Star. — London, England, 1821-06-05 00:00:00

, '1 try, would be sat out Wilder tie Aliffq Act, or have the protec tion of the Britt iF clhviaismeat asrfobject? " The Marquis of LONDONDERItY said, as far as he was able fitly* to asswett.tbe question of the Hon. Membec, a native of,the Iskrs co& not4setonsidered as a British subject , Griatßribei4 dhq.a oie aaPowertowatdsthoselslands. BANE SECURITIES. Mr. T. WILSON presented a Petition from the Bankers and 'traders of London and Westminster, praying that they might be placed on the same foot ing as the Bank of England, as regarded their nego ciable securities. Mr. PEARCE said a few words in defence of the Bank having a preference. Mr. F. BUXTON supported the present Bill, under a persuasion that the mitigated punishment would have a greater effect in preventing crime, than the punishment of death. Mr. DENT strongly condemned the distinction made between the securities of the Bank of England and, those of the Country Bankers, and declared lie would take the sense of the House upon this subject on the third reading, and trusted their good sense would support him. Mr. H. DAVIS thought the Bill would be most mischievous, if it passed with this distinction. RICAItDO said, there was a great diTerence between the Bank of England securities, and those of the Country Bankers; for the Check of a Country Banker was not an object of circulation, and there fore the chance of forgery on Country Bankers was not likely to occur. Mr. ELLICE was sorry his Honourable and Learned Friend had consented to make any ahem dons in his Bill, except, indeed, as regarded the for gery of Wills. After some further observations from Mr. DAVIS, and others, the Petition was received. WOOL TRADE. Mr. T. WILSON then presents a a Petition from the Merchants, and others, engaged in the Wool Trade in the City of London, praying that some pre cautionary measure should be adopted to prevent the exportation of sheep and rams from this country to the Continent, which was likely to take place under the Bin now before the House ;.and an opportunity would thereby be given to the people of France, to try whether they could not rival us in the production of k►ng wool. The Hon. Member hoped the Right Hon. Gentleman (Nit.. Lushington) would give the important subject his serious attention. Mr. LUSHINGTON said, the chance of our long woolled breed of sheep being taken to the Continent, might be effectually prevented, by limiting the ex portation to South Down sheep only. Sir ISAAC COFFIN was sorry to see this jealousy existing amongst us. Some of our Statutes on this , subject were most illiberal. He recollected that, on going out to Halifax in 1786, he took with him an English ram : on his arrival there, he found that, under a certain Statute of Elizabeth, he was liable, for taking out this English ram, to have his right hand cut off, and stuck up ►n the public market-place, and to have his goods and chattels confiscated. On making this discovery, he quietly cut the ram's throat, and threw him overboard. This jealousy about our long wool was ridiculous, for he could assure the House, if a long woolled sheep was taken to the West Indies, his wool would soon turn to hair; sod if he was taken to Canada, he would lose his wool altogether !—(Laughter).—The Petition was received, and ordered to be printed. • PETITIONS. Mr. H. DAVIS presented a Petition from Bristol an=the Forgery Punishment Bill. WALPOLE presented a Petition from Lynn against the new Poor Bill. Mr. LENNARD said, he held in his hand a Peti tion from the Pauper Population of Ipswich, a class of persons who had never before approached the House. They complained of the provisions of the new Poor Laws Bill now pending before the House; - and he hoped their prayer would be attended to, and be successful. Sir ISAAC COFFIN said, he felt as much for the poor of this country as any man cotild do ; but he did not credit that it existed to the extent represented by his Honourable Friend. He yesterday stationed himself at Hyde Park-corner, to look for distress, but in vain. He had no doubt but in this great metro polis I,2oo,ooopersons sat down yesterday, rich and poor, to good and wholesome dinners of bread and meat. When distress was talked of, he would ad vise those who talked of it to go and look at the poor of other countries. Norway, for instance, where the poor lived on bread made of fish bones, the bark of trees, and coarse bread ; whilst advertisements were daily seen for the supply of meat and bread of the best kind for, our poor; and those poor sat down to tables supplied with food as good as that put on any Gentleman's table; and food, paid for in part, by money supplied from the poor of that House I—The Petition was received, and ordered to be printed. Lord A. HAMILTON presented a Petition from Lanark, praying the House to inquire into the effi ciency of Mr. Owen's plan of employing the poor. Mr. MAXWELL supported the Petition, and urged the necessity of doing something to ameliorate the sufferings of the poor population. Sir W. DE CRESPIGNY also supported the Peti tion. He strongly condemned the present system of Poor Laws, which were bad in their origin, and any attempt to amend them, he feared, must be produc tive of mischief. He thought there was no remedy, except to do them away in toto. Mr.J.SMITH spoke in favour of Mr. Owen's plan. Mr. W. SMITH also supported the prayer of tip Petition, although he did not approve of all Mr. Owen's plans—The Petition was then read, and or dered to be printed. Mr. BLACKBURN presented a Petitionfrom Man chester, against the Poor Laws Amendment Bill.