The Sun.
London, England, 1830-07-21 00:00:00

FORGERY BILL.

Sir It. PEEL, in rising to move the Order of the
Day for the further consideration of the
,Lort•
amendments to the Punishment of Forgeries Bill, said
that lie did not feel himself culled upon to enter at
length into the subject. lie said he felt regret
that their Lordships had passed so many amend-
ments, he trusted, however, that the House would
find no great difficulty in agreeing to those amend-
ments ; in case they did not do so, the old laws re•
luting to forgery, against which so many complaints
had been made, would still remain in force. The
Bill as it now stood would come into opera-
tion to-morrow ; under these circumstances it
was necessary for the House to pass it into a law, if
indeed it were to pass into a law, with as little delay
as possible.
The Order of the Day was then read. On the
question that the amendments be now taken into
consideration,

Mr. C. W. WYNN admitted, that at the present
stage of the Session, it was useless to offer any op-
position to the passing of these amendments. At
the same time, he felt that the House had a right to
complain of the course which had been adopted to-
wards it by the other House of Parliament. On the
9th of June, this Bill had been carried up to the
Lords. On the Ist of July, these amendments were
made to it by their Lordships, and yet it was not
till the 13th of the same month that they were sent
down to the Commons, thus leaving them no other
course than either to adopt the amendments, or to
reject the Bill altogether. To this latter course he
was prepared entirely to assent. The amendments,
he expected, would be agreed to but still he hoped
that the House would not forget how its assent had
been obtained. He trusted that in an ensuing Sda-
sion it would take care that the opinions of the
House of Commons of England, which were but an
echo of the opinions of their constituents, should be
fully and sati•fuctorily carried into effect.

Mr. ROBINSON rose to express the regret
which he felt in common with other Members, that
these amendments should have been made by their
Lordships. He would rather have the Bill rejected
than passed in its present shape : for if it were
passed now, the question would come before Parlia-
ment in another Session under great disadvantages.
He should have given great weight to the opinions
of the three Noble and Learned Personages who had
supported those amendments in the other House of
Parliament, had be not seen opposed to their opi-
nions a weight of petitions which completely over-
balanced them. He really hoped that some Hen.
Member would propose to reject the Bill altogether.
Mr. STEWART (of Beverley) was disposed to
reject the Bill altogether, rather than pass it with
these amendments. If they adopted the Bill as it
had been amended by the Lords, it would be a virtual
relinquishment of the opinion already expressed by
that House on the subject of the Bill; whilst by re-
jecting it, they would thereby force the subject upon
the consideration of the next Parliament, at the
earliest practicable period after it assembled; as he
scarcely thought that any Secretary of State would
in the interim miture to recommend the infliction
of capital punishment for forgery, after the opinion
which had been so decidedly expressed against it
by a large majority of that House; and an early re-
vision of the law, which could not be carried into
effect, would therefore become absolutely indispens-
able. On these grounds he should oppose the Bill.
Sir IL WILSON thought that us the Bill, even
as it now stood, secured some advantages, it ought
not to be rejected, merely because it did not secure
all the advantages which those who sought for the
mitigatio4 of the penal code had in view.
Mr. P. BUXTON felt that it might be most de-
sirable to reject the 'Bill altogether; but as such re-
jection would only create delay, and as the behaviour
of the Home Secretary had been distinguished by
great frankness mid candour upon this subject, be
could not agree to a proposition for rejecting it.—
There was one amendment which he should wish to
add to those made by the Lords—and that was, that
the duration of this Bill should be limited to one
year. That would compel the Government to in-
traduce another Bill to the House next session more
consonant to the humane views so generally adopted
by their constituency throughout the whole country.
The amendments were then ordered to be taken
into consideration. On the question, that they be
now mid a first time,

Mr. LABOUCHERE took the opportunity of
saying that he supported the view of this subject
which had ban taken by the Hon. Member for
Weymouth.

Lord HOWICK censured the Ministry for the
conduct which they had pursued regarding this
Bill. It was said at the outset that this Bill was
not to be considered as a party question ; and yet
he knew that Treasury notes had been issued to
obtain the votes of the supporters of Government
in its favour. Notwithstanding the influence thus
exerted by Government to carry its own Bill
through the House, a majority of independent Mem-
bers appeared in favour of abolishing the punish-
ment of death in cases of forgery. After such a
declaration of public opinion, he thought that the
Government ought not to have allowed the Bill to
be altered back to its former shape in the House of
Lords. He trusted that the amendment proposed
by the Hon. Member for Weymouth would obtain
the support of the House.

Sir R. PEEL explained the circumstances under
which these amendments had been sent from the
House of Lords to the House of Commons, and
attributed the apparent delay to the unfortunate de-
mise of his late 'lii,jesty. The Bill in its present
shape was decidedly an improvement on the old law,
opt only because it simplified and consolidated it,
but also because it repealed the penalty of death in
all cases of forgery upon the Stamp-office. He
trusted that the Manse would not concur in the
amendment proposed by the Hon. Member for Wey-
mouth. If the duration of the bill ware limited,
us ha advised, in what a situation would it place
those who were intrusted with the duty of superin-
tending the due administration of the law ? To
that amendment he should offer his decided oppo-
titian. As to the observation, that no Secretary of
Stara would ever be found to advise the infliction of
capital nishment in those cases of forgery in
which the House hed declared that the punishment
of death ought to be abolialiedp be had only to re-
mark, that he (Sir R. Peel) would always give the
Crawn such advice, with regard to the execution of
the law a the land, as he thought that the bite,
rests of justiae respired, without reference to what
might or might not b the opinion of the majority
of the House of Commons relp,p4Olg it.
Mr. ROU INSON explained.

Dr. PIIILLIMORE reinforced the observations
of his Right Honourable Friend the Member for
Montgomeryshire, and protested against the conduct
which the Lords had pursued with respect to these
amendments.

Mr. LENIVAB,D thought that the Bill as it now
stood was u mitigation pi the existing Jew, although
it was not exactly that degree of mitigation which
the circumstances of the case required, Besides, he
OW of opinion that passing this Bill this Session
pot prejudice the great question in the next
Seabizi.
After a few wojtto fr,orn Mr. TRANT in opposition
to the amendments,
Mr. STEWART moved that thei mid this
day fortnight.
The fin divided, when there appeared in
favour of Mr. Stewa#t'; amendment,

Ayts
thiolitY
Mr. litswares vitpdment was tir,cordinglY Li°9l'
Another ttp-itininieslX wto tkep MOVOO for tHe re"

jection of the Lor

9, hen

peered in favour (41; I‘:,'''
Ayes ABA .. 2H
Nois •...11; se. 67
Majority gas --39
This amendment having been n Walt, the amend-
nents of the Lords were read ~,,,i passed, and
ndered to be curried up to their Lwdships.