the other side, who proposed that the judges should be examined. Hesir James) made the answer to that proposal which he afterwards stated in that House, and he did not hear one dissentient opinión uttered in the committee. His hon. and learned friend, the solicitor-general, timidly hinted that those who favoured the ancient system felt rather cold upon the subject. Why did they feel so? Were they apprehensive of being made unpopular by the avowal of their opinions? If his hon. and learned friend admitted that, he admitted his (sir James's case)-he admitted that all mankind were for the measure. If persons were afraid of incurring odium and unpopularity by avowing their opinions in favour of the severe and sanguinary code, it followed that the very supporters of that code felt that all mankind looked upon it with horror and reprobation. And here he would beg to remind the House of the various petitions presented in favour of a revision of the penal code. These petitions were signed by upwards of thirty thousand persons-by men of all parties by men strongly attached to ministers-by merchants, traders, shopkeepers, and artizans, by those who were the principal sufferers from forgery, larceny, and fraud; by those classes from which petit jurors were always selected.-All those persons, having no political bias whatever, had strongly expressed their opinions in favour of an alteration in the penal code. So much as to the testimony of the country; and now he would ask, why, in so many cases of forgery, were there so few prosecutions? Did it arise from any consideration of expense, which opulent bankers and traders would be put to in carrying on a prosecution? Did it arise from any consideration of trouble to persons who had their agents and clerks to attend for them? Did it arise from any apprehension that discredit would be thrown upon the houses, when the fact of a forgery being committed on a banking house was rather evidence of its opulence and credit? It was clear that none of these motives prevented prosecutions. What, then, were the motives? In cases of private forgeries, the would ask, were the best judges on that important subject? Were not bankers and merchants the best judges? He would take the liberty of saying, in language more sober than had been applied to him by the learned gentleman opposite, that he would prefer the testimony of bankers and merchants to the mere declarations of the learned gentleman. His learned friend, the member for Barnstaple, with an importance, which no doubt he felt to be attached to the representative of that ancient and incorruptible borough, had stated, that great numbers of bankers and traders were against the bill. These bankers and traders had contrived to keep their secret from the public. They did not utter one word on the subject until they came down, it would seem, in a body, and held a private conference with his hon. and learned friend. Where, he would ask, was to be found the evidence of that opinion? Was there a single petition on the table in favour of those sanguinary laws, which, according to the opinions of the secret clients of his hon. and learned friend, were necessary for the security of property? The hon. member for Bristol had said, that there was but a cabal on one side of the question, and that the opinions of all mankind were on the other. Did not that hon. gentleman recollect that there was a petition from Bristol in favour of the bill?-He would now say one word with respect to the witnesses who had been examined before the committee. He would fearlessly say, that there never was an examination conducted with more fairness and impartiality. He might appeal to the House whether the committee itself had not been selected on a principle of strict equality. The members of that committee sat together bound by no other ties than those of their public duty as members of parliament, and the feelings of private friends. Minutes, of the evidence taken before the committee were sent round to every member, and notice of every discussion of importance was also sent round. The attendance of gentlemen holding official situations was not always expected; but it was fair to assume that if those gentlemen saw any necessity of attending or of ex-persons implicated generally were clerks, amining witnesses, they would have attended and proposed their witnesses. They did not do so. The only proposal he recollected to have been made in the committee with respect to witnesses, came from an hon. and learned friend of his on confidential persons, and not unfrequently relations; against such persons there was a natural unwillingness to proceed to extremity. Such persons, without gross and settled depravity of heart, were often in fatal moments-in moments of distress, betwixt private forgery, and the forging of Bank notes. In the latter case, there was no private feelings in operation to produce a reluctance to prosecute. A public prosecutor was employed, who had to consult his feelings of duty, and to act upon them alone. And who were the forgers in these cases? It was true that the forgers were seldom taken, and that the utterers generally suffered for the crime. But, how