The Sun.
London, England, 1830-06-08 00:00:00

•
luot strangely inconsistent in the Hon. Gentleman to mate
'inch an admimsion, and yet contend that the clause should
be adopted without any qualifying exception? How was
he to provide punishment for other Fauntleroys?
could such an exception to the principle of,!he clause he
reconciled with the required practical congruity and prac-
tical symmetry, and even the theoretical homogenity of
the law?
Mr. AIACAULEY explained.

Mr. H. GURNEY spoke for a few minutes; but the
noise occasioned by Members leaving the House and the cry
of " Question" prevented us from hearing his observations.
Sir ROBERT PEEL said that he would at once ap-
proach that which, alcr all, was the main argument fot
the remission of the punishment of death in cases of forgery
—namely, that the law as it now existed afforded no pro-
tection to property; but that, if they would remit the
punishment of death in such cases, a new protection to pro-
perty would be thereby created. If this position were
established by sound argument, it would unquestioualdy
have more force with him than all the declamation which

he had heard on this subject, during the present as well as
on a former evening. But he would ask, if the punish-
ment of death did not deter from the crime of forgery, why
did the Right Hon. and Learned Gentleman admit the pro-
priety of ret lining that punishment in one particular case,
that of forging a will ?—(Hear, hear. )—lf the fight Hon.
and Learned Gentleman really thought that, by remitting
the punishment of death, he gate additional security to
property, why did he retain that punishment in this in-
stance ? The Right Hon. and Learned Gentleman said)
that he would no; to-night, go so far as he had formerly
dose, and then, with what appeared to him to be a great
inconsistency, he proposed that the punishment of death for
forgery should be abolished in all cases except where the
forgery of a will took place. The Hon Member for Wey-
mouth, stated, that he would not support the proposition
of the Right Hon. and Learned Gentleman on any religious
sir conscientious scruple which he might himself entertain,
but that he would defend it on the ground of its giving a
new security and protection to property. Now, he would
,againstate that which be had stated the other night, that
it would, in his opinion, have precisely the contrary effect.
If he were to look confidently forward to his con-
tinuing to hold the office of Secretary of State, he could
assure those who advocated the proposition of the Right
Honourable and Learned Gentleman, that nothing would be
more agreeable to him than to agree to n commutation of
ptmishment, if he could bring himself to believe that it
would be attended with beneficial effects. It would tm-
questionably.free him from many very painful applications.
In arguing this question, he relied entirely on facts con-
nected with the mercantile concerns of this city, and to
these facts the House, in his opinion, ought to attach very
great weight. He particularly selected the case of the
London bankers, and of the Bank of England. He, how-
ever, formerly declared, and he now repeated, that he did
not mean to retain this punishment merely on account of
the pecuniary interests of the London bankers or of the

Bank of England, but because he felt that the general in-
terests of the public were deeply concerned. In treating
this question formerly, he had found it necessuy to advert
to the London bankers, and he had first stated the immeft,e

extent of their business. He had shown that a(3 banking
ettabfishments forming the bankers' cominittee for prme-
. carting forgeries had, in the course of three days, in the
-month of May, transacted business to the amount of
10,000,0001. That fact, which he then statcd, and
which appeared at the time to have astonished some gentle-
Melt, he now confidently repeated. He had also stated to
the House, that four private banking-houses in London
had, in the course of a year, transacted business to the
amount ef 500,000,000/. But then he was told that, as
all the draughts aud bills of exchange must go through the
ciciriN-houte, an effectual security against forgery was
thus created. Therefore, the Right Hon. and Learned
. Gentleman argued that they ought to deduct from the secu-
rities which were liable to forger', that they ought to de-
duct from the general account all the notes and drafts
which went through the clearing-house. Now he differed
entirely from those who advanced this as a valid argument.
He would contend that the clearing-house was not an
effectual security against forgery. He would contend that
the Right Hon. and Learned Gentleman, and not him-
self, was mistaken as to facts. He said that the banker
was not called on to pay on the day when the instrument
was presented, and that therefore he had an opportunity
of ascertaining its authenticity. But, notwithstanding
this, the fact was, and he knew it, that forgeries had on
many occasions passed the clearing-house. A recent
forgery for 500/. on Messrs. Rothschild did actually pass
through the clearing-house. When a London banker re-
ceived a bill, he had, 'no doubt, a day to ascertain its cor-
rectness; but the fact was, alp," such skill was evinced in
the perpetration of forgery, that the fraud could not ih
many cases be discovered, without a perpetual reference to
the party named in the instrument. Why, it was but the
other day that a woman brought forward documents
signed, as it appeared, by Mr, Dunning, Lord Chatham,
and he knew not by wham else. Now, be had no doubt
that those signatures, though well executed, were not real ;
and if signatures were artfully traced, as he believed those
to have been, how, except by personal reference, could the
forgery be detected ? Therefore he would say that the
argument founded on the clearing-house was not worth
soy thing ; but that the fear of the punishment of death
el,' deter from the commission of this crime was evident
from the fact, that though business had been transacted, in
three days, at the counter of the banking establishment