— The Honourable Gentleman also presented a Petition from the same place against the Spoiled Stamps Bill. • Mr. HUME asked if there was any intention of pressing the Bill during the present Session ? Mr. LUSHINGTON said, he had no intention to proceed with the Bill during the present Session. Mr. BLACKBURN presented a Petition from Manchester, praying that no alteration might be made in the present Duties on East India Sugars,: Ordered to be printed. ma. MALINSON'S LIFE PRINIERVER. Mr. BERNAL presented a Petition from W. H. hlalinson, praying the House to institute inquiry into the nietit.s of his invention or the Life Preserver, and award him remuneration for the expense and trouble he had been at in bringing it to perfection. Mr.WARRE adverted to die lives sacrificed by the inefficiency of the present, system, and observed, if Mr. Malinson, or any other individual, could invent any more e ffi cient mode of saving life, it was worthy of attention and reward. Mr. LUSHINGTON hoped, on inquiry, the pre sent system would not be found so inefficient as had been represented. He was not prepared to say, how eve, that Mr. Malinson's invention might not be adopted with useful results on the Irish coast. Mr. W. SMITH supported Mr. Malinson's claim ; he would be happy to hear the opinion of a gallant Admiral, who sat near him, on the subject. Sik I. COFFIN had nothing to say for or against Mr. Malinson ; all he had to say was, he had never seen one at Portsmouth, and he considered the lives of the men safe in the hands of their Officers. If these Preservers were such as represented, he would say, for GOD'S sake keep them out of the King's ships; for if once admitted there, it would be found impossi ble to keep a single sailor on board a vessel on a lee shore.—The Petition was received. CRIMINAL LAWS. Sir JAMES AACKINTOSH said, that in moving the third reading of the Bill which he had intro duced into the House, he should offer a few observa tions relative to the alterations he had been induced to make. He felt bound to explain the present con dition of the Bill, the principles upon which it now stood, the nature of the objections urged against it, the concessions which he had already made to some of those objections, and lhe reasons why he was de termined that, no further concessions should be granted. He took it, that by the second reading of the Bill being carried by so respectable a majority, the House had done that which was equivalent to the passing a Resolution declaring the expediency of abating the punishment now inflicted by law for pri vate forgery ; and that must be taken as an expression of its opinion, that in some cases the severity of that punishment created impunity for crime, and that its abatement, instead of giving impunity, would tend to lessen that crime, by giving facility to its prosecu tion. This fact was no longer upon theory, but it was fully illustrated in practice. The commutation of capital punishments had been resorted to in the cases of fraudulent bankruptcies and of felonies com mitted upon bleaching-grounds. From the effect of the former no argument could at present be drawn, as it had only been acted upon for one year, and could not have yet developed its full operation. In the latter instance, they had the evidence of the pro prietors of the bleaching-yards themselves in favour of the repeal of the old laws, as they considered it to be the means of affording protection to their property. The repeal of the two laws he had mentioned were the most recent instances in which the principles of the present Bill had been adopted in Parliament. Small as the progress had hitherto been in repealing the most barbarous and cruel laws in our system, it was a gratifying reflection to those who were anxious to instil a larger proportion of humanity, accompa nied with a wholesome punishment, into our Crimi nal Code, to know that that progress had commenced with the sway of George the Fourth. More had been accomplished towards attaining that desirable object in the first year of the present reign, than in any since the reign of Edward the First. This was a most auspicious omen, and he trusted that it would lead to consequences which after-ages would view as shedding a brighter lustre and a more lasting honour upon the name of the Sovereign than other things which were held in more estimation by some eyes at the present period. The Honourable and Learned Member then contended, that the exceptions which he had been induced to make from the application of the Bill ought not to be turned against the prin ciple upon which it was founded. It must not be said that he distrusted his principle because he could not grasp all which he desirei ; but it ought rather to be taken as confidence in his principle, because it proved his willingness to try its merits by experi ment, before its application was made general. He had no doubt but it would speedily work out all ex ceptions; at the same time, he could not say that he did not regret the necessity of making the excep tions, being