he might himself entertain, but that he would defend it on the ground of its giving anew security and protection to property. Now, he would again state that which he had stated the other night, that it would, in his opinion, have precisely the contrary effect. If he were to look confidently forward to his continuing to hold the office of Secretary of State, he could assure those who advocated the proposition of the right hon. and learned Gentleman, that nothing would be more agreeable to him than to agree to a commutation of punishment, if he could bring himself to believe that it would be attended with beneficial effects. It would unquestionably free him from many very painful applications. In arguing this question, he relied entirely on facts connected with the mercantile concerns of this city, and to these facts the House, in his opinion, ought to attach very great weight. He particularly selected the case of the London bankers, and of the Bank of England. He, however, formerly declared, and he now repeated, that he did not mean to retain this punishment merely on account of the pecuniary interests of the London bankers or of the Bank of England, but because he felt that the general interests of the public were deeply concerned. In treating this question formerly, he had found it necessary to advert to the London bankers; and he had first stated the immense extent of their business. He had shown that thirty-six banking establishments (forming the Bankers' Committee for prosecuting forgeries) had, in the course of three days, in the month of May, transacted business to the amount of 10,000,000l. That fact, which he then stated, and which appeared at the time to have astonished some Gentlemen, he now confidently repeated. He had also stated to the House, that four private banking-houses in London had, in the course of a year, transacted business to the amount "of 500,000,000. But then he was told that, as all the drafts and Bills of Exchange must go through the Clearing-house, an effectual security against forgery was thus created. Therefore, the right hon. and learned Gentleman argued that they ought to deduct from the securities which were liable to forgery, that they ought to deduct from the general account, all notes and draughts which went through the Clearing-house. Now, he differed entirely from those who advanced this as a valid argument. He would contend that the Clearing-house was not an effectual security against forgery. He would contend that the right hon. and learned Gentleman, and not himself was mistaken as to facts. He said that the banker was not called on to pay on the day when the instrument was presented, and that therefore he had an opportunity of ascertaining its authenticity. But, notwithstanding this, the fact was, and he knew it, that forgeries had on many occasions passed the Clearinghouse. A recent forgery for 500l. on Messrs. Rothschild, did actually pass through the Clearing-house. When a London banker received a bill, he had, no doubt, a day to ascertain its correctness; but the fact was, that such skill was evinced in the perpetration of forgery, that the fraud could not in many cases be discovered without a perpetual reference to the party named in the instrument. Why, it was but the other day that a woman brought forward documents signed, as it appeared, by Mr. Dunning, Lord Chatham, and he knew not by whom else. Now, he had no doubt that those signatures, though well executed, were not real; and if signatures were artfully traced, as he believed those to have been, how, except by personal reference, could the forgery be detected? Therefore he would say, that the argument founded on the Clearing-house was not worth any thing; but that the fear of the punishment of death did deter from the commission of this crime was evident from the fact, that though business had been transacted, in three days, at the counters of the banking establishments, to which he had referred, to the amount of 4,795,000l., there were, in the course of the present year, but four forgeries committed on them, and the amount was only 400l. With respect to the Bank of England, where an immense amount of business was necessarily transacted, they had only instituted three prosecutions for forgery in the last Assizes, and in the present there was not one name recorded, in England or Wales, for forgery on that establishment. The right hon. and learned Gentleman had said, that the Bank of England was an unflinching prosecutor, when it was supposed that the prosecution would serve its interest; but that it was always guided by its legal advisers, who never urged a prosecution, except where conviction was sure to follow, and that, therefore, many cases of forgery might occur, which, being abandoned, were unknown to the public. Now, he had sent to the Bank of England for a return, specifying the entire extent of forgeries of which that body had received notice during the years 1827, 1828, and 1829. He did not call for a mere return of forgeries that were prosecuted, but for a full return of the forgeries attempted on the Bank of England, whether they succeeded or not, and what was the result? In 1827 the total amount of forgeries on the Bank of England was 2,107l.; in 1828, the total amount, under the existing law, was 197l.; in 1829, a Magistrate of the county of York forged three powers of attorney to the amount of 6,500l.; he, however, not placing much confidence in the unwillingness of juries to convict, left the country the moment he had re- ceived the money: but exclusive of that particular forgery, the sum of which it was attempted to defraud the Bank of England by false instruments, in 1829, amounted only to 378l. Could it, he would ask, be argued, after this was made known, that the present state of the law afforded no protection to property? The hon. member for Calne argued, that the Bank of England, being a rigorous and inexorable prosecutor, thereby secured its own property. But if Grand Juries were so very unwilling to find true bills in these cases, and if Petty Juries were so anxious not to convict, as the House had been told, how came it that the Bank of England commanded this protection for its property? The two arguments were completely opposed to each other. After all he had heard, his conscientious conviction was, that they would not be promoting the protection of property, or the cause of public morality, by substituting the punishment of transportation for the punishment of death. One punishment was privately mentioned to him as very proper to be resorted to in the case of forgery. It was suggested that the culprit should be branded, and thus held up to public disgrace. This, however, had been formerly tried, with reference to other offences, and it had failed. In 1669, in the reign of William and Mary, an Act was passed by which the perpetrators of burglary and larceny were directed to be punished by branding them on the face and hand; but six or seven years after, in the reign of Queen Anne, that Act was repealed, on the express ground that the offenders who were thus driven from society, instead of being in any degree reformed, became more desperate; and he was quite sure that any very severe secondary punishment, if substituted for death, would speedily be abolished. The French, he knew, had secondary punishments; but he was convinced, that if an individual here were to be condemned, as many were in France, to work for ten years on the public roads, dragging a cannon-ball at his feet, the Quakers, or the sentimentalists, as the hon. and learned Gentleman called them, would shudder at such a punishment, and would feel just as much reluctance to prosecute for the crime of forgery as they did at present on account of the infliction of death. Much had been said about France; but he must observe, that the punishment of death for forgery was not abolished in that country. The forgery of transfers of stock, or of any documents bearing the stamp of the government, was still subject to the punishment of death. Secondary punishments, though recognized by the law, were not at all popular there. The punishment of the carcan, for instance, was denounced as cruel and degrading. In taking the course which he felt it to be his duty to pursue, he was actuated by no other motive than the protection of property, and the repression of crime. If the House thought differently from him, he must bow to its decision; but, under all circumstances, he would act steadily upon the feelings and principles which a serious consideration of the subject had created.

