But it It for me to enter into detail on this subject, ber, however, desires you not to attend to | do not come here to beg; they call on our reasonable request; and no sooner the House to complete what they have does he enter into the history of our case, already sanctioned. If it were necessary than his blood begins to boil. Sir, that hon. member has certainly a most dreadful antipathy to the city of London; but before I sit down, I hope to convince you that no blame can attach to the corporate body. We will furnish the House with an account of the 95,000l. which was formerly granted; and when I say this, permit me to add, that the city have never been backward in showing their ac counts. The expense of erecting the new prison for debtors has been greater than was foreseen; but gentlemen do not seem to know the value of ground in the city of London. Why, Sir, you cannot get an inch of ground without putting three or four guineas over it. We have chosen the best situation which we could find; for, let me tell you, people do not like to see gaols near them: "for God's sake," they cry, "do not build the gaol near us.' Well, then, at last we found a spot of ground, and began our building. As to prodigal expenditure, there is no prodigality about it. This, Sir, is the poor man's prison. Rich men can go to the King's-bench prison, and drink their burgundy they first rob their neighbours, and then get white-washed. I think this system is carried to too great an extent. But the hon. gentleman has been telling a long story of the lord mayor and aldermen, and he says, that they have embezzled some of the city funds. Now, I will tell him, that I have been three and thirty years in the corporation, and I never had one shilling in my life from them; and, therefore, I do not know what he means by embezzlement. The bridge-house estate have lent us money, but they have got cur bonds and securities. Is there any embezzlement in this? If the House thinks there is any thing improper in this transaction, we will bring the accounts before them. Well, Sir, then the hon. gentleman says, that we have given away large sums in swords and snuff-boxes. Suppose it to be so; is it not a happy and glorious thing, to see those heroes who have fought and bled for their country rewarded? Are the city of London to be blamed and taunted, because they have made presents to those gallant fellows? Sir, I am astonished at the hon. gentleman. It is worthy of the city that they have acted in this manner. The corporation have done their duty, and they The an Account of the produce of the se veral Duties and Payments composing the Orphans' Fund, for the last six years, and the annual Charges on the same, together with the Debts which remain outstanding and chargeable on the said fund; and also, an Account of the application of 95,000l. authorized to be raised and charged on the said fund for the erection of a new Prison for Debtors in London." Mr. Serjeant Onslow observed, that the hon. baronet had endeavoured, by a facetious speech, to divert the attention of the House from the subject before it. The hon. baronet, however, in all that speech, had not urged one argument in answer to the reasoning of the hon. gentleman who brought forward the motion. The duty on coals in particular was a heavy tax on the very poorest of the people; and before the city of London could claim such a tax for such objects as the building of prisons, they ought to show how they had expended their former revenue. It was an abuse of terms to call the squandering their money on dinners, drinking, and presents, generosity, while for useful objects they were obliged to demand the imposition of heavy taxes on others. The treatment of the prisoners in the new prison, respecting which so much had been said by the hon. baronet, was altogether irrelevant to the question. Not one word had been said on that subject by the hon. gentleman who brought forward the motion. As the hon. baronet had completely failed in his attempt to answer the hon. mover, he had a right to infer that his statement was unanswerable. He thought the honour of the city was implicated in this affair. He really did not see on what ground they could refuse affording every information to the House, and he should therefore vote for the motion. Mr. Alderman Wood contended, that the city of London had not embezzled any part of the Bridge-house estate; in no one instance had they made gifts of any part of that property. With respect to the 24,000l. said to be expended on an entertainment to the liberators of Europe, this was for two dinners, one of them to the duke of Wellington, cost 5,000/.; and though he had opposed the war, he had moved for that very dinner. The hon. gentleman who brought forward the motion, and the hon. and learned gentleman, did not seem to be aware, when they spoke of misapplication of the proceeds of the Bridge-house estate, that the county to which they belonged had borrowed money from that estate for the purpose of making a sewer in St. George's Fields-an object of the greatest utility, for which, however, they could not otherwise obtain funds. Another item of expense on that estate was for the erection of a Justice-hall in Southwark, which was built at the earnest request of the people of the borough, who complained that small offences