fully persuaded that the universal appli cation of his principle might be now adopted with perfect safety. He was happy enough to introduce it upon a limited scale, by its application, to forgery alone; because he was convinced that it would soon be seen how much it was capable of effecting, if ap plied generally. The first exception he agreed to make was for the forgery of Bank of England paper, because it was an injury to the community, and one to which no private forgery could bear the least re semblance. The one affected the poor, the ignorant, and the negligent; whilst the other affected only men of opulence, and who were almost professionally trained to investigate and detect frauds of such a na ture. The next exception was with regard to coun try Bank-notes. He had thus distinguished the pa per which was the circulating currency of the coun try, from private negociable money papers. He was obliged to draw this line, and to allow the exception to go no farther, or to submit to some arbitrary dis tinction, founded upon mere will and pleasure, and consequently wholly unfit to be acted upon in legis lating upon such a question as that which they were now upon. He contended that the Petition which had just been presented from the Bankers of the City of London and Westminster was not, in point offact, a petition against the Bill: it only deprecated excep tions which placed private Bankers paper upon a different footing, in the eye of the law, with the notes of the Bank of England. It was not against the principle of the Bill, but against the exception; the petitioners prayed that there might be no difference in the punishment for public and private forgery.— By one short Bill be could remove their objections entirely—namely, the abolishment of death alto gether. The supposition of the country Bankers was, that those who carried on the nefarious practice of forging Bank of England notes as a trade would be induced to forge upon them, if the punishment of death remained for the one, while it was repealed for the other. But for private forgeries there could be no apprehensions of such a nature. The miserable Birmingham ruffian, shut up at his detestable work, could not be supposed to be acquainted with the hand-writing of eminent London Bankers. But, however, supposing that he did, that knowledge ,would not be enough, because be mast know the ha bits and connections of the usual acceptors and is-, dorsers of documents. Besides, even if be succeeded in the forgery, how was he to present it for payment? How could it be expected that this Birmingham ruf fian could get any one to present and pass an accept-1 ance for three or four thousand pounds, in spite of the vigilance of those whose regular business it was to detect fraud and irregularity? . and if not, was the House to be called on to protect them with the gal lows, and to award the punishment of death to others for their negligence ?—(Hear, hear, hear). — The operations of the established forgers might have been carried into the territories'of the country hanker, but they could not touch 'upon the ground of mer cantile negociations. The other exceptions were for the forgery of Wills and Marriage Certificates and Registers. He had excepted those, because the House' of Lords, in a Bill which passed this House last Ses sion, thought fit to reject the clauses which applied to them. He next came to the application of the Bill to the crime of Uttering ; and here he was resolutely determined to make no concessions. The number of criminals executed for this crime (as appeased by the Returns), was, upon an average, fourteen in each year. The numbers charged were seven hundred and fifty-four; and the amount of convictions three hun dred and ninety-thiee. With respect to the punish ment, he should propose to take away transportation altogether, and to substitute for it ten years confine ment with hard labour. He thought this punish ment might easily be mile sufficiently terrible by in creasing the labour and confinement, and even by en forcing abstinence. Transportation had been proved to be inefficacious, and it must be relinquished. Be fore sitting down he woulti just observe, that it was his intention to add a few words to the preamble of the Bill, which were of no moment, and to strike out the clause for giving rewards to informers. These would be all the amendments he should have to pro pose—(Hear, hear). The ATTORNEY-GENERAL considered the Bill so objectionable that it could aot be maintained even by its framers and supporters. He heard that his Honourable and Learned Friend (Sir James Mackin. tosh) had admitted that capital punishment was ne cessary in the excepted cases—(No, no, from Sir J. Mackintosh). He argued from those exceptions made by his Honourable and Learned Friend himself, that he (the Attorney-General) was justified in this deduc tion, and maintained them against his Honourable Friend's own principle; for he must admit that seve rity of punishment in the excepted case of forgery would neither prevent prosecution nor deter Jurors from convicting. His Honourable Friend had ex cepted private bankers promissory notes: he would ask, why had he not extended it to their bill of ex change? With respect to Stock—was Government Stock alone to be protlcted by capital punishment ?