said, he would follow the example of the right hon. Secretary, and address the House as briefly as possible. With that view he would throw away the shell and husk of the argument, and come at once to the kernel. He would strictly confine himself to what had been said in the course of the evening, and he would endeavour to state to the right hon. Secretary and the House the reasons why, unmoved by his argument and unconvinced by his inquiry into facts, he meant to support the proposition of his right hon. and learned friend. The right hon. Secretary argued, that great inconsistency was manifested by his right hon. and learned friend, because he had asserted that the punishment of death afforded no securityagainstthe commission of crime, and especially against the perpetration of forgery, and yet, in spite of this declaration, he was willing to continue that punishment where the forgery of a will took place: but did not the right hon. Secretary hear the grounds on which his right hon. and learned friend placed that exception? If he did, the right hon. Secretary must have seen that his right hon. and learned friend was not at all inconsistent. His right hon. and learned friend distinctly said—"I yield this point—I concede it—I am driven to it. My own opinion, and my own principle, I wish to carry to the utmost extent; but out of respect to others, from whom, however, I differ, I am willing to retain the punishment of death in this particular case." But looking at the matter in another point of view, it did appear to him that be conduct of his right hon. and learned friend was not so inconsistent as the right hon. Secretary seemed to suppose; because he believed that so much art, so much cunning, so much preparation, was necessary in completing the forgery of a will, that individuals in general looked upon that crime with very different feelings from those with which they viewed the forgery of a promissory note or of a draft for 4l 10s. With respect to the right hon. Secretary's statement as to the business of the London bankers, neither his facts nor his arguments supported the case which he wished to defend. He had told the House that these bankers transacted business, in the course of three days, to the amount of 10,000,000l. in the Clearing-house, and 5,000,000l. at the counter. Now, this would undoubtedly give a gentleman an immense idea of the transactions which were going on every day they lived in this great capital; but when they came to look to the bearings of the case, they would find that the punishment of death did not afford security to those multifarious transfers of property. He would pledge himself to show, that all that the right hon. Secretary had advanced on this point was foreign to the question. The right hon. Secretary had argued, that the Clearing-house afforded no security against forgery. On this point he was decidedly at issue with the right hon. Secretary, and he was sure that any one who was acquainted with the nature of banking transactions, would agree with him, that the Clearing-house afforded very considerable security. The right hon. Gentleman had stated the fact of certain forged checks having successfully passed through the Clearing-house; but surely when it was considered to what an enormous extent pecuniary transactions were carried on; when the House reflected what traffic in such a great trading capital as London really was, it could scarcely be a matter of surprise that one or two forged checks should possibly have passsed through it and escaped detection. The forgery in the case of Rothschild, where by the rarest casualty the party had got a foreign bill of exchange, owed its success to the most singular and extraordinary combination of accidents imaginable. He should now beg leave to remind the House of one of the grounds upon which the right hon. Gentleman was generally believed to have founded his present measure with its provisions as it now stood. He was stated to have conferred with a committee of London bankers, who were associated for mutual protection against forgery on their respective establishments, some of whom came to the right hon. Secretary in the greatest possible trepidation and alarm, so soon as they understood it to be his intention to remit capital punishments altogether. Their earnest representations that they should be left destitute of all protection whatever, if he persevered in his resolution, it was supposed had induced him to abandon his original determination, if such he had ever formed; and their alarm most assuredly was one of the principal motives which had incited him to adhere to his present imperfect measure. Thus, if he might use such an expression, there was at least a fact in the cause. But what if it should appear that two of those very gentlemen who were so sadly frightened at the probable total abolition of capital punishment, had themselves furnished a marvellous instance of the impolicy and inefficacy of a mere