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

anioun

Tice
resume

served

year.
in the
Sir
burn ii

Hence,

him w
which
plored
acid a
to Mr

Was e!
The fi
object

Col
find
volunt
Sir
Rtaten

defenc
'Tian.

jourti4
and ti
w hi*
.
mine
some

con,
Dal,

suc:
Col
rho
to I

OD
thl
tol

aid
re-
ilr.
file

It 0-
his,
,ord
Ica

!ere
mit.
d of
act
Nita

vere,
were

ouse
and
coin-

the
late°
'tell,

vitle
rierid

ad
beef

ialtri
AEI B
been
The
Int to

JER
m• Do

)osed
some
ie es-
)rt of
a cir-
f the
ecta-
molt

is in-

Bogota. From the Caraccas Mr. Cockburn pro-
ceeded to Carthagena with Bolivar; and there
had, with that distinguished individual, various
most important and useful communications—so im-
portant, that. he ;bought_ he should best consult
the public service Ji a personal communication of
them to his own Government; and, therefore, at the
_ _

. ,
request of Bolivar, as vital as on the suggestions of
his own judgment, he returned from Carthagena to
lay these communications before his Majesty's Mi-

nisters. It might or might not be that, in so do'ng,
Mr. Cockburn judged erroneously. But the tines-
tion for his Majesty's Government to consider was,
whether the error was such as to entitle them to
deprive him of the salary to which, in the ordinary
course of things,.he was entitled up to the period of
his arrival. • Their decision was, that there had not
been the criminal misconduct which would justly
subject him to any such mulct. He now came to
the eases of Mr. Chad and Mr. Fox. As to the ap-
pointment of Mr. Chad, there was nothing in it in
the slightest degree irregular; and it could not be
denied that his salary did by no means exceed the.
expences necessary in the situation which he beld.
He fully agreed in all that had been said with respect
to the character of Mr. Fox, and he thought that
when Itis case was impartially considered, it would
be admitted that what had been done respecting him
was not done, as had beeri alleged, with any view to

prnmote: ,party purposes. He was at the present
rnotornt_on his passage from Buenos Ayres. The
be was persuaded, could not but feel that

most of the objections raised to this vote were ex-
tremely. ill founded ; the more especially as it did not
exceed the votes of antecedent years.
Sir J. GRAHAM said that 27,4211. was the
amount of last vear, as we understood.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER
resumed. The estimate for last year was, he ob-
served, 28,0001., and it was the same for the present
year. The whole of next year would be absorbed
in the Civil List.
Sir ROBERT WILSON said that Mr. Cock-
burn inspired General Bolivar with so .much confi-
dence, that that distinguished individual entrusted
him with information for the British Government
which was of the highest importance; and he im-
:plored him, as an agent of the British Government
and a friend to Colombia, to return home and give
to Mr. Canning himself those explanations which it
was esteemed important should be personally made.
The facts being as he stated, he must decidedly
object to, the salary of Mr. Cockburn being cut down.
Colo!'lel. DAVIES expressed some surprise to
&I& his Honourable and Gallant Friend behind him
volunteering a defence of the Government.

