The National Register.
London, England, 1821-05-27 00:00:00

were punishable to the extent whirl' had been awarded
to the criminals; but there was the statute often. 11. Sm.
The existing law was defective; lio!ire officers might be
maimed without cutting, anal they could only prosectiee
tor assail's, and lie proposed to amend the law as to retailer
more effectual prote.etion to office, s Slid others, who might
prevent, or endeavour In prevent, I ii• rescue or prisoners.
The SOLICITOR GEN ER A L swield nut oppose the
banging in of the bill. Tile ruination 14w provided tile
mode of prosecution and pituitillieent; and the statute
applied to cases for attempting rescues.
Motion agreed to.
Mr. WILBERFORCE said, he shoold as early as possi-
ble bring forward a motion respecting papers that had
now been some time before the boost, re gatiling the more
effectual abolition of the slave trade; lie mimed Tuesday,
June 5.
CRIMINAL LAW'.—FORGERY.—Sir J. MACINTOSH
moved that the house resolve itself 11110 a committee on the
forgery punishment mitigation bill.
The SOLICITOR GENERAL said, it was with consider-
able pain that he felt it his duly I. oppose this motion.—
He was happy that this question rotted be discussed without
any thin; like party feeling—party had nothing to do with
it.—This bill arose out of the report of last session on the
criminal laws ; and that report, lie said, it was impossible
to read is ithout admitting that it milt an exth cutely partial
view'', the question. Theme ave many persons in this
ming.% Ito were averse'irom executions for various °Fences;
sod therefore it might easily have been predicted that when
the committee was appoiuted,such persons would press them-
selves °lithe attention of the consio:ltee. lie had unfeigned
respect for the chairman of the coramittee ; but the report
was evidently the product of taste, and therefore was
not entitled to so much atteution. It spoke for instance of
the hole regarding privately stealisg to the Ulllolllll of 40..
and of privately stealing on board vessels on navigable rivers,
when iu fact 110 such laws existed.—lle then spoke of the
crime of forgery. The first offence was that of forgiug a
will, an offence easily committed, but which might ruin
whole families; forging transfer of stock, marriage licenses,
deeds. &c. Was the house prepared to agree that transpiero
tatiou in such cases would be suflicina ? Ile was aware that
intlictiog death for forgeries was an isuovation on the comma
mum law ; forgeries were formerly punished as suistleuteauoru
but the reason was tolerably widen:. The offences were
extremely rare heretofore; but w hen commerce increased, and
arid a hen writing became more extessively known, in Eli.
zabeth's reign, the law on the subject vas made more severe.
There was another Act on the subject ii George the Second's
reign, more exemplary punishment laving been deemed
necessary. That Act, however, was nit introduced without
the greatest consideration. rd Hisdwicke was at the
time Attorney General. It was at lint made temporary;
it erns passed for five years, but the subject had frequently
been brought forward, and he therefort begged the hops,. to
exercise the greatest ir ircu•nspect ion before it disturbed the
practice established by ahont u century. The reason was
aid to be, for an alteration in the existing law, that the ex-
isting law was net etticieut to repress feige..ie.:. lie d I
that ktillemenrof the preamble;—private forgeries .• •
frequent. lac law in such case, he contended, a •
He denied the Glee of the argument, that
who now abstained from prosecution on necon •
penalty, would prosecute if the punishment stele I
in either case they would be operated on by stir., a . •
at ions—the severity ur the penalty. Punish moot
to i.,reveut the committal of crime, by tea ror ur
but if the ()Aimee were punished with tran,poriatioa u s.
prisoners often would, as transports had done be.i.. r,
b, in; convicted, turn round to the judy., and t'uauk 41 •. ••
lhr CiI3II;C of condition oblanied. Persons guilty of
ries wet ‘• geacrally in a must distressed satiwatom ;ai • ,
therefore would not object to such cluing.. as I liat 0. ....ay.
im:tai ions He adrnitled that the punishment in other
trieS urea lint so severe, but then they had a ludic.% :441
mud, so. oroceeding against the prisoners that were tints now n
in tine ermido ; and, under such circumseances, sse most
take the guou together with tile evil. He concluded with
moving as an amendment, that the bill be committed this
day six
Mr. F. BUKTON defeeded the bill.

Mr. MA nil N (of Galway)stroni;ly supported the bill,—
He Willi convinced many offeoders escaped prosecution in
consequence of the indispositien of persons to pruseeme
where the putiishment of death was to follow. lie himself
was au instance of this—a person committed a fmgei y out
him two years ago, for two thousand pounds, and he ditecird
that the offender bhoutd ire prosecuted for a minor °fluter,
if possible. The person who laded the information entered
into re ocnizances to prosecute. Tile assizet faille, and he
then learnt that if he proceeded in the prosecuti ~,,, the mum
would he hanged. lie then advised the prisoner to apply to
put off his trial t he did so, and be (NI r. M.) before the next
maize', directed the hammer to forfeit his recognizance
by not tippearin. Ile did so, and the offender esimped.—
Whereas, hod the puui•hmeut been transportation instead
of death, he would have prosecuted the offender to con.
ViCiioll.

Dr. LUSH INGTO N also summ teal the bill. The forging
of wills was a 'cry rare olience—he had only known of three
lost asices, and in there the pa►ties wool(' not pro;' cute be-
cause of the capital punishment w Inch attached to it. It
uas siusular, out a cause, one of the i:nee, occurred to him
this very morning. In a case in which he was eugay,ed pro.
eisionoilly, the forgery being clearly proved, the ioe.son who
should litre prosecuted wrote a hear,, which he, (Dr. Lush-
iagton) had in his hand this eery morning, in which he said,
" get hack the property; I am not eindortise,an4 1 will oat
prosecute." As to the punishment of death having an direct
in deterring others from the commission of relate, it ead no
such a li'ect. Ile had been informed of an instance which
(occurred to a youth of IS, uhunt two years ago lie had
up to that time a good character. One morning he passed
op the Old Bailey doling an eV:l:Willi' j he toortuired what
;lie criminal was sulieriog fur, and was total our forge ry.—
The youth was a clerk in a wren:toes house ; he %tlt to
his employ, t committed is forgery on his ruiployt r that very
day, and paid his life us the loaf, it or his crime.
Mr. NOLAN suppoi ted the amendment of the Solicitor
General, on this short and sitting ground—that the loin
itself admitted death to be the proper ptllll4lltlit lit of tor.
eery in the first instance, in one case; and in the second
instance, In all other causes.
Mr. C. W. W YNN contended that flue anus was entirely
nn the other side to show the propriety of the continuance
Or the punishment of death. (Hear, hear.)—lle who
doubted the necessity of death as to the pintislituent, was
hound to vote for going auto the committee.
Alt. W. COLIIITENAV would vute iu ids our of the bill
in its present stage; add it was because lie believed they
were going along wills public opinion. It was the expres.
'ion of public opitaiun which bad called for the committee,