Difference of duty per load which forms a bounty in favour of our colonies... 0 4 24 inches thick, and 11 inches: broad, contain 8 loads, and 40 feet cubical measure; and as 120 such deals are taxed at 19., this will amount perh load to a duty of............******** 2. 3. 2 1 13 10 Deduct difference of freight be twixt America and the Baltic.... 1 5 0 Remains the real bounty given per load to our colonies on deals.. 0 8 10 2dly. Comparative amount of duties on deals from our colonies and from Norway, converting the deals into loads of timber of 50 cubic feet, and showing the advantage our colonies will have on each load of timber, under the present arrangement: 1st.120 Norway deals, 12 feet long, 8 inches thick, and 9 inches broad, contain 5 loads, 20 feet cubical measure; and as 120 12 feet deals are taxed at 191., this will amount per load to a duty of. 3 10 4 120 American deals of the same dimensions are taxed at 27.: this will amount per load to a duty of 0 7 4 Difference per load ......... 3 2 114 Deduct difference of freight betwixt an American and Norway voyage... Remains the real bounty given to our colonies on deals of these dimensions ..... 2nd.-120 Norway deals, 8 feet long, 3 inches thick, and 9 inches broad, contain 3 loads and 3 feet cubical measure; and as 120 deals, 8 feet in length, are taxed at 19., this will amount per load to a duty of......... 1 10 0 1 12 11 Advantage, per load, which the Russian deals of these dimensions? 5 5 6 will, under this bill, enjoy over the Norwegian deals of 8-foot dimensions 120 American deals of the same dimensions are taxed at 21.: this will amount per load to.......... 0 11 Difference of duty per load Deduct difference of freight betwixt an American and Norway voyage ..... Remains the real bounty given to our colonies on deals of these dimensions..... 11 367 5 4thly.-Statement showing that the bounty given to Russian deals by the present bill, must destroy the manufacture of that article in this country. 4 14 5 1 10 0 load 3 4 5 3dly. Comparative amount of duties imposed by this bill on deals from Norway and from Russia, resulting from the circumstance that Norway deals cannot be had so as on an average to exceed 12 feet in length, and 9 inches in breadth; whilst Russia deals are always 11 inches broad, and may easily be had 16, or even 21 feet long. 1st.-120 Norway deals, 12 feet long, 3 inches think, and 9 inches broad, contain 5 loads and 20 feet cubical measure; and as 120 such deals are taxed at 19%., this will amount per load to a duty of..... 3 10 120 Russian deals, 16 feet long, 8 4 1st.-Russian timber pays per Russian deals, 16 feet long and 3 inches thick, and 11 inches broad, &c., pay per load 2.3 2 Direct bounty ... 0 16 11 Further duty on waste, as above 0 9 6 Total bounty in favour of the foreign deal manufacturer per load 1 6 5 "end. Because it appears to me that this House will treat with undeserved contempt the decision of their own committee that it is expedient only to compensate to the Ca nadian importer of timber, the difference of freight and transport,' as well as the desire expressed by the committee of the Commons House of Parliament of adopting, in our intercourse with foreign nations, more liberal principles than those which have hitherto guided us,' if they sanction a bounty in favour of our colonies of nearly 100 per cent. on the value of the raw material, which will be the case if 17. per load of timber is given in the shape of bounty, over and above compensation for the difference of freight. Besides, I must be of opinion that it is a measure highly injurious to the interests of the people of this country; for, whilst it is undoubtedly proved that American timber is far less durable than that of the Baltic, and that this trade is of little or no advantage, except to what is called the shipping interest, I cannot forget that timber used in building, if it perishes, inflicts upon the people of this country the loss of the materials with which it is worked up, amounting at least to four times its own value; and that the committee of the House of Commons have, in their Report, stated, with great truth, that the policy most advantageous for this country, is to obtain timber of the best quality, and at the lowest price, without reference to the quarter from which it is derived.' even by the wildest theorist; far less could I have imagined that such a system would ever have been acted upon by the legislature of any country; yet, by the unprincipled and extraordinary arrangements of this bill, it is impossible not to admit that a bounty is substantially given to the Russian and Prussian manufacturers of deals, in no instance less than 17. 2s. 7d. per load, a sum which must annihilate all attempts on the part of the home-manufacturer to compete in that article. "5th. Because, injurious to the country as it must be, to force into use, at an advanced price, timber of an inferior quality subject to premature decay, it appears to me that this is far from being the most serious calamity with which the proposed arrangement threatens this mercantile country.