to which he had referred, to the amount of 4,795,000/.,
there were, intbecourse of the present year, but four

f treeries committed on them, and the amount was only
4001 With respect to the Bank of England, whets an
immense amount of business was necessarily transacted,
they bad only instituted three prosecutions for forgery in
the last assizes, and in the present there was not one name
recorded, in England or Wales, for forgery on that este-
bliehment. The Right Hon. and Learned Gentleman had
said, that the Bank of England was an unflinching prose.
tutor, when it supposed that the prosecution would serve
its interest; but that it was always guided by its legal ad-
visers, who never urged a prosecution, except where con-
viction was sure to follow, and that therefore many case=
of forgery might occur, which, being abandoned, were un-
known to the public. Now he had sent to the Bank of
England for a return, specifying the entire extent of
forgeries of which that body had received notice during the
years 1827, 1828, and 1829. He did not call for a mere
return of forgeries that were prosecutes!, but for a full
return of the forgeries attempted on the Bank of England,
whether they succeeded or not, and what was the result ;
In 1827 the total amount of forgeries on the Bank of Eng-
land was £,107/. ; in 1828, the total amount, under the
existing law, was 1971. ; in 1829, a magistrate of the
county of York forged three powers of attorney to the
amount of 6,500/. ; he, however) not placing much con-
fidence in the unwillingness of juries to convict, left the
country the moment he had received the money ; but ex-
clusive of that particular forgery, the sum of which it
was attempted to defraud the Bank of England, by false
instruments, in 1829, amounted only to 378/. Could
it, he would ask, he argued, after this was made known,
that the present state of the law afforded no protection to
property ? The Hon. Member for Caine argued, that the
Bank of England, being a rigorous and inexorable pro-
secutor, thereby secured its own property. But if grand
juries were so very unwiLieg to find true bills in these
cases, and if petty juties were so anxious not to convict, as
the House had been told, how came it that the Bank of
England commanded this protection for its property ? The
two ,arguments were completely opposed to each other.
After all'ketad beard, his conscientious conviction was,
that they wised` not be promoting the protection of pmperty,
or the cause of public morality, by substituting the punish-
ment of transportation for the punishment of death. One
punishment was privately mentioned to him as very proper
to be resorted to in the case of forgery. It was suggested,
that the culprit should be branded, and thus held up to
public disgrace. This, however, had been formerly tried,
with reference to other offences, and it had failed. In
1669, in the reign of William and Mary, an act was passed
by which the perpetrators of burglary and larceny were
directed to be punished by branding them on the face and
hand. But six or seven years after, in the reigu of Queen
Anne, that Act was repealed on the express ground, that
the offenders who were thus driven from society, instead
et being in any degree reformed, became more desperate;
and be was quite sure that any very severe secondary
punishment, if substituted for death, would speedily be
abolished. The French, be knew, had secondary punish-
ments; but he was convinced, that if an individual here
was to be condemned, as many were in France, to work
fur ten years on the public roads, dragging a cannon-
ball at his feet, the Quakers, or the sentimentalists,
as the Honourable and Learned Gentleman called them,
would shudder at such a punishment, and would feel
just as moth reluctance to prosecute for the crime of
forgery as they did at present on account of the infliction
of death. Much had been said about France; but he must
observe that the punishment of death for forgery was not
abolished in that country. The forgery of transfers of
stock, or of any documents bearing the stamp of the
Government, was still subject to the punishment of death.
Secondary punishments, though recognized by the law,
were not at all popular there. The punishment of the
tartan, for instance, was denounced as cruel and degrad-
ing. In taking the course which he felt it to be his duty
to pursue, he7,was actuated by no other motive than the
protection .of. property and. the repression of crime. If
the House thought differentl from him, he mutt bow