Mackintosh moved, in addition, for accounts of, 1st, The value of forged notes presented to the Banks between 1st January 1816 and 10th April 1818; 2d, The number of prosecutions for forgery, or uttering forged notes, in the same period; 3d, The number of notes discovered by the Bank to have been forged; and, 4th, The expence incurred by the Bank in prosecutions for forgery. All these were granted without opposition, except the last, which was represented as an unjustifiable interference with the private transactions of the Bank. Sir James, however, said, he was prepared to shew, that the present system of our paper currency had created an enormous public evil; that it had tainted and corrupted the morals of a large class of people; and that it had occasioned an increase of crime with a rapidity unexampled in the history of law, and of civil society. How, then, was it possible to consider the money laid out by the Bank in prosecuting crimes of which they themselves were the real authors, as a private expenditure, of which Parliament ought to have neither the inspection nor the control? Even from the scanty materials obtained, it appeared, that for the seven years previous to the suspension of cash payments, the Bank had not instituted a single prosecution for the forging their notes, and that for the seven years subsequent to that event, they had instituted 222 prosecutions. Was not this a frightful leap, and only to be accounted for in one way? The calculation, of course, excluded the year 1797, as being that in which the measure of suspension was resorted to. In the fourteen years previous to the suspension, there had been only four prosecutions. In the fourteen years subsequent to that mea eure, there had been no less than 469! In the twenty-one years previous to the suspension, there had been only six prosecutions; while in the twenty

one years subsequent to it, they had increased to 850. The proportion was, therefore, as 6 to 850; and he would ask, whether the history of the criminal law of this or indeed of any other country, afforded a parallel instance of so great, so sudden, and so permanent an augmentation of crime? It had been urged, that the increase of prosecutions by the Bank had tended to diminish those by the mint; and when it was proved that the latter had increased also, it was then said, that this fact shewed a general increase of depravity. But the increase of mint prosecutions had been gradual; while those by the Bank had made the above sudden and tremendous leap. In vain had it been attempted to repress this crime by the severity of punishment. On the contrary, the more the promoters of capital punishments cried Hang! hang! hang! the more the offence was committed, and the more numerous were the offenders executed. It must be confessed, that the machinery of the Bank was most perfect for the protection of its own interests. The Bank, within four years, had had 100,000 forged notes presented it; all of which they had immediately checked, except 199 which they paid, but all which they after. wards recovered. Sir James observed, that the punishment of forgery was peculiarly odious, from the number of weak and dependent individuals who were easily seduced and almost compelled into it. He feared to embitter the execution of a public duty-but it was due to his conscience to say, that the convictions of women at Warwick, at Lancaster, and at the Old Bailey, must fill mankind with a degree of involuntary horror. It was lamentable that the courts of justice, which were established for the protection of the people, should become hateful; yet this might be the case without a single fault on the part of those who ad

ministered the laws, when the laws themselves were ill-judged. To see a father, a wife, a daughter, and sons, convicted en masse for such crimes as these, might be just, might be necessary, might be legal, but would be abominable. The Bank, he observed, had brought their machinery to perfection, so far as related to the discovery of forgery by themselves; but the object and the difficulty was to put such marks on their notes as would be recognized by the poor and ignorant. Since the Bank must incur expence, they would rarely rather pay it to artists for improving the character of their notes, than to spies and informers for detecting the guilty, and perhaps entrapping the unwary. It was in this view that he wished to know the expence incurred in prosecuting. Considering the enormous increase of these prosecutions; considering the number of persons employed, who deprived men of their innocence, that they might afterwards deprive them of their lives; considering the many instances of this kind, some of them detected and exposed by the intrepid and indefatigable benevolence of his honourable friend, the member for Shrewsbury (Mr Bennet,) he thought it desirable, that some of the particulars of the Bank prosecutions should be laid before the public. Mr Manning insisted, that there had been more prosecutions by the Mint than by the Bank. The Bank had

bestowed the utmost attention on eve

ry plan submitted to them for improving their notes; and if all hitherto proposed to them had been rejected, it was because, after the most deliberate consideration, they had been deemed inadequate. He had no objection to the first motion; but the wish to know the expence of prosecutions, appeared to him to betray a desire of prying into the private concerns of the Bank.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer conceived, that the giving of the num◄

bers of prosecutions and convictions would answer every reasonable purpose, and that there then would be no necessity for a statement of the expences the Bank had incurred in the conduct of prosecutions, in the view of a just and moral consideration of the subject. It appeared, that the hon. and learned gentleman had suspicions, that the Bank had recourse to the abominable practice of employing spies and informers, in consequence of the supposed amount of their expences for prosecutions; and that they paid large sums of money for the treacherous practice of inveigling individuals. He believed that such suspicions were wholly unfounded, as far as they related to so respectable and honourable a body as the Directors of the Bank.

