§ Earl Greyrose to bring forward the motion respecting which he had recently given notice. It would go, he observed, first, for an account of the total value of the notes refused in payment at the Bank since the year 1797, on the ground of their being forged, distinguishing the value of those in each respective year since that period. To this, he believed, no objection would be made. But the information he most wished for, and without which the anterior would be nugatory, was an account of the number of the notes so presented; this he thought more especially necessary, with a view to the discussion of the measure which would ere long come before that House. Such a statement alone, he said, would enable them to form a judgment how far individuals were likely to suffer in that way under the system, which that measure went to extend, and to continue. The noble earl then moved for an account of the value of the notes as above, from the year 1797 to the latest period the same could be made up, distinguishing the nominal value of the notes so presented in 322 each year, &c. which was forthwith agreed to by the House. His lordship then moved for the production of an account of the number of notes so presented and returned.
The Earl of Liverpoolobserved, that to the first part of the noble earl's proposition he thought, under the present circumstances, and with reference to the Bill in its progress in that House, no rational objection could be made. It, besides, would furnish all the necessary or useful information desired, inasmuch as the specification of the value in each year would shew the progress as well as the extent of the evil. With regard to that under consideration, he certainly entertained no objections; it would also, on the noble earl's own ground, afford but little further in-formation, except a distinction was made between the notes below and above the sum of 5l. One strong objection was, that it would afford information as to what description of notes forgeries might be the more easily made; every useful purpose would be answered by a specification of the actual number and total value of the notes refused in each year, and what was new proposed appeared to him at best to be unnecessary and superfluous.
§ Earl Greythought, by what fell from the noble Secretary of State, he must have misapprehended the object of his motion; it went to shew what he allowed to be proper, the extent of the evil, and which, could not be satisfactorily shewn without an account of the number of instances in which the evil had taken place; it was not so much the amount as in the nature of the sum, and the multiplicity of instances in which the offence had been committed. It was said not to exceed 9,000l. as to nominal value, one year with another, but without a specification of the numbers, they could not tell whether forgeries were committed in nine instances of 1,000l. each, or in nine thousand instances of 1l. each. He had no objection to amend his motion as suggested, by calling for a distinction of the notes under and above 5l.; and as to the objection of the noble earl, that to publish the description of notes would be injurious, he thought it could not really be believed, that the practitioners in forgery wanted any information through the medium of that House. One great object should be the diminution of opportunities for the commission of the offence alluded to, as far as possible, for it made one's blood run 323 cold to read the facts in the papers of the numbers brought to trial on such charges, and sent away with verdicts of Guilty—Death.
The Earl of Liverpoolcontended, that every useful purpose would be answered from the accounts already ordered. He was far from wishing to withhold any information really useful or necessary: the real question to be considered was, whether the evil complained of was progressively increasing or not, and that would fully appear by the accounts just ordered.
The Earl of Lauderdalecontended, that the specification called for by his noble friend, was necessary to elucidate that part of a very important subject. The noble Secretary seemed to have forgot, that before 1797, notes of 1l. and 2l. were unknown in the country. The forgeries were said to be chiefly for those low sums, and it was proper they should know how far the evil arose from that system which the expected Bill went to enforce and to continue.
§ Earl Stanhopehoped their lordships would permit him to say a few words respecting the opinions just declared upon a very important subject. He believed it to be fact, that the greater proportion of the value of the forgeries had been in the small notes. He did not approve of the motion as then worded; it was liable to an objection urged by the noble Secretary, as to its tending to mislead. He saw no reason, however, why his noble friend should not call for a specification of all the classes of notes in which forgeries were committed. It was a topic to which he believed he had given ten times the attention given to it by all the members of parliament put together. He had suggested a mode which would go to prevent forgeries at home; but what was greatly to be feared was the effects of foreign forgery, when these notes should be put on a different footing; the forgeries would be extensive and systematical. Their lordships recollected the forgeries of the assignats. With regard to the Bill in its progress to that House, the great object with respect to it, and the subject of which it formed a part, was that the holder of the note should receive the value it was worth. Every thing that could, should be done to prevent forgery and its consequences; and also to render the person who held a note, certain that he would receive that which was its value. In that 324 view, the fullest information should be afforded. One great means which led to the facility of forgery was the wretched style of executing notes; and it had been said to him, jocosely no doubt, that they ought not to hang those who forged, but the Bank directors for making the notes so liable to be forged.
§ Earl Greyamended his motion, in the way suggested by his noble friend; and the question being put thereon, their lordships divided.
| For the motion | 12 | |
| Against it | 27 | |
| Majority | — | 15 |
The Earl of Lauderdalemoved, that there be laid before the House a statement of the period at which the directors of the Bank of England gave up indemnifying the holders of forged notes.—On this pro-position some conversation took place.
Lord Hollandexpressed his surprise that ministers seemed unwilling to acquiesce in propositions of the kind, until they had consulted the Bank directors. The motion he thought necessary, and adverted to the period, as long subsequent to the restriction on the Bank. He noticed the circumstance of a forged note he had brought some years after that period, and which he had communicated to the Bank as connected with a system of forgery, said to be then going on. He was offered indemnification. But he could not avoid observing, that it was to the disgrace of the country that the example was set, not by individuals, but by the government itself, and it was to the shame of the country that the practice should be approved in the tribunals, on the ground of its being against the enemy of the country.
The Earl of Liverpoolsaid, that with re-respect to any specific proceeding of the government of the country at the time adverted to by the noble baron, he certainly could not speak from any personal knowledge; but they all knew, that when the circumstance had been expressly referred to in that House—it was strongly denied and disclaimed by a noble baron (lord Grenville) then holding a high situation in the government, who denied that such a fact had ever taken place. With respect to the idea held by the noble baron, of his proneness to consult those whose interests were so immediately concerned, he had to state, he felt it incumbent on him, not only in the case of the bank of England, but of any other public body whose interests 325 were deeply implicated, to endeavour to learn whether important objections were entertained, and where these were communicated, he always exercised his own judgment how far such constituted a fit ground for objection or argument in parliamentary discussion.
§ The motion was then withdrawn.