speculative theoretical "paper denouncement," as it was most properly called, within a few months,—or he might rather say, weeks—from the hour at which he was speaking! What if it had so happened, that those who had so unintermittingly besieged the Home Office had been forged on themselves,—had had evidence amply sufficient for conviction in their power,—had had the detected forger with in their very grasp—and had, notwithstanding, suffered him to escape altogether rather than have recourse to the capital remedy! Here was a notable example in illustration of the fact, that the best security to the property of the banker, in his own deliberate opinion, was the absence of capital punishment, and he mentioned it the rather because the right hon. Secretary thought facts were to be preferred to mere declamation. The information was communicated to him, not indeed on the authority of the parties themselves, but had been attested by those whose knowledge of what they stated was to his mind as satisfactorily established. Here was a committee sitting for self-protection against fraud, whose experience was quoted as unfavourable to the removal of capital punishment; but he would ask, did the opinion of their chairman himself correspond with what they had heard of the committee? What was the language of the hon. member for Tewkesbury? (Mr. Martin). He was a practical man, a man of business and experience; no sentimentalist, no "Quaker,"—for that was the term by which all the advocates for the abolition of an impolitic seventy were sneeringly designated. What was him declared opinion as the representative of that committee in the House? Why, he avowed there, not in the Home Office, that he had been brought to view the subject in the same light with themselves—that his opinion had undergone a change,—that he was unfavourable to the continuance of this punishment in any case of forgery whatever. This, he could not help thinking, ought to put an end at once to the whole argument. They had first, the actual practice of two out of four of the committee who were seized with such a panic when the reform began to be mooted; they had, secondly, the personal authority of their chairman himself; and thirdly, not less than four committee-men had attached their signatures to a petition in conformity with the same opinion which had been already presented to the House. Then with respect to the country bankers, who were all apparently very much exposed to forgery, as they were so much in the habit of receiving small bills in the ordinary course of their business, had not the whole body called on the House, as with a single voice, urging the expediency of such a change as he and those who thought with him would have proposed? His learned friend, the Solicitor General, had animadverted on what he was pleased to term the sentimental reformers, who pressed Government to carry the contemplated change of policy to its full extent, professing to believe that the petition had been got up by Quakers; but this notion, he could assure him, was widely remote from the truth. It was not got up by that most amiable, intelligent, and respectable body, nor was it signed by them; but he was far from denying that they had very much interested themselves in the success of a cause which it was creditable to their humanity to have embraced. He should feel proud to be the first on all occasions to render homage to their practical knowledge of business, their disinterested philanthropy, and untameable perseverance; and he cheerfully confessed, if they would permit him to adopt a phrase generally employed in connexion with military glory,—a paltry criminal glory which they deservedly despised—he cheerfully confessed, he repeated, that they had now added a new wreath to the garland of honour to which their exertions against African and West-Indian slavery had so justly entitled them. On this occasion, however, they had merely been active in putting the question in a fair point of view before the country bankers, whom they had solicited to record their opinion on a subject of such importance and interest to themselves. This was all that had been done by the Quakers, and it was on all hands agreed that that body would have refused, one and all, to interest themselves further in the matter, or sign a single name to a petition to that House, had the country bankers, to whom they applied, thought proper to differ from them in opinion. The results, however, proved to be directly the reverse, as the entire mass of the banking community soon participated in their views and seconded their efforts. Was a banker, he put it to the House, the man who would be the least likely to attach importance to his signature? Would he be readily induced to append it to a document to which he was desired to affix it, by being merely told, "here is a petition that only relates to banks, bills of exchange, promissory notes, cheques, drafts, forgery, and such matters, in