were not prosecuted on account of the distance of the sessions at Guildford. The expense of this was not 1,200. It was to be recollected, that the bridge at Blackfriars, had been built out of the fund which had been said to have been applied solely to the benefit of the city of London. The building of that bridge, and the other communications, had increased the rental of Surrey 500,000%. The city of London, too, it should be recollected, paid 11,500. yearly towards the Orphans' Fund. The city now only asked for 17,000l. from this fund; and, though they were not alarmed at a scrutiny, he did not think such a request as this warranted the House in calling for their accounts. The prison to which this was to be applied was principally for Middlesex debtors. There were now 400 prisoners in it who did not belong to the city of London; and 3,000l. a year additional expence was incurred by removing them from Newgate. It had been said, that in return for their supporting the gaols of the county of Middlesex, the city had the fines paid by those who declined the office of sheriff; but it was to be remembered, that these fines were only paid by citizens-no other persons in the county of Middlesex were liable to serve that office, which was an expense of 2,500l. to any one who undertook it. Mr. Barclay contended, that Southwark received no benefit from the monies paid out of the city funds. Blackfriars-bridge, if it was a benefit to Surrey, had also been a benefit to London. As to the money which had been borrowed for the sewers in St. George's-fields, it was on good security, and would be repaid. Many other sums, issued from the same fund, would, he feared, never be returned. If the city was to apply in forma pauperis for money to maintain its own prisons, when Londonbridge was to be rebuilt they might expect a similar application. The city now said, they had received money already from the Orphans' Fund for the same purpose. It was the duty of the House to see that this was not unnecessarily increased. If, when they called for the accounts, it appeared that the city had fairly expended its money-that it had been just to its creditors as well as generous-it would be proper to relieve them; but if the money had been squandered, he did not think he should do his duty if he supported them in such a course. He should vote for the present motion. Sir James Shaw observed, that the city gaols were liable not only to the expense of maintaining prisoners from the city, and the county of Middlesex, but likewise from the Crown, and from every county in England. In other counties, the Crown had the nomination of the sheriffs, but this did not subject the Crown to maintain the gaols in these counties: he could not therefore see why the corporation should be liable to the expense of maintaining the gaols of the county of Middlesex, because they had the right of appointing the sheriffs for that county. He hoped, therefore, that, from every consideration of generosity and justice, they would suffer the bill to pass without calling for the accounts. Mr. B. Shaw conceived that the question before them was not whether it was correct that the city of London should maintain the gaols for the county of Middlesex. They were sufficiently well acquainted with that corporation to know that they would not take trouble without some adequate remuneration. The county of Surrey supported its own gaols without calling on the city of London for support, and therefore the city of London ought to support its gaols without assistance from Surrey. Mr. Alderman Atkins entered into an explanation of the Orphans' fund. It was originally, he said, 750,000l. Blackfriarsbridge was built out of this fund. But the city had contributed ten times 750,000l. to the objects of the fund since it was instituted. The money required at present by the city was for the purpose of giving effect to the recommendation of the House for the improvement of gaols. If the city met their wishes, it had a right to look for assistance from them. He appealed to the hon. gentleman whose humanity had been so active on this subject, whether it had not been indispensably necessary to enlarge and improve the gaol in question. Mr. N. Calvert did not see any reason why the county of Middlesex should not be rated to the support of the prisoners in London, to which their criminals were committed, but there was no reason for the tax on the adjacent counties, known by the name of the Orphans' fund, being applied to that purpose. Mr. Bennet said, that since allusion had been made to him, he must say that the New Prison stood most obviously in need of improvement. The state of the walls was such as prevented the free circulation of air. Men and women were mixed together in one place. Many other obvious evils called for immediate attention. When the committee saw the accounts of the expenditure, and were asked their opinion, they stated at once that they were such as ought to have been incurred. But this had nothing to do with the question whether the city had managed their funds with due economy and discretion. His hon. friend near him had stated that he had spent 2,400l. while sheriff. That did not seem to prove any thing as to the question before the House: neither was it material to the question whether more bread or less was now given