-Since the restoration of peace the tables of this and the other House of Parliament have been crowded with petitions from our merchants and manu→ facturers; in which, convinced of the great truth, that commerce is an exchange of equal value for equal value, and that it is impossible for goods to be imported into this country, without an equal value of our commodities being exported, they have strenuously enforced the necessity of doing away that restrictive, protective, and prohibitory system which has disgraced our commercial arrange ments; anxiously urging, that by gradually adopting this line of conduct, we should not only afford relief to a suffering people, but secure to them important benefits, from the example this alteration of system would hold out to foreign nations. To me, therefore, it appears the greatest of all calamities to see this House adopt a bill which, in regulating that branch of commerce "3d. Because, whilst I applaud the wish exthat has first come under the consideration of pressed by the committee of the House of parliament, not only prejudices the interest Commons of marking to foreign nation of foreign nations without any material beneour desire, in the arrangement of the timber fit to our colonies, by forcing into use an artiduties, to adopt more liberal principles than cle of colonial produce they could furnish those by which our commerce with them has cheaper and of a superior quality; but, by a been hitherto governed," I must reprobate partial arrangement of duty, regulates the that unprecedented and unprincipled love of comparative degree of intercourse we shall regulation and restriction exhibited in this enjoy with other countries-thus, at once, bill to such an extent, that duties are laid on unjustly sacrificing to the proprietors of ship. deals from Norway-a country that always ping, who can alone derive advantage from it, admitted our manufactures at comparatively the interest of the British consumers, and low duties which, when compared with the annihilating the reasonable expectations of more moderate duties imposed on deals from benefit which our merchants hoped to derive Russia a country which has recently in- from unrestrained commerce, by setting the creased its extravagant duties on our manuexample of illiberal preferences that will renfactures can leave no doubt that a bounty of der it impossible for us to negotiate with fonearly 100 per cent on the value of the com-reign countries, with any chance of approximodity is given to the latter. mating to that freedom of intercourse which, if it could be established, must redound equally to the advantage of all. "4th. Because though I agree in the prevalent opinion that our commercial code displays too much jealousy of foreign industry, and too great a desire to secure by prohibitory duties, to our own industry a monopoly of the home-market; yet I was not aware that the policy of a contrary system, viz., that of securing to foreign industry a monopoly of the home-market, had ever been maintained, (Signed) "LAUDERDALE.” HOUSE OF COMMONS. Wednesday, May 23. CONSTITUTIONAL ASSOCIATION.] Mr. Dugdale having presented a petition from Birmingham, complaining of the severity of the Criminal Laws, He persons had entered into this association, without seeing how likely it was to be Mr. Brougham said, he was anxious to perverted to improper objects; without take the opportunity afforded to him by a being aware that they y were lending the petition being presented for an alteration credit of their names to proceedings, of in the criminal law, to complain of ano- which, if they did not hereafter repent, ther alteration in the criminal laws, not he, knowing their sound constitutional made upon the sound and constitutional principles, should be surprised. principles of his hon. and learned friend thought that no one calling himself a (sir J. Mackintosh), but upon principles friend of the constitution, that no person and with feelings which justly created connected by principle with the existing adserious alarm in the public mind. He ministration, that not even a constitutional alluded to the inroad made upon that Tory in church and state, could support which, if not the exclusive right, had at this society, when he considered the danleast been the general practice of his ger that might result from it to the prinmajesty's attorney and solicitor-general- ciples and interests to which he was conthe proceeding officially against all persons scientiously attached. There might be guilty of offences against the church or occasions on which it would be not mere. state. He did not mean to contend ly allowable, but the duty of government that, by law, this right was vested solely not to prosecute. He could conceive a in the solicitor and attorney-general, case of the most gross description, in for he held that by law any man could which, if an indictment were preferred, proceed against another for a public of- conviction must ensue, and punishment ence. After the many associations which must follow on conviction: he could conhad existed for the prosecution of ceive a case of this nature, where it would felonies, it would be hard to raise a ques- not only be the interest of government not tion with respect to their strict legality. to prosecute, but where the greatest public But the proceedings of these associations mischief would arise from bringing it into had always been confined to the prosecu- a court of justice. This society, however, tion of felonies, or of those odious crimes might prosecute a case of this nature, in which came more immediately under the opposition to the wishes and interests cognizance of the Society for the Sup- of the government. When he spoke of pression of Vice, which at the time of its this society, he did not mean the respectestablishment was strongly objected to, able persons whom he had before alluded on the ground of its impropriety, but with to, but two or three attorneys, who would respect to which, he wished to be under- be paid out of the funds of the society, and stood to give no decided opinion. The would care little for the ultimate effect of Society for the Suppression of