The Sun.
London, England, 1830-04-03 00:00:00

formers is founded on the borrowed wisdom of w hers.
It has been our own lot to be for years engaged in
endeavouring, as often as occasion offered, to draw
the attention ef Parliament and the public to the
sanguinary nature of eur criminal law. The inflic-
tion of death for forgery, among others, we hare re-
peatedly deprecated as disproportionate to the of-
fence, repugnant to humanity, and opposed to the
interests of justice. The power of public opinion has
been, in the mean time, working its way through so-
ciety, and continually adding to the number of those-
who look to the amelioration of the criminal code ae
one of the greatest triumphs which civilization has
yet to achieve. On this subject not less than about GO
petitions have been presented to the House of Com-
mons, in the present Sessions, from various cities,
towns, and districts in England, besides the petition
from the Society of Friends in Ireland, which Mr.
Peel presented the other night. All these petitions
were respectably and numerously signed ; and what
is well worth observing in reference to petitions
praying for an abolition of capital punishments in
cases of forgery, they were signed by the bankers
generally of the places from which they purported
to come. It is also a strong attestation of the im-
proved state of the public feeling on this question,
that the Magistrates and Clergy, in a considerable
proportion, were among the petitioners. Having
stated thus much, we will ask, is Mr. Peel's Bill
relative to forgery calculated to satisfy the advo-
cates of rational and enlightened justice, so far as
that branch of criminal law is concerned? and will
it obviate all necessity for further petitioning on
that particular question ? We confidently say it
will do no such thing. What is it Mr. Peel pro-
poses to do ? Let us hear himself:—He " should
retain the capital punishment in all forgeries of
the Great Seal, Privy Seal, and Sign Manual.
In forgeries of wills, on the public funds, on bank
and money notes, or orders for the payment of
money; in short, as to all documents which repre-
sent money, and are negotiable and transferable for
it, he would remit the capital punishment in all
those cases where serious doubts overhung its inflic-
tion, arid where the complainants, by due cautioa,
could have saved themselves. Such us forging re-
ceipts for money, orders for the delivery of goods,
forging stamps, uttering forged stamps, attempting
to defraud by uttering forged orders for goods, the
fabrication of the material of the Bank ef England
paper, and forging deeds and bonds." As to all
these forgeries Mr. Peel proposes to remit the ca-
pital punishment, because, he says, they come within
the principle of prevention by the exercise of more
diligence and caution in the transaction of butitie,a.
Now, as to all practical purposes, we affirm Mr.
Peel's Bill will leave the law of forgery just where
he found it. For he only proposes to erase the
punishment of death from the Statute Book in cases
where the sentence of death is never actually carried
into execution, and to leave the sanguinary law in all
its force in those cases which are ever productive of
the cruel and revolting' exhibitions which humanity
deplores and rational justice condemns. In the de-
bate of Thursday night, Mr. F. Buxton is made to
compliment Mr. Peel for the improvements whit :it he
had introduced into the criminal law. This, we undee.
stand, was a mistake; Mr. Buxton's eulogy on Mr.
Peel's exertions having reference only to his regu-
lations for the better government of gaols, and no-
thing else. We knew that Mr. Buxton had been an
advocate fora thorough reform of the Criminal
Code, in which he delivered, daring a former debate,
one of the best speeches of the kind ever delivered
in the House of Commons; and we were therefore
surprised to hear that he expressed something like
satisfaction at the very limited and inefficient
" amendment" of the law executed by Mr. Peel.
We now say what we have repeatedly said before
—that the punishment of death in all eases of
forgery must be abolished. It is a question of
principle, not of degree. Crimes of fraud should
not be punished like crimes of dangerous violence
and force. Forgery is a species of wri-ten fraud—
in most cases to be guarded Arian by ordinary
vigilance and caution. As the lait Row stands, it
is little protection to commerce; Ito even in the
city of London, a great proportion of forgeries go
unpunished because the persons who sustain the loss
revolt at shedding human blood for such an offence,
though they would have no objection to any punish-
ment short of death. We must postpone other ob-
servations to a future opportunity.—Morn. Herald.

The law of divorce in this country, like many
other of the laws of England, is absurd in principle
and unjust in practice. By our law the marriage
bond is considered indissoluble, and so it is found to
be by a vast majority of the King's subjects, but in
practice, owing to the absolute power of the Legisla-
ture, it is as fragile and dissoluble as most other
human engagements. Thus there is in this Waned
country one law for the rich and another for the poor.
No man who has not from 1,2001. to 2,0001, to dis-
tribute among lawyers can obtain any other disoree
than a mere nominal separation from the most aban-
doned adultress that ever walked the streets. She
remains the wife of the husband she has injured and
disgraced while either live—she retains his
name—she may reside on the opposite side of
the street—she may expose her infamy in the pre-
sence of her wretched children—she may overage
the feelings of their father by the daily exhibi-
tion of her paramour, while the unfortunate husband
neither can obtain a female protector for his chil-
dren without committing an offence against morality,
nor give them a stepmother without rendering him-
self liable to be tried as a felon and transported be-
yond seas. But if, on the other band, such a hus-
band can command from 1,200/. to 2,000/., he can
apply to the Legislature is an oppressed subject, ob-
tain a divorce, marry again, and bury the sorrows of
his former union in the affections of a more eirtuous
obb„jeo.
esrt
ru,tgs,
companion. To call this a senseless or absurd law
would not be saying enough. It is cruel, oppres-
sive, and unjust. It is injurious to morality—it is
repugnant to Christianity—it is disgraceful to the
ecclesiastical code of England. But we in Eng-
land care for none of these things. Oppres-
sion we submit to cheerfully—injustice is to us
no reproach—the maxims of Christianity ire read
backwards by the Bishops as the Lord's Prayer used
to be by the witches, and we are all wonderfully
happy and contented. Money can Lily any thing—a
divorce and a third wife—a seat in Parliament and a
Cyprian—a living in the church and a box at the
Opera—a pint of wine in the Shades and a plate at
Mr. Horace Twiss's dinners-.-an urticle in the
Courier and a John Dory at Billingsgate. But God
help the wretch who has neTolrktyl
fmoiolefanytelteiy rra:rtl
tyleat:
eloke:
has not money to bribe—who seeks justice with an
nd.
we
ere was
empty purse, or desires liberty without being able to
ahilitelggested by the proceedings in Lord Ellen-
go into Court or into Parliament with clothes lined
was more conspicuous than in
Ellen-
borough's st
Du frilivaoovr have, ,e the
ri
Bill.B
rtellleeasoel(iie.froAm Chiasbilnl)elittrilllnloir,:iiksiteerngisagearnuxeiloauss,
case in which the influence of rank and lichee
general eases,
tthoisbeis
and a Bill for this purpose is introduced and passed
almost sub silentio. The mock ceremony of examin-
ing witnesses—the speeches of well-trained advo-
cates—the affected solemnity and decorum -- the
mummery of judicial formality—all this is gone
through, the Lords are satisfied, the lawyers still
more satisfied, fees are paid, the rogues smile in.
their sleeves and at ench other, arid the farce is
ended. This was the way its whieb .a Cabinet