The Sun.
London, England, 1837-03-24 00:00:00

SUN LONDON, PHIDAY, MARCH 621, I.

Sir G. SI
nslced the Noble Lord if it wns the
qt,entian of Governtient it> pu ipo auk- thealtire resp€et-
ing tithes in Ireland ; and if it. were; at what titne would it
be proposed) , , 1 •
Lord J. iI.T.;*SELL nlc3 that it was intended to intro-
duce such a measure sonic time aftei EAiter; but lie could
cot say exactly - - • • •
•
Mr. D. NV. HARVEY asked ',ord LI. dis:ell when it
n•as intended to tifbeced with the Church-rate regu....ition
question.

Lord J. RUSSELL—On FriLy, the 21st of April.
The second reading of the Hackney Carriages (Metro-
oohs) Bill was It•stpotied to Wednesday, the bth of April.
The second reading of the Sheriffs' Fees Bill was post-
poned to the sth of April.
The second reading of the Attorneys' an:l Solie't lrs' Bill
..vas also postr oned to the sth of April.
Lord MORPETH then stated that he wished if pos-
sible that the second readiing of the Dublin Police Bill
should be taken this evening.

upon off,,nders the ilr,iad would ,rendpr it salutary.
The prisoner had the fiat ur..l hope Which all inch laid :il
that situation; that capital piinilitneut trotilil not reach him ;
and it teat; an tilix.:l:vatiett:Liti part c( the iiharacteristie phi-
, i lesopl:y—that death tseir ;or Imiriy hart no want s. It war.
worthy of remark; there was no passion in the mind
• it hint i •
of man 6 weali„ it nia e rongert. If that
were irue, and there so pa iii that tilvcrean.e
the apprehensimi of death, how easy might it be overcome,
when that apprehension was so distant that there seemed
scarcely a chance that the prisoner would have the utmost se-
thti lad' inflicted tirtin Wm-4 Hear, hear.)
That was the ground on which, with fo3Ptidt to
that and set oral similar offences, he had desired the
Criminal Law Commissioners to give hint an opinion,
whether there might not be some definition given by
which the 1)unit:10-tient of death should be reserved to
a smaller class. In sO doing be did net ask; and
he did not expect, that they should form any de-
finition which ttouid comprehend only those upon
whom the punishment wes ultimately to be inflicted. It
was not possible so to frame any law as to say that that law
ought to be firmly and inflexibly adhered to ; but he
thought that the law might be so far defined that it
could be said generally, that persons who had committed the
offence mad_ themselves liable to the capital punishment, and
that it would be a question for the discretion of the Judge,
and afterwards for the Secretary of State, to consider whether
there were not circumstances which fully entitled the cul-
prit to mercy. He would take as the best instance he
could give of the proposition he was then making—be-
cause it was a crime for which capital punishment
was formerly inflicted—the offence of. forgery. It would
be in the recollection of many members of the HOuse that
there was very often an attempt made in the House before
it succeeded to abolish the punishment of death for forgery.
On one occasion the Bill actually passed the third reading ;
and Lord Castlereagh, after the third reading, declared he
would again divide the House with respect to the Bill
passing ; and the Bill was then lost on the mo-
' Lion that it should pass.—( Hear, hear, hear.)
The then Lord Chancellor (Lord Lyndhurst) argued with
great ability and knowledge of the subject the objections
to the abolition of the punishment of death in certain
cases with respect to the forging of cheques. He stated,
that from returns which he had seen, that the transactions
of twenty bankers in bills and checques, amounting for the
previous month to nine millions sterling ; that four banking
houses did business in the same sort of securities in one year
to the amount of 500,000,000/. ; and that 20 other houses had
during the same period, transacted business to the amount
of 1,000,000;0001., a sum greater than the national
debt.—(Hear, hear.) That was one of the reasons
urged by Lord Lyndhurst, why they should not
put in jeopardy so great an amount of property, and thereby
shake the public faith in their commercial transactions. These
objections had all the appearance of very sound argument
against a precipitate course, and, on a division, Lord Lans-
downe, who brought in the Bill, had only 22 Peers to
vote with him, while there were 70 against him.
Again, when Lord Denman was Attorney-General, a
Bill was brought in relative to forgery, and it passed
with the exception of an alteration made in thu
House of Lords, excepting wills and powers of the at-
torney. Seeing the alarm the subject has created, it was
important, he thought, to see what were the effects pro-
duced by the abolition of capital punishment in certain
cases of forgery. He had taken the average of three
years before and three years after that period—there were
155 committed on the average of the three years previous
to the passing of the Bill, and 210 on the average of three
years since its passing ; but then with respect to convic-
tions there were, in the former period, 58 per cent. con-
victed, and in the latter period 71 per cent. With
respect to the number of commitments of cases
of forgery in which the punishment was not capital,
they were shown by the following document :
" A comparison of the forgeries committed still capital
with those that are no longer so."
The Act abolishing the punishment of death in certain
cases of forgery was passed in August, 1832. The only
exception made in the Act was relating to the forgery of
wills, and powers of attorney for the transfer of stock, or
receipt of dividends.
1833. The capital cases not separately distinguished.
1834. Commitmehts for forgery, not capital
Capital (forging a will) 1
1835. Commitments for forgery, not capital
Capital (forging a will).. 1
1836. Commitments for forgery, not capital
Capital (forging a power of attorney for the trans-
fer of stock) . 1
Last year a letter had been sent to him by a solicitor em-
ployed by twenty bankers, who stated that since the year
1833 there had been a material diminution of the number
and amount of offences of that nature, and, at the time when
he wrote, there had not been, for many years, comparatively
se small an amount of the crime of forgery.
The following important facts were mentioned in the let-
ters addressed by this gentleman to the Society for Prose-
cuting forgery :
Particulars respecting the increase or decrease of forgery,
drawing from the letters of the solicitor, to the society for
Prosecuting Forgery.
The report states the number of forgeries committed on
the 24 firms which are members of the London Bankers' As-
sociation from the commencement of 1832 to March 1835.
From January to August, 1832, when the capital punish-
ment was abolished, seven forged checks were issued.
From August, 1832, to August, 1833, Arty-eight forged
checks and bills of exchange were issued, eighteen of which
were traced to be the work of one forger.
From August, 1833, to March, 1835, twenty-five forged
checks and bills of exchange were issued.
In the first period the number of forgeries averaged less
than one per month ; in the second four per month, or, ex-
clusive of the 18 forgeries committed by one person, 21 per
month ; but, in the last period, they have averaged 1 only.
In order to show in a more striking light the feeling which
existed against capital punishments for the crime of forgery
on the part of those who were most interested in repress-
ing it, he should add to his statement a case which had