which you can have but little interest; put your name to it?" Was it necessary to say that he assuredly would not? Yet had 733 bankers been induced to petition the House for a total abolition of the punishment of death in cases of forgery. Besides, he was perfectly warranted in assuming that these signatures represented the whole body, as he might remind the House that not even one had been presented on the other side. It had been alleged that the number of offences against the Bank of England had diminished; but in order to establish this assertion it would be necessary to prove a great deal more than had been made out, for an apparent diminution could be very easily accounted for by the late extinction of the 1l. notes. Neither had the Solicitor General forgotten to recommend that they should suffer the punishment of death still to remain, seeing that they could at present rejoice in a humane Secretary for the Home Department, who bore his faculties meekly, and a Government which would never be likely to abuse the power with which it was intrusted, or to enforce a rigorous sentence to the uttermost. This argument he believed had been also hinted by the right hon. Gentleman opposite; but so egregious and monstrous a doctrine it had never been his fortune to hear in that House before, although since he had enjoyed a seat there, many extravagant doctrines had been promulgated in his hearing. What! were they to be told that they should swerve from their opinions because they might have confidence in the then existing Government? Were they to be seriously told, that because at a given moment they had a moderate and liberal Home Secretary, and a government which might discharge its functions with popularity, they should therefore, forsooth, confine their legislation to those accidents of the hour, and so dismiss all concern for past, present, and future? For that matter, God only knew whether the Administration now at the head of affairs would be in existence for a long period or a short one, he did not pretend to divine; but certain he was, that a more preposterous proposition was never uttered, and he could scarcely credit his ears when he heard the astute and sagacious Solicitor General gravely addressing it to the House. Another argument which had been adduced was, that the narrow Majority on a recent division ought to be sufficient to give them an assurance that the punishment of death would be unfrequently resorted to. In reference to this, however, he should make one of the gravest and most practical suggestions that had hitherto occurred to him—one which he wished very strongly to urge upon their attention. They had, it appeared, pronounced an opinion by a very narrow majority—merely twelve or thirteen, in a full House—in favour of the punishment of death. He did not desire to say any thing of an invidious nature with respect to that division,—he did not intend to dwell on the discrepancy between the professions that it was not a party question, that every one should be at liberty to vote according to his judgment,—and the fact that all those who held office, or were otherwise connected with Government, or usually voted with the Treasury Bench, had all, without an exception, come to the same opinion on the subject. No doubt they had all voted, taking a sound, calm, disinterested view of a great constitutional question of criminal jurisprudence; no doubt they had formed liberal and statesmanlike abstract opinions, which, no doubt, they gave in free will, out of the plenitude of their wisdom, and with minds perfectly unbiassed by prejudice or passion; but so it was, they all, by a most singular coincidence, voted the same way, and voted with Government; yet, notwithstanding, there was only a majority of twelve. And were they after this to retain upon the penal code a punishment which had been so branded by the House of Commons after an anxious examination and deliberate discussion? If the law as it still stood had little weight in public estimation before then, in what light was it likely to be looked upon henceforward? If men's feelings rebelled against it before, would not their opinions and prepossessions be for ever rooted and confirmed by such a division of the House of Commons? Would it not operate practically on prosecutors, on witnesses, on jurors,—ay, and on judges themselves? Not six months ago had a Judge declared to him, in reference to the probable change of the law as it respected this offence, that, sitting as Judge, he could not help revolting at the idea of leaving a man for execution at a time when Parliament was engaged in a deliberation, the result of which might be, that his blood would be the last which should ever be shed for the crime of forgery. With so many reasons to induce them to abolish this punishment, and so little to encourage them to retain it, he hoped that they would not hesitate to do a service to humanity, and expunge it for ever from their Statute-book.