After some short observations from Mr Bennet, Mr Alderman Wood, Mr Grenfell, and other members, the mo tions were carried without a division. The ministers and Bank Directors, notwithstanding their objections to that relating to the expences of prosecution, did not attempt to divide the House against it.

The above accounts being presented, Sir James, on the 13th May, rose to move for a committee of inquiry into the means of preventing the forgery of Bank of England notes. From the accounts now laid before the House, it appeared, that the expences of prosecutions for forgery, on the part of the Bank of England last year, were 30,000l. ; in the present year, in which prosecutions had made such gigantic strides, in the three months of which returns had been made, the expence was within a few hundreds of 20,000l. The general average struck him as extremely alarming. It was 2651. for each individual prosecuted. In former years, the forgeries had been chiefly confined to small notes; by the last returns it appeared, that a propor

tionate increase of forgeries for larger notes had now occurred;-a melancholy proof, that the skill and boldness of the criminals in the forgery of small notes, had tempted them to try their fortune on large notes. Sir James continued to urge afresh, with great force, all the arguments which he had brought forward on a former occasion. The Chancellor of the Exchequer rose, he said, not to depreciate the importance of the subject before the House, but to recommend what appeared, to his mind, a more effectual mode of attaining the object in view than that proposed by the hon. and learned gentleman. To investigate this subject would require a degree of patient research and scientific knowledge, which was not, he with all deference apprehended, to be looked for in a committee of that House; and, therefore, he thought it more advisable to have such an investigation conducted by a special commission, consisting of fully qualified persons, and having an opportunity of consulting the first artists in the country. He therefore proposed to move for the appointment of such a commission. Many advantages would belong to such a commission, which could not appertain to a committee of that House; for, while the labours of the committee must be limited by the duration of the session, those of the commission would be subject to no such limitation. He fully admitted the greatness of the evil, and the importance of every thing possible being done to remedy it; at the same time that the statements of the hon. and learned mover appeared to him somewhat exaggerated. Forgery was almost as much known and practised long before the present day as it was now. In the middle of the last century, the number of persons executed for forgery were greater, in a given period of time, than they were in the

same period of hate years. In the years 1749-50-51, and 1752, the number of persons executed for forgery in: London and Middlesex amounted to 19, and in the last four years the number was only 18. He spoke here of various kinds of forgeries, for he had not data sufficient to state the particulars. The late accounts were more accurate. In the years 1811-12, and 1813, the number of persons executed for forgeries in the united kingdom was 110; and, in the last three years, the number did not exceed 91. The sanguine expectations entertained from the resumption of cash payments were refuted by the great increase of the crime of coining. The number of persons indicted for coining, in the years 181112, and 1813, amounted to 392; and, in the years 1815-16, and 1817, they were as high as 624.

Mr Bennet congratulated the Chancellor on his prudence in not opposing the motion. The crime of forgery, so far from being diminished, was increasing to an alarming extent. From the very paper alluded to by the right hon. gentleman it would be found, that, in 1811, 43 persons were indicted for forgeries on the Bank, or uttering such notes; in 1812, 67; in 1813, 95; in 1814, 63; in 1815, 71; in 1817, 162; and in the first three months of the present year, 112. He would say, that the number of criminals was so excessive, that government dared not put the sentence of the law in execu. tion on those who were convicted. But the Bank had assumed to itself the right of dispensing with the law, by omitting the capital part of the charge against whom they pleased, and bringing them up to plead guilty to the smaller offence. Thus, it appeared, that no less than 200 persons had pleaded guilty, in three years, of having forged Bank notes in their possession. In the middle of the last century, those persons would not have

beer suffered to plead guilty, but would all rave been executed if convicted. Therefore, the right hon. gentleman's Principle was erroneous. Was it right that the Bank should decide on who was to suffer capital punishment? At the last sessions for London, 12 persons were sentenced to 14 years, transportation, and two, one of whom was an unfortunate woman, had been selected to suffer death. By whom were they selected? Not by the Judges. The solicitor of the Bank held up the list of prisoners, and said that those numbered so and so were the persons to be tried for the capital offence.

Sir A. Pigott strongly defended the Bank Directors, and considered the charge against them as very unjust. He found himself called upon, when he heard such charges brought against a body of men whom he knew not to deserve them, he felt, that it was a justice which he owed them, and which he regretted he had so long delayed to render, to say, that they had done their duty to the public; and that the accusations of negligence in looking out for the means of prevention, or severity in calling for punishment, or caprice in selecting the objects of it, were unfounded. He was sorry to hear it said by an hon. gentleman, that it was left to the solicitor of the Bank, however respectable that individual might be, to determine on the objects of capital prosecution. This was a misrepresentation that was not in the least countenanced by fact. No such discretion was entrusted to the Bank solicitor. He received his instructions from the direction, like any other law agent in a similar situation, with regard to individuals; and it was his duty to follow those instructions, laying the prosecution, which he was directed to institute, before the proper Court. The Directors themselves examined the circumstances of every particular case, and proceeded according to the

views which such an investigation suggested. When in doubt or difficulty, they asked the opinion of counsel,though, in such cases, they did not apply to their regular counsel,-and were guided by the legal advice they received.

Mr Canning conceived there could be but one opinion in the House as to the necessity of devising some means to check the evil. It was quite impossible, he observed, for the Bank to communicate to the country the pri vate marks by which they distinguished genuine from forged notes, because this information would immediately be acted upon by the forgers. To prevent forgeries, it seemed desirable that something more artificial and more elaborate in its execution should be provided. All came to this at last,-that the bank note would be less likely to be forged, if it were, like one of Raphael's pictures, or the Venus de Medici, so finely executed, that imitation was almost hopeless. Stimulated as talent would be, by the rewards that he anticipated the inquiry about to be undertaken would hold out to successful exertion in this way, he thought it would be a disparagement of the art of engraving not to look forward to a considerable, if not to a decisive improvement. At the beginning of the session he might have preferred a committee, but now the proposed commission appeared to him the most eligible. Wishing, that what they did should not go merely to allay a temporary clamour, or to xcite a fallacious hope,-wishing that to be done, which would confer a substantial and lasting benefit on the country,—he should vote for the amendment.

Sir James Mackintosh was happy to observe, that all sides were agreed as to the necessity of some inquiry. His friend, Sir A. Pigott, had been mistaken in supposing that any personal charge was insinuated against

the Bank Directors, though the selection made by them could not fail to create distrust in the public. It was said, that he had exaggerated the increase of forgeries, and a comparative statement of crimes was produced to countenance the assertion. The plausibility of this statement rested on the number of executions for forgery, not upon the number of convictions, and much less of prosecutions. He did not confine his view of the case to the number of executions alone. He had called the attention of the House to the prosecutions instituted on the ground of forgery for twenty-one years previous to the Bank restriction, and for twenty-one years subsequent to it. In the former period, there were only six prosecutions, while in the lat ter the number amounted to 860. During the fourteen years immediately preceding the restriction the prosecutions were but four; in the following fourteen years they were 404. He saw no reason why a committee of the House of Commons should not be entrusted with any secrets necessary to be communicated in such an inquiry as that proposed. He could not be lieve that the House deserved so severe a censure as to say, that twentyone of the gentlemen who composed it were not to be trusted with secrets referring to this subject. He saw no reason for delay in the appointment of a committee. The only objection to it was such as ministers alone could create, by an early dissolution of Parliament. All that was necessary might be done in a month. An investigation by commission would not, he was convinced, remove the distrust and jealousy of the public. They really believed that there was a compact between the Bank and the government; the appointment of a commission would then appear to them nothing more than the selection of individuals to try their own friends. The public

could expect nothing from such a commission but subserviency and collusion. The report of a committee would produce quite a contrary impression. Such reports were of the highest value; they conveyed at all times most useful and important information; they kept up the character of the House, and tended more than any thing else to support the respect of Parliament. They were now called upon to desert their functions, and to delegate them to a commission chosen by the crown, of which it was their duty to be jealous. If they did not maintain towards the crown a proud but respectful attitude, and towards the people one of protection and support, they would injure their own character, they would fall in the confidence of the country,-and alienate from themselves that respect, which it was desirable by all means to increase.

The vote being now called, the amendment of the Chancellor of the Exchequer was carried by a majority of 106 to 62. After some discussion on minor points, the main question was then carried.

Another plan destined to prevent or diminish certain evils to which a numerous body in the lower ranks is liable, occupied a large share of attention during this session. In the cotton manufactories, which form now so extensive a proportion of British industry, a great part of the work is performed by children of a very ten. der age. A class of labourers thus employed, not voluntarily, nor for their own behoof, must be exposed to considerable oppression. The spending almost their whole time in a confined situation, and in an employment little favourable to health, cannot but be unfavourable to the formation of a vigorous constitution, Tender and careful parents will indeed study to prevent their children from sustaining