been tried by Lord Denman last year, in which a person
was convicted of forging a power of attorney. The life of
the convict was of course forfeited under the existina. law ;
but before the case had been brought under his (Lord J.
Russell's) consideration, he received a statement from an
Hon. Member of that House (the Member for the city
of London), signed by himself and a considerable number
of bankers, declaring it to be their wish that capital pu-
nishment should not be inflicted. He also received at the
same time a letter from the Governor of the Bank, inti-
mating that although he had no desire to interfere with
the decision of the Secretary of State, yet that it was the
wish of himself and the Directors that capital punishment
should not be inflicted "n any case of forgery. With regard
to the other offences for which capital punishment had
been abolished, he would read to the House the number
of commitments, acquittals, and convictions, by which it
might be considered on the one hand that. so great a
change had not taken place as might have reasonably
been expected, and by which it would be seen on
the other that there was no reason to dread any great
increase of crime from the abolition of capital punishment
where it was.verY seldom inflicted, and where, he contended,
its infliction on one ease out of 100 or 200 was but a use-
less deprivation of IMman life.—(Hear, hear.) • The num-
ber of persons committed for horse-stealing before the law
was altered was 540, proportion convicted 74 per cent.,
and since the alteration 555, proportion convicted 73.
Sheep-stealing during the first period 787, convictions 67
per cent. ; since 716, convictions 72 per cent. Larceny in
a dwelling-house, first period 422, convictions 89 per
cent ; second period 526, convictions 75 per cent. In
coining he perceived a great increase ; first period 14,
convictions 50 per cent. ; second period 39, convictions
71 per cent. With respect to housebreaking, upon which
some erroneous conclusions had been drawn, it was to
be observed that when capital punishment for that
offence had • been abolished, it was very often thought
expedient or necessary to indict for burglary, because
the crime could be brought under that head; but that
as long as it remained a capital offence it was usual to
indict for it, as being thought more easy of proof than
that of burglary. The number of commitments for the
crime of housebreaking during the first period—that was,
during the three years before the abolition of the capital
punishment attached to it, was 2,150, and the number
of capital convictions 76 per cent.; and during the second
period the number of commitments was 1,578, convictions
77 per cent. The whole number of commitments for these
different crimes amounted in the first period to 4,068, con-
victions 72 per cent.; and during the latter period the
1 commitments . were 3,624, convictions 75 per cent. The
Noble Lord then proceeded :—From which it appears there
is a clear increase in the number of convictions, as com-
pared with former periods, and no considerable increase in the
number .of commitments. With these impressions I think we
may proceed safely to relax the severity of the law still
more, and in accordance with public feeling ; for it could
not be denied that there was a strong feeling amongst all
classes that the number of capital punishments should. be
diminished. I find that expressed in strong terms by several
gentlemen who were examined before the criminal law
Commissioners. Mr. Harmer particularly stated that he
had had great experience in criminal trials; and was well
acquainted with the feelings of the public—that there was
a general wish for a diminution of capital punishment ;
and that, in accordance with that and his own opinions,
it might be proper to limit it to murder, arson, burg-
lary, highway robbery if accompanied with violence, and
cutting and maiming, an offence made capital by Lord
Ellenborough's Act. He stated also that he had been
often present when criminals reeeived. sentence of death,
and that they were often less affected on the sentence be-
ing passed than the audience. That was another reason
for a further relaxation of the punishment, There was a