Sir ROBERT WILSON merely volunteered a
statement of the truth.
Colonel DAVIES never heard a more inefficient
defence than that made by the Right Hon. Gentle-
man. , There was A.). ffi:um of 1,700/. charged for the
journey from Vera Cruz to London for Mr. Ward ;
and there was 6001. for house-rent for Mr. Cockburn,
whi*Speat but three Weeks in the Caraccas. There
ajipared46 be no reason why Mr. Cockburn should
come home ;. he might very easily have sent home
some confidential person. The objection to the pre-
sent vote was levelled against his Majesty's Govern-
ment, meaning thereby the present Administration,
for Lord Dudley refused Mr. Cockburn's salary.
Further,he wished to know why Mr. Gordou'should
have been retained a whole year in London doing
no public service.
An HON. MESIBER observed, that it would
be extremely unfair to keep Mr. Gordon all that
time in London at his own expense, when, from the
moment of his appointment, he was incapacitated
from employing himself otherwise than in the ser-
vice of Government.
Mr. HUME said the amendment of his Hon.
Friend the Member for Cumberland ought to be
agreed to, were it only for the purpose of showing
that the House disapproved of the conduct of his
Majesty's Government. He held in his hand a me-
morandum made last year, to which he should pre-
sently call attention, but first he must be allowed
to observe, that nothing could be more preposterous
than the expense to which the country was put on
account of our DiplomaticlVlissions. If the House
Would but just pay a little attention to the papers,
they would • see what all this boasted economy of
the Chancellor of the Exchequer came to. In 1828
the sum in this department was 445,0001. In 1829
it was put down at 407,0001, and for the last year
it was fixed at 366,000/., forming an apparent re-
' duction of 40,0001. But the fair way of examining
it was to see what the average of the years from
1788 to 1793 was. The expenses in this branch,
at that period, were 113,0001. Even in 1816 they
only amounted to 226,0001., which, though too
much, was greatly less than the amount charged of
late years. The point to which he wished to direct
the attention of the House was this. His Majesty's
Ministers had promised reduction; no reduction
was made, and any expectation that it would be
made, unless insisted on by the House, was per-
fectly hopeless.
Mr. S. CANNING rather recommended the
House to look forward to future reductions in other
years, titan interfere with the existing arrangements.
He thought that it was in the minor appointments,
rather than in those of Ambassadors, that retrench-
ments might most judiciously be made. In Naples,
Denmark, Sweden, and Norway, where there were
maritime interests to support, it might be very well
to have Ministers; but there were other places where
the general opinion was, that there was no necessity
representative of this country. Tuscany was one for a
of those instances; though the Noble Lord himself,
who occupied that station, bad uniformly succeeded
in conciliating the esteem and regard of all who
Came in contact with him. In Germany also, he
conceived that there was room for retrenchment.
Bavaria, Saxony, and Wurtemberg were places of
So small importance, that he thought this country
would be sufficiently represented in all those places
by keeping a Minister at Frankfort. From the as-
surances given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer,
he trusted that another year would not be suffered
to pass away without retrenchment taking place,
such as will prove satisfactory to the House of
Commons. From what he had heard stated, he
thought that a satisfactory answer had been given
to the most important allegations of the Hon. Bart.
Mr. HOBHOUSE--To the objections taken to
the present vote, it appeared to him that no answer
had been given; and the case of Mr. Gordon was
• one- that most particularly called for explanation :
Ave certainly thought that a Cabinet Minister ought
to be so good as to explain why 5,500/. had been
paid to that' gentleman, for doing little more than
• nothing. He did not wish to deny or depreciate the
services of that gentleman, but they were all aware
what. his connections were, and he was astonished
-- that a sense of decency and decorum had not pre-
'!t vented the taking of such a step.—(Cheers.) He
'should have thought that, under the circumstances,
they would rather have been disposed to cut away
the salaries of relations than thus obtrude them
upon' the country.—(Cheers.) He did not mean
to say that gentlemen, because they were the bro-
thers of Secretaries of State for the Foreign De-
partment, were to be deprived of their just meed of
reward; but when there was any doubt in the case,
he thought delicacy ought to be allowed to have
some little weight, and that those who of course
• followed politics for honour, and not for profit, ought
to tell their brothers that such uncalied-for pensions
could not be allowed.—(Cheers.) With respect to
South America, he was one of those that wished
that every encouragement-should be given to its risii4g
Republics, and God knew that we had done little
'rough for the cause of liberty ; and, therefore, he
dno desire to check any countenance being
afforded to those States. But at the same time
there was some little medium to be observed ; and
'they were not to be told every day, that because
Something bras going to be done, there was to he
an unlimited call upon the public purse. As to this
being a personal attack, such an idea was quite out
of the question. It was 'no personal object that
they had in view; all that they were attacking was
the system—a system of confidence which had been
too often shown, and on which the House of Corn

mons ought .never to proceed. When a gentleman
was sent to the Brazils and it turned out that in-

stead of being—there, he was here, he thought that
it was impossible for the House of Commoni to
allow such a vote to pass till something like a secu-
rity had ,been given that there should be no recur-
rence of what had happened in this instance.
The CHANCELLOR. of the EXCHEQUER
—The Hon. Gentleman was under a mistake when
he said "chat Mr. Gordon had been in this country
all the time. The fact was, that from the time of
his accepting the appointment, he either was in the
Brazils, or on the sea on his journey, until Septem,
ber. From September to January, 1829, it was
true that he was in this country; but during that