— (Cries of yes, yes). He would ask, why were India Stock, South Sea Stock, and other similar securities, not included in the exceptions of his Honourable and Learned Friend ? Why not protect Deeds as well as Wills? The Honourable and Learned Gentleman (the Attorney-General) here contended the present was not the proper period for introducing any altera tion in the laws, when that which caused the intro duction of the Bill (he meant capital punishment for the forging and uttering small notes) was about to cease, by the substitution of gold in the place of one pound notes—before that circulating medium (small notes) was introduced, the dread of capital punish ment had prevented the commission of the crime of fr rgery. The principal object of punishment was the prevention of crime by holding out to de linquents the certainty of punishment. His Ho nourable and Learned Friend had triumphantly re ferred to the success which he said attended the aboli tion of capital punishment in the cases of bleach greenrobbery and fraudulent bankruptcies--as if e peal of that punishment had prevented the com mission of the crime. He (the Attorney-General) re collected, that one of the arguments in favour of the abolition of capital punishment in the case of fraudu lent bankruptcies was, that there would then be no hesitation about prosecuting, and that prosecutions would increase —(Hear).—Now, within the last year, there had been no prosecutions of fraudulent bank rupts at all—(Hear, hear).—Was that, he would again ask, a proof that the diminution of punishment had prevented the crime, and that there were since AO fraudulent bankrupts ?—(llear, hear.) —Very well. With respect to bleach-green robbery, he would say, that the year after the repeal of capital punishment in that case (and he quoted the evidence of Mr. Evans in support of his assertion), the number of prosecu tions for that crime had increased threefold—(Hear, hear).—Was he to understand by these cheers that the mitigation of punishment produced prosecutions?— (Hear, hear). —If so, in either case, the increase or decrease of prosecutions, both were ascribable to the repeal of capital punishments—(Hear). He contended there could be no scale of punishment for crimes, be cause circumstances, which could not alter the name, might very materially change the nature of an of fence, and instanced the case of burglary. No one found fault with executions in that case. Would it be contended, that be who broke into a man's house at the dead of night, and plundered it of his all, was not more criminal than the boy who, passing through the street, submitting to temptation, thrust his hand through a pane of glass, and stole a watch ?—(Hear, hear.)—Both were burglaries ; and would Hon. Gen tlemen say that the boy should be capitally punished? He could not conceive that a man would rather com mit a crime which had the certainty of transportation for its punishment, to which was superadded the chance of death, than when certain that transporta tion alone, or six years imprisonment, were the sum of its penalty—(Hear).—With respect to forgery, there was hardly an instance of the conviction of the real forger of Bank notes. The utterers could only be come at. Did it follow, therefore, that those next in criminality should escape? According to the old adage, " If there were no receivers there would be no thieves;" so in this case—if there were no ut terers, there would be no forgers : and he contended, according to the principles of our legislation, it was impossible the Bill could be carried. The Hon. and Learned Gentleman here remarked upon the omission of forgery of warrants amongst the exceptions of his Learned Friend (Sir James Mackintosh). As an ar gument for the repeal of capital punishment in the case of forgery, his Learned Friend, had stated the average number of executions for that crime at four teen a-year. But did hii Honourable and Learned Friend not know, that the cot.victions averaged from ,170 to 180? which included those tramportcd and otherwise punished. His Learned Friend had said , that Government ought to find out some secondary. punishment. That subj.:ct was under consideration. Bet if confinement and labour were substituted f or 'transportation, there would not be found in the cr am . try jails sufficient to contain the convicts, should as (which HEAVEN forbid!) go on increasing i:: crime as we had done—(llear).--The Hon. Gentleman, here argued against the introduction of a punishme nt hitherto unknown to the law ; and concluded by moving, as an Amendment, that the Bill be reed this day sir months. Mr. DEN MAN had given the Bill then before the House all the consideration of which he . was capable , the result of which was, his firm conviction that safety, expediency—he would say necessity, required the Bin should pass into a law. When the Learned Gentle. Man (the Attorney-General) accused his lion, and Learned Friend (Sir James Mackintosh) of an ab an ., donment of principle, by the introduction of the ef. ceptions, he would assert his Hon. Friend abandoned nothing—((fear).--His Ilan. and Learned Friend had only been induced to make a sacrifice to expo: diency--he gave up a part of his Bill to save there. mainder; it was not fair, therefore, of the Hon. and Learned Gentleman. to accuse.his Honourable Friend of abandonment of principle--(Hear). The Hon. a n d Learned Gentleman had stated, as a reason for pre. serving the existing laws, that the principle of the British Code wa.l . to visit offenders with the heaviest punishment. Against that assertion he begged most solemnly to protest—(Hear, hear).