different was the case of a forger of Bank notes, to the person who forged privately. Instead of being a youth who had fallen in the hour of temptation, he was a man whose very occupation was villany, whose life was spent in bringing others to death and infamy. For these reasons he thought the bill would be a great, public service. It would tend to decrease the crime of private forgery, and it would make the distinction clear between the forger and the first utterer of the note, and those who might be in possession of it afterwards. It would remove that darkness in which this question was at present so much enveloped, as to require a person who had been almost bred up to the practice as a profession, to discover what were the merits of a case of forgery. He again complimented his hon. friend (Mr. Buxton) upon the admirable manner in which he had argued the question. His hon. friend had laid down the great principles upon which they ought to act, and he (sir James) had endeavoured to apply them to the law for punishing the offence of forgery. If he had been at all successful in those endeavours, it was to his hon. friend that the House and the country were indebted. occasioned too often by vicious indulgence, surprised into the fatal act. There always had been, and he thanked God there still existed in the breast of a British merchant, the humane and generous feeling that prevented him from proceeding to take away the life of a person so circumstanced. He could not without emotion, behold the falling tear, and hear the faultering voice, of one who, however fallen,had once been an object of his respect, his confidence and affection, He could not listen with indifference to the supplications of the nearest relatives of the unfortunate criminal, to spare that life which, though lost to all that could make it honourable and happy, was yet an object of their last solicitude. Indeed, the hon. member for Barnstaple had said, that in many cases of private forgeries, the prayers of the family of the criminal prevailed upon the bankers not to proceed to the last extremity. The fact was so-and so would it always be whilst the feelings of humanity were opposed to the severity of the law. His hon. and learned friend the solicitor-general had said, that in cases of private forgeries, there was a reluctance to prosecute, occasioned by the nature of the punishment That was, in fact, admitting the entire case-the severity of the sentence was the great obstacle in the way of public justice-for such cases people felt a natural horror to prosecute. It was said, that he called for secondary punishments. In the first place, he would say, that in cases of private forgery, it followed as an inevitable consequence, that the guilty party destroyed his character, blasted his hopes, and stood for ever excluded from his nearest, dearest, and most valuable connections. Thus, in fact, he endured what might be called the punishment of nature; and it would be right to bear that punishment in mind when awarding the legal punishment to his crime. On such persons he would inflict effectual punishments; he would confine them in prisons and in hulks, subject to severe labour-a terrible punish-cuse him if he stated, that he had just left ment to persons brought up in soft habits; accustomed perhaps to luxurious indulgence, unaccustomed certainly to manual labour. Upon the subject of wills he confessed he was not prepared to decide upon that branch of the question; but if the bill went into a committee, he should there be most happy to hear any suggestion to make an exception for such crimes. There was the widest difference The Attorney-General said, he had to complain of the manner in which the hon. and learned member had brought forward the present measure. He certainly did expect to have heard him open the subject with something like a general explanation of the principles upon which his bills were founded. As, however, he had not done so, his hon. and learned. friend must ex the question where it was before he touched it. That being the case, and considering the lateness of the hour, he should not enter into the merits of the bill. He objected to it, because the punishment of death was effective to prevent private forgeries, and the permission of pleading to the minor offence for forgery of Bank notes had increased that offence. If he required another argument to support his opinion, he thought the House should wait for the return of the commissioners who had been sent out to New South Wales. At the best, he thought the measure was premature, and under these considerations he should give it his decided opposition.daidwo The question being put, "That the words proposed to be left out do stand part of the question," the House divided: Ayes, 118; Noes, 74. The bill was then committed; and at two in the morning, the House adjourned. List of the Majority and also of the MAJORITY. Smith, S. Attwood, M. Frankland, R. Williams, T. P. Taylor, M. A. Acland, sir T. Gladstone, J. Williams, W. Tynte, C. Baring, sir T. Gordon, R. Wilson, sir R. Baring, A. Graham, S. Wodehouse, E. Barnard, visct. Grenfell, P. Wood, M. Barrett, S. M. Griffiths, J. W. Becher, W. W. Gurney, H. Bennet, hon. H. G. Harbord, hon. E. Arbuthnot, rt. hon. C. Tavistock, marq. of Wharton, J. Whitbread, W. H. MINORITY. Hotham, lord Benett, J. Heron, sir R. Apsley, lord Benyon, B. Hobhouse, J. C. Birch, J. Hornby, E. Brougham, H. Hume, J. Bury, viset. Hutchinson, hon. C. Bathurst, rt. hon. B. Barry, rt. hon. J. M. Buchanan, J. Long, sir C. Harvey, adml.. Luttrell, J. F. 1 Blake, sir F. Lester, B. L. Bankes, G. Lenox, lordowaga ng Bent, J. Lennard, T. B. Boughey, sir J. F. Lewis, W. Baillie, S. Lawley, F. Browne, P. Calvert, C. Langstone, J. H, Calvert, N. Macdonald, J. Bourne, rt. hon. S. Chaloner, R. Money, W. T. Brownlow, C. Calcraft, J. Mackintosh, sir J. Chetwynd, G. Carter, J. Musgrave, sir P. Clive, lord Cavendish, H. Martin, J. Clive, H. Cavendish, C. Martin, R. Collett, E. J. Clifton, visct. Milbank, M. Clifford, capt. Milton, visct. Curteis, J. E. Colborne, N. R. Monck, J. B. Cheere, E. M. Concannon, L. Moore, P. Clerk, sir G. Cooper, R. B. Moore, A. Drummond, J. Cripps, J. Nugent, lord Calthorpe, hon. F. O'Callaghan, J. Downie, R. Courtenay, W. Ord, W. Egerton, W. Child, W. L. Palmer, C. F. Corbett, P. W.J. Eliot, hon. W.] Phillimore, Dr. Fane, J. Bul Denison, W. J. Parnell, sir H. Denman, T. Phillips, G. jún. Gordon, hon. W. Duncannon, visct. Price, R. Doveton, G. Pryse, P. Goulburn, H. Deerhurst, viset. Ramsden, J. C. Giddy, D. Dowdeswell, E. Ricardo, D. Cockburne, sir G. Douglas, W. R, K. Gifford, sir R. Greville, hon. sir C. Huskisson, rt. hon. Ellis, hon. G. W. A. Rowley, sir W. W. Wilson, T. Wallace, rt. hon. T. Wells, J. Ellice, E. Rumbold, C. Fitzroy, Harding, col. Russell, lord W Holford, G. P. Wyndham, W. Yarmouth, earl of GRAMPOUND DISFRANCHISEMENT BILL.] On the order of the day for the third reading of this bill, The Earl of Harrowby objected to the arrangement by which four members were to be elected for the county of York. He thought it would be much better to give the two members taken from Grampound to a district of the county, including certain towns, as Leeds, Huddersfield, Wakefield, &c. This would obviate the great inconvenience that would arise in taking the poll at once for the whole county. The Earl of Liverpool was of opinion, that if it was not thought fit to create a new borough, the members ought to be added to some place which already possessed the right of election. With regard to the inconvenience of taking a poll for the whole county of York, he should have no objection to a proposition for allowing polls to be taken in different parts of the county. But that could only be done by a separate measure. The Earl of Harewood said, that the measure was a departure from every principle by which parliament had been guided in former cases. The county of York was, indeed, completely thrown off its guard with respect to it; for, as the other House had refused to transfer the representation to Yorkshire, no expectation could have been entertained of such an alteration in the bill as that which had been made. As to taking the poll in different parts of the county, that was a scheme to which he objected, chiefly on account of the difficulty of executing it. Who was to be the superintending officer? Would persons be found willing to do the duties of sheriff only for a fortnight? If they did, it was likely they would be electioneering partisans, and therefore not the fittest persons to perform such a duty. The House of Commons had already resolved, that the representation of Grampound should not be transferred to the county of York. How, then, could their lordships expect that that House should now agree to an arrangement which it had so recently decided against? The House divided: Contents, 39; Not-contents, 12. The bill was then read a third time. and passed. HOUSE OF COMMONS. MOTION RESPECTING THE FOUR AND A HALF PER CENT DUTIES.] Mr. Creevey rose to make his promised motion respecting the Four and a Half per Cent. Barbadoes and Leeward Island duties. He had on a former evening called the attention of the House to this subject. Of its importance no person could express a doubt who felt the necessity of making every just and possible retrenchment. The persons who questioned his law, and opposed his views on this subject, were certain ladies and gentlemen of high rank, who put into their own pockets the fund that should be applied to colonial purposes alone. One would have thought that the guardians of the public purse would have received with satisfaction any suggestion on this head; but when it was considered that many of those guardians themselves received part of this fund, the House would see that he had a difficult task to perform when he attempted to restore it to the purposes to which, in justice, and in law, it ought to have been applied. He would for the present take the case of the island of Barbadoes only. With respect to the law of the case, he would recite the colonial act, dated 12th Sept. 1663, by which the duty of 4 per cent. on all goods the product of the island, which should be shipped from thence, was granted to his majesty for the purpose of keeping up the honour and dignity of the government in the Island, and for building and keeping fortifications and other public works in repair. In that act he saw nothing with respect to pensioners of the Crown; he did not see one single word to authorize the appropriation of those duties to pensions for lords and gentlemen, and more particularly members of that House, The obvious intention of the act of 1663 was however departed from; and about 40 years after that act had been passed, a petition had been presented to that House | restoring that fund to the object for which it was granted, he could do no more than lay before them the plain words of the colonial act; the address of the House in 1701; and the answer of q queen Anne. It was not his intention to deprive daughters and sisters and widows of the pensions chargeable on that fund. However improperly granted, he was willing that the pensions should remain during the lives of those who held them; but in future he hoped that the House would feel themselves, under the circumstances, bound in law and in justice-in propriety and in decen cyto make the fund available to the intentions of the act of 1663, With respect to the duties of the Leeward islands, though the words were not so exe plicit, he thought the law was equally plain. He had no objection, however, that all the colonial acts should be refer red to a committee to report their opinion as to the true intent and meaning of these acts. The hon. gentleman concluded by moving, from the merchants and planters of Barbadoes, in which they stated that the duties had been applied to other purposes than those pointed out by the act, and that the fortifications were in consequence allowed to go to decay. The petition was referred to a committee, and that committee reported, that the complaint of the petitioners was a just complaint; accordingly an address was presented from that House to queen Anne, praying that the funds might be restored to the purposes for which they were originally intended. The answer of the queen informed the parliament, that she had given directions that the funds should, in future, be appropriated to the purposes of the colonial act; and in the settlement of revenue on the queen, made in day or two after, those duties were excepted by name. That exception was made under the eye of lords Somers and Godolphin, men as well able to decide upon the legal appropriation of the fund as the gentlemen opposite, Out of that fund, however, there "That it appears to this House, by an was an exception of an annuity of 1,000l. act of the colonial assembly of the island to be paid to lord Kinnoul, who was the of Barbadoes, bearing date the 12th of representative of the earl of Carlisle, the September 1663, stating, amongst other former grantee of the island of Barbadoes. things, that well weighing the great Under the peculiar circumstances the an-charges there must be of necessity in the nuity to lord Kinnoul was not unreason- maintaining the honour and dignity, of able; yet when he stated the circumstance his majesty's authority bere, the public the other night, the right hon. gentleman meetings of the sessions, the often attendopposite seized upon the fact, as if it afford-ance of the council, the reparation of ed an argument for the total misapplication of the fund. The anxiety with which the right hon. gentleman seized upon this grant to lord Kinnoul, showed how anxious he was, that himself and those who with him received those duties in grants and in pensions, to sail in the same boat with lord Kimoul. It was said that the late lord Chatham and Mr. Burke had large pensions chargeable on that fund; he lamented the fact, but custom did not make the law, and he had precisely the same right in 1821, to call for the appropriation "That it appears to this House, by reof those funds, as the parliament of 1702 ference to its Journals, that on the 16th had. He regretted that pensions should day of March 1701, a petition was pre have been granted out of that fund to sented from the agent, planters, and lord Chatham and Mr. Burke. It shewed merchants of Barbadoes, stating that the danger of abuse; for no sooner did the said duties of 4 per cent, which had these great men accept of pensions out of been granted by the said colonial act of the fund, than half the illegitimate chil-1663, for the reparation and building of dren at the west end of the town were fortifications, and defraying all other pubquartered upon it; between those and lic charges incident to the government peers and peeresses and members of par- there, had been collected, by officers ap liament, the whole of that fund was ex-pointed by the commissioners in England, hausted. In looking to the means of and applied to other uses and praying the forts, the building a sessions-house and prison, and all other public charges in cumbent on the government, did, in cons sideration thereof, give and grant unto his majesty, his heirs and successors, for ever, the following imposts or customs, that is to say, upon all dead commodities of the growth or produce of this island, that shall be shipped off the same, shall be paid to our sovereign lord the king, his heirs and successors, for ever, four and a half in specie for every score G |