to prisoners. But when he recollected that the hon. baronet had now confessed that he had been in a mistake on this subject, to the extent of the whole point at issue, he felt a hope that on a future discussion of the present question, he would make a similar confession. The great evils complained of respecting the gaols were still unremoved. The men and women were indeed separated; but persons of every variety of character and misconduct were still crowded together, and thus the comparatively virtuous and innocent were gradually hardened and prepared for every crime. Gaols ought to be not institutions for promoting and confirming vice, but schools for reform; not the nurseries of disease, depravity, and every species of misery, but habitations of health and improvement. He trusted in God the day would soon come when those dreadful evils would be remedied. Mr. Grenfell professed himself in no way acquainted with the financial system of the city, but he wished to be informed whether the effect of the loan required by the city would be to prolong the present duty on coals? Sir W. Curtis replied, that the duty stood at present till 1837, and that he believed the demand of the city would not prolong it for one half year. Mr. S. Thornton understood the question to be, whether the city had funds of their own to effect the purposes in question? He saw no means of answering this question but by inquiring into the income and expenditure of the city. He should therefore certainly support the present motion. Mr. H. Sumner in reply, said, that this tax was limited to 1837, but was to expire so much sooner, as the sums charged on it should be discharged. The grant now demanded would, therefore, prolong the duration of the tax. He allowed that a rate on Middlesex, for the maintenance of the city prisons, might be justifiable; but he saw no reason for charging the other neighbouring counties who supported gaols of their own. The manner in which the city had first acquired the control of the Orphans' fund was very suspicious, as they gave a bribe of 1,000l. to Mr. Speaker Trevor, who had, in consequence, been obliged to put the question on his own expulsion. The question being put, That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the question, the House divided: Ayes, 24; Noes, 11. The main question was then put, and agreed to. enormous evil. The House had, no doubt, done much towards the prevention of crime, the promotion of morality, and the encouragement of benevolence; but while lotteries were tolerated, and the system to which he alluded was allowed to go on in tempting men to the commission of crime, no exertions of benevolence could balance the account in their favour. The hon. and learned gentleman here read the terms of his first motion, adding, that in order to put the House in possession of all the materials necessary to the formation of a correct judgment upon the whole of the case, he should also move for an account of the number of persons prosecuted and convicted for coining gold and silver for fourteen years previous to the enactment of the restriction upon the issue of cash payments by the Bank. This he thought a proper motion, with a view to a fair comparison between the advantages or disadvantages of the metallic currency, and those belonging to the present system of paper currency. Mr. Bennet suggested the propriety of inserting the number committed, as well as prosecuted, for the forgery of passing of bank notes. Sir J. Mackintosh acceded to the suggestion, and moved, "That there be laid before the House, an account of the number of persons committed or prosecuted for forging notes of the Bank of England, and for uttering or possessing such notes knowing them to be forged, from the 1st January 1816 to the 25th of February 1818; distinguishing the years, the number of such offences respectively, and the number who have suffered death or other punishment." PROSECUTIONS FOR FORGERY.] Sir James Mackintosh rose to make a motion of which he had given notice, which was framed with a view to show the effect which the bank restriction had upon the increase of crimes connected with forgery. The accounts he should move for were, for the prosecutions for forgery for 14 years before, and 14 years after the restriction of cash payments at the Bank in 1797; and the number of convictions and executions at each period. Of the prosecutions, they had returns which had been formerly moved for, and of the convictions in the late years, they had ac counts in the general returns of criminal judicature since 1812. That the Restriction bill should have tended to increase the prosecutions for forgery, was not to be Mr. Grenfell did not intend to enter wondered at; but if any one had stated, into the merits of the motion, but should that they had since that event been multi- content himself with expressing his thanks plied a hundred fold, he would not have to his hon. and learned friend for his very been believed; and yet such was the fact. humane and well-timed exertions. He By the accounts which had been produced, would only suggest to his hon. and learned it was proved, that the prosecutions at friend the propriety of combining with the instance of the Bank for forgery, pre- the motion of which he had given notice viously to 1797, were four. The prose- for Tuesday next, a proposition for laying cutions for the fourteen years after were before the House a distinct account of 438-so that they were more then cen- the persons prosecuted for the forgery of tupled. It was necessary, he observed, notes of 11. 