period, though he wag still engaged in business
connected with his appointment,•he only received at
the rate of half his regular salary; and in January,
1829, his salary ceased altogether, though it was
not till April in that year that he had ceased to be
employed in the affairs of his office.
Mr. WARD—Shortly after he became a Member
of that House, he recollected Mr. Canning stating
that he felt it to be his duty to enter on a series of

experiental diplomacies to ascertain what relations
could be entered upon between this country and
South America. He at the same time stated, that

t was impracticable for him to define what the na-
ure or extent of thosediplomacies might be; but

he did state, that as the-necessaries of life were

much enhanced in value in those countries, it would

be necessary to make allowance for that circum-
s:anee. It was with thii view that we entered

upon the course then proposed.
Lord HOWICK—The question was, not whe-
ther they should cut down the missions to South
America, but whether they were to be for keeping
gentlemen nominally there, but really at home, or
else on the high seas between England and America,
doing no duty at all. He could hardly be persuaded
that Government would refuse to consent to the
amendment of the Hon. Baronet, without further

reasons being given for that refusal.—(Hear, bear.)
The Right Hon. Gentleman had rested upon the
estimates of last year; but his Hon. Friend had
taken a-leaf from his own book, and in the reduc-
tions he had proposed to make, he had cut off nc-
thing useful or serviceable, but only such things as
were encouraging a profligate and shameful ex-
penditure.—(Hear, hear.—He agreed with the
Hon. Member for Westminster, that there was no
desire to attack individuals; on' the contrary, he
thought those very individuals had no less right to
complain than the public—for they had a right to
complain—of being kept in London, and receiving a
salary for doing nothing. The mere amount of
money wasted in outfits was enormous; from the
documents it appeared that the charge in four years
had been no less than 7,1661. It might be very
true that Mr. Cockburn's health was such as to
preclude his residence in South, America, and that
there were very sufficient reasons for not sending
Mr. Chad or Mr. Turner there, but all that could be
said, if this were the case, was, that there had been
a great want of care on the part of Government in
not managing their appointments so as to avoid the
expence of three outfits before one person was really
sent out to undertake the duty.
Sir JAMES GRAHAM replied.
The gallery was then cleared for a division, when
there appeared—

For the amendment 99
Against it llB
Majority --I9
FORGERIES PUNISHMENT BILL.

The Order of the Day for the third reading of
this Bill was then read. On the motion that the
Bill be now read a third a third time,
Sir J. MACINTOSH said, that he rose to pro-
pose an amendment to the Bill, similar in its nature
to that which he had already proposed in the Com-
mittee. Having been unable to attend regularly in
hs place in the House, he was not aware till the
present evening that the Bill had already advanced
so far as its present stage, and he was therefore at
some loss as to the manner in which he should move
his amendment in point of form. His amendment
went to repeal the penalty of death in all cases of
forgery, except that of forgery of wills—an excep-
tion to which he sacrificed his own judgment against

his will, out Of deference to many respectable Mere•
bers of Parliament. Having proposed the repeal 0
the punishment of death in all cases of forgery, ex.
cept shut of the forgery of wills,—which he admitted
was attended with peculiar circumstances, distin-
guishing it from all others,—his intention was to
propose that any person, against whom a conviction
for forgery should pass, should lie, in prison, either
with or without hard labour, at home, fur the space
of 11 years ; or if sent abroad to a penal colony,
should be transported for any term exceeding that
number of years. He proposed to give not only the
power of inflicting either of these punishments, but
also that of accumulating both, whenever the circum-
stances of the case should be so atrocious as to de-
serve the greatest severity. He would also vest a
power in the Crown, authorizing it to treat all
persons convicted of forgery in such a manner as
would mark forgery as an offence of a blacker die
than any other which was not directed against
life, nor attended with violence. It was likewise his
wish to take away the power which the Governors
of our colonies, or which the Governor of New
South Wales, at least, possessed over all convicts
within their government,—namely, that of mitigat-
ing the punishment to which they were condemned.
In order to answer the obvious objection,—that the
importance of employing persons of education in