—ln the Repo rt so often alluded to, there was the case of a person who had been convicted for cutting down a tree, Circumstances might increase the turpitude of as act, but would the Honourable and Learned Gen. tleman contend that a man ought to be hanged for cutting down a tree ?—(Hear, bear).—The same ar gument would apply to the robbery of bleach-greens. An ungrateful servant might commit that titan; but did that isolated instance warrant the inflictios of capital punishment upon every man "ho robbed* bleach-green ? All the arguments against the Bill amounted to this :—" It is necessary to repress crime, and therefore we will continue the punishment." But he would maintain the direct contrary should be the inference. With respect to the case of burglary men tioned by the Hon. and Learned Gentleman, in solids he had compared the case of a man whose house was broken into—who was plundered of the accumulated savings of a number of rats, with that of the bleak. ing of a pane of glass by a boy and the stealing of a watch, it was true that the law called each a but. glary, but he would contend that that phrase was one of those technical absurdities which disgrace out Criminal Code. He would then revert to the Report. The principal Bankers of London had come forwent and declared they would not prosecute if death were to be inflicted ; and that declaration was, to him, la irresistible proof of the necessity for the present Bill. Would the Hon. and Learned Gentleman say that every person who passed a forged pound note ought to be executed ? Did the Learned Gentleman know that of £4.7,000 in forged pound notes, proved to have been uttered, only 114 forgers had been brought to jus tice ? and he inferred, from that fact, a reluctance to prosecute to death. In many cases transportation was a most severe punishment. Those who commit ted private forgeries were, in general, domesticated with, or friends of the parties on v:hom they forged; and to such the punishment of transportation was a heavy one indeed. The lion. and Learned Gentle man here eulogized the noble effort made by his lion. Friend (Mr. Buxton). He had never known the ge nuine spirit of Christianity more admirably displayed, without attempting to puff off its own Phalisaical purity. He had endeavoured to do justice, tc love mercy, and to walk humbly with the common FA. TIIEn of Mankind—(Cheering). Mr. DENT objected to some of the details of the Bill. Mr. WILMOT expressed his intention to support the Bill as it at present stood. If that anomaly or regard to the Notes of the Bank of England and of Country Banks had not been removed, he should certainly have opposed it. He was aware that the present measure was not without its practical diffi culties, but he was content to adopt the principle, in the hope thiit these difficulties would not outweigh the proposed advantages. Mr. MARRYATT said, he feared the proposed measure was subversive of all legal rule, and of all principle. lie could see no reason for punishing Bank forgeries with death, and leaving all other forgeries to comparative impunity. He understood the reason for severe punishment to be most strong in cases where the offence could be committed with facility; and this reasoning, applied to the law against forgery, fully justified the severity of the present punishment. He thought also that the numerous exceptions in the Bill went a considerable length towards destroying its effect. Mr. CRIPPS said, he approved of the principle of the Bill, and should vote for the third reading ; but he should move to except forgeries of Bankers' checks from its operation, in consequente of the facility with which these forgeries were committed. Mr. MANSFIELD opposed the Bill, ashe thought it perfectly uncalled for, and the moment chosen for its introduction very untimely. Mr. JOHN SMITH believed that the severity of punishment was one great cause of the increase of crime, as severity of punishment discouraged prose tutors. Ile thought the forgeries upon the Bank of England would be-Considerahly lessened if that Estab lishment would 'increase the difficulty of forging its notes. The country Bank-notes were executed in a much better manner, and the number of forgef its on country Pwanks• was in consequence materially les.. sened. He should cordially vote for the Bill. Mr. PEiaIISE defended the conduct of the Bank. Theßank, he said, had always acted leniently to wards those who forged upon its Establislin ent, ex cept in cases of a second offence. He feared of general principle of the Bill was highly dangerous. Mr. MILLS opposed the Bill. Mr. LOCKHART thought there w:t.: centiderable inconsistency in the Bill. He could not admit the justice of the distinction which had been taken be tween forgeries upon the Bank of England and those upon private Bankers. The forgeries upon the latter had often beeti made a regular systematic trade. Mr. BARING said, all that was desired by the present Bill was, the enactment of that mitigated punis!mient in private cases, which the Bank , as , t appeared from the statement of an Hon. Director