21. and 51. For it was known to ascertain the consequences of this sys- that those were the notes usually circutem, the diffusion of depravity, the mulculated by the low people who were protiplication of crimes, and the effusion of human blood which had resulted from its existence. When these facts were before the House, it would be felt that something should be done to put an end to such an secuted, while very few were prosecuted for notes of a higher amount; and upon this fact being established to the satisfaction of the House, it must be evident that the number of prosecutions, convictions, and executions for forgery, was owing to the restriction upon cash payments by the Bank, and the consequent issue of a vast number of small notes. Mr Lockhart deprecated any attempt to excite an improper commiseration for crime, observing, that it was the duty of the Bank to hold out encouragement to artists and chemists with a view to the invention of some paper and colour which could not possibly be imitated, and thus the forgery of bank notes might be guarded against. Sir J. Mackintosh declared that he had no wish to excite improper commiseration for crime, or to take any proceeding likely to weaken the authority of the laws. But while he admitted the hon. gentleman's position, which, however, conveyed no information, namely, that no temptation was an adequate excuse for crime, he would maintain, that any legislature which held out a temptation to crime was a participator in the guilt of its commission. indeed, was a proposition which he would never abandon; and it was by the force of this proposition that he was impelled to take measures, with a view to rescue the British legislature from the disgrace of tolerating a system which was peculiarly calculated to tempt men to the commission of crimes. This, count from February 1797 to 25th February 1818." HOUSE OF LORDS. INDEMNITY BILL.] The Duke of Montrose said, it was his duty to present to their lordships a bill, commonly called a Bill of Indemnity. It was founded upon the Report of the Secret Committee, and was intituled a Bill" for indemnifying persons who, since the 26th of January 1817, have acted in apprehending imprisoning, or detaining in custody, persons suspected of high treason, or treasonable practices, and in the suppression of tumultuous and unlawful assemblies." It was not necessary for him to say any thing in its support in this stage. He should merely propose, that the bill be now read a first time. On Friday, when he intended to move the second reading, he should submit to their lordships consideration some observations on the nature and object of the measure. The Earl of Lauderdale said, he would not have troubled their lordships with any observations on the noble duke's proposition at the present moment, if he did not conceive that it involved a question of considerable constitutional difficulty and General Thornton rejoiced that a sub- importance. This consideration induced ject which he had brought forward unsuc-him to oppose the measure even on the cessfully, was now likely to be attended first reading. From the title of the bill, as with success. He had understood that he had heard it stated by the noble duke, not less than 30,000 forged bank notes it appeared to be a bill for indemnifying were annually returned. This was a very his majesty's ministers for every act they serious evil. had done under the suspension of the Habeas Corpus. The bill, however, for aught their lordships knew, might extend still farther. Now, what was the situation in which their lordships were placed? They knew by the Journals of the other House of parliament, that papers had been also sent to that House, and referred to a committee. That committee had not yet reported, and their report might be such as to render any proceeding of the kind now proposed very improper to be adopted by their lordships. It surely was not known to their lordships, that the report of the Commons would acquit ministers. It might prove of a very different nature. Suppose it afforded matter on which that House should think fit to impeach ministers, their lordships would then have to sit as judges on a question which they had previously determined. He reminded the House, that on a former The motion was agreed to; as were also motions for, 1. "An Account of the number of persons convicted of forging Notes of the Bank of England, and for knowingly uttering or possessing such forged notes, who suffered death, for the 14 years which preceded the suspension of cash payments by the Bank in February 1797, distinguishing the years; together with the like Account, from the said suspension to the 25th day of February 1818;" 2. An Account of the number of persons prosecuted by the officers of his majesty's Mint for counterfeiting the current Gold or Silver Coin of the realm, or for uttering the same, for 14 years preceding the suspension of cash paments by the Bank of England, distinguishing the years, the numbers convicted, and those who have suffered death or other punishment; together with the like ac |