, in explanation, stated, that the members of the committee of bankers to whom the hon. and learned Gentleman alluded, had never spoken to him as a body, or in any other capacity than that of individuals on their own responsibility. He could assure the hon. Member that he must have been misinformed if he understood that either of the individuals in question had consented to forego a prosecution from motives of principle.

repeated that the fact which he had mentioned was undeniable. The parties referred to had detected the forger, had ample means of bringing home the charge in their power, and yet had declined to prosecute. He, of course, could not undertake to vouch for their motives, further than as they might be interpreted by their actions.

The House then divided: For the Clause abolishing the punishment of death for Forgery 151; Against it 138—Majority for the Clause 13.

Sir J. Mackintosh then brought up the clause.

rose and said, that he bowed to the sense of the majority of the House, although he must repeat, that his sentiments remained entirely unchanged, and he believed they would soon have reason to repent the decision to which they had just come. As the Bill had taken this turn, he now relinquished to others the benefit of his labours, and bequeathed the further progress of the measure to the right hon. and learned Member, who had, he took it for granted, well weighed the terms of his clause, and given to it that deliberate consideration which he (Sir R. Peel) had not had the power of bestowing upon it. On the right hon. and learned Gentleman, then, devolved the responsibility of this Amendment.

The clause was then read a second time, and committed.

(after a short conference with Sir R. Peel) then said, that as he understood some verbal amendments were intended to be offered, to reconcile the clause with the contents of the Bill, he had no objection that the further proceeding should stand over till to-morrow, on that account alone.

said, that he should not take advantage of any thing like a thin House to-morrow to rescind the vote of that night.

did not wish to delay the measure, but he thought it would be necessary to consider how the amendments would agree with the other parts of the Bill.

would undertake to say, that not thirty of the Majority knew what would be the operation of the clause.

was not silent from want of a good answer to give the hon. Gentleman, but he would say nothing from a much better motive.