Vice, how- the prosecutions which they might instiever, by confining itself to the object of tute. Hitherto the office of prosecuting its institution, and connecting itself with for offences, to which this society professno party, had done less mischief than had ed to oppose itself, had been vested in the been apprehended at the time of its esta- attorney-general, who was open to the blishment, and had even effected some influence of public opinion, which restraingood. But there was a society now in ed him in the exercise of a very high, existence, of a perfectly different nature, and if not coupled with responsibility, a which meant to proceed to the prosecu- very dangerous political power. Indeed, tion of political offences, to be selected at by many persons, it had been deemed too the discretion of political feeling. The high a power to be entrusted to any indiviprosecutions were to be conducted by dual, however responsible for the exercise means of a common fund, and no person of his trust; but here was a set of indivi of respectability could be fixed upon as duals, under the name of a constitutional immediately responsible for the acts of the association, proposing to exercise the society. He did not mean to say there functions of the law-officers of the Crown were no respectable individuals connected without any responsibility whatever. He with the association. He knew, indeed, had said that he knew there were many that there were many most respectable godly and respectable men connected with persons connected with it, to whom, on the association. He believed that these the present occasion, he wished to ad- persons had been induced to lend the dress himself only in the language of ex-influence of their names to it in the belief postulation. He believed that many that it was particularly devoted to put down - offences against religion. Abhorring offences of this description as much as the contempt which he felt for them would permit him he meant contempt for the effect which they were likely to produce he had much rather that they should only be liable to prosecution by the recognised officers of the crown, than be also liable to it by an association, where that would interfere which must always be dangerous in such cases he meant the spirit of particular sects. He found in the list of the members of this association, the names of forty peers. Surely these individuals could not have reflected, when they made themselves parties to the undertaking, that they were judges in the last resort. In cases of libel, the whole question was put on the record, and it might therefore become necessary for some of the peers to decide upon a case which they had previously given funds to prosecute. He did not think it would be any remedy for the evil he complained of to establish contrary associations. This would only lead to a contest between two political parties, each prosecuting what they considered libels-a system which would finally deprive the country of the benefit of any political discussion whatever. FORGERY PUNISHMENT MITIGATION BILL.] Sir James Mackintosh moved the order of the day for going into a committee on this bill. On the question, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair," The Solicitor-General said, it was with great reluctance he opposed the motion of his hon. and learned friend. In doing so, he was not insensible to those feelings of humanity in which the measure had its origin; but he was compelled, in the discharge of his public duty, to give his negative to the bill. It was quite impossible that any party feeling or party view could influence any member on this subject; as it ought to be considered entirely on its own merits, which were, the interests of humanity, so far as those interests were compatible with the security of the public. The House was aware that this bill arose out of the report of a committee which had been appointed during the last session. He stated unfeignedly that he had the highest respect for the great talents, great discernment, and great experience of the members of the committee, than whom there could not be men better calculated for the impor [894 tant charge intrusted to them; yet the report had proceeded on a partial view of the question. He spoke of it, of course, as connected with the evidence; and so considering it, it was impossible not to feel that it presented a partial view to the consideration of the House. He attached no blame to the committee, but to their method of inquiry, and to the circumstances connected with that inquiry. A large number of respectable persons were known to be averse to capital punishments who had been eager in the pursuit of their object, and had pressed themselves on the committee to give evidence. This might have been foreseen, and it was impossible not to see that this had actually taken place. There were persons of opposite opinions who had naturally withheld their evidence, and had felt reluctant to state their experience, unless they were compelled by the order of the committee. Such persons were not compelled, and of course no evidence from them appeared on the face of the report. The report itself was evidently drawn up in a haste, as many inaccuracies appeared in it. Thus, it was stated, that stealing in dwelling-houses to the amount of 40s. was a capital offence by the law as it stood. Now, he had no hesitation in saying that there was no law respecting stealing in houses to the amount of 40s. In like manner, the report stated that stealing in ships and vessels on navigable rivers was a capital offence; there was no such offence known to the law of England. These circumstances he mentioned to show that the report was drawn up in haste, and was not, therefore, entitled to the attention which, from the known talents and attainments of the individual who had been chairman, might be thought due to it. It also conveyed a charge against a learned judge, now no more, for whose memory he had the greatest respect and veneration. At the assizes in Essex an individual had been tried, convicted, and executed, for cutting trees. The charge against the learned judge and the secretary of state for the home department was, that the individual had been executed, not for the crime of which he had been convicted, but for other offences for which he had not been tried or convicted. A charge so serious in its nature should not have been made without due inquiry. The committee had it in their power to have instituted that inquiry the clerk of the crown for Essex lived in London, and might have been examined; no such examination took place. He had himself inquired into the circumstance, and had ascertained that the individual who had suffered the sentence of the law, so far from not having been convicted of any other crime, was at that very assize, charged under eight distinct indictments, with eight distinct offences, one of which was burglary; and of four of those offences he was convicted. crime of forgery was not punishable with death; it was treated as a misdemeanor. But it should be recollected, that in the infancy of writing, when commerce was limited, and the transactions of the people were simple, forgery was a crime of rare occurrence... But as commerce increased, and society advanced, the crime of forgery became more frequent; hence the statute of Elizabeth, a statute enacted to guard against the repetition of the crime. That statute, though it did not inflict the punishment of death, affixed a punishment nearly as grievous. It enacted, that every one convicted of the crime of forgery, should pay to the party injured double the value of the property-should be imprisoned for life, Mr. Buxton.-Was he convicted of the burglary? The Solicitor General.-There were seven cases of larceny charged against him, of four of those he was convicted; he was not convicted of the burglary. It was proved that he had cut down the timber from motives of malice against the proprietor of the land. He had thought it necessary to state the circumstance, not for the purpose of throwing any censure upon the committee, but to free the character of a venerable judge from the odium which might be thought to have been thrown by the report upon his memory. In adverting to the bill before them, it appeared that the object of it was to take away, for the first offence, the punishment of death in cases of forgery of every description, save those of notes of the Bank of England. It was necessary, therefore, to consider the cases to which the bill applied. It applied to the forgery of wills a crime easily committed, and by which families might be stript of their entire property. It applied also to the forgery of marriage registers-a crime which went to destroy not merely the property of families, but to affect the legitimacy and character of its members. It also applied to the forgery of deeds of conveyance of property to any amount, and cases of the transfer of stock-cases so very important, and on which depended property to a great amount. He recollected having been employed in one case where the party was charged with having committed forgery respecting the transfer of stock to the amount of 20,000l. The House, he thought, should not in cases of such great importance, proceed to alter the law, without having before them the strongest reasons for a measure so important to the country-so deeply affecting the security and property of families. He was aware that it might be said, that the existing laws against forgeries were but so many innovations on the common law. By the common law, the should be put in the pillory, and have his ears nailed to the pillory should have his nose slit, and should be seared with a red hot iron, should forfeit his goods and chattels to the Crown, and his lands and tenements for life. Such was the dreadful punishment affixed to the first offence; for the second offence the party, was liable to be executed. So the law remained until the reign of George 2nd. The manners of the times rendered that law necessary. The Revolution effected a sensible change in the manners and feelings of the country. Imprisonment for life, and the dreadful punishment of mutilation, could no longer be effected. The law of Elizabeth remained a dead letter, and the crime of forgery greatly increased in consequence. To meet the evil, the act of George 2nd was made, after very great consideration, and with the best advice. Lord Hardwicke was then attorney-general, and lord Talbot solicitor-general. The act, so cautious was the legislaturė, was first tried as a temporary act, to expire in five years. The subject was shortly afterwards brought again under the consideration of the legislature. Some verbal defects having been discovered in the act, it became necessary to correct them; in consequence of which, in less than a year after the passing of the act, the matter was brought a second time before parliament. Again, shortly before the expiration of the five years, the subject was brought under legislative consideration; and the act having been found effective, was made perpetual. Since that period, the subject was frequently brought under the view of parliament. So lately as the year 1805, those acts were re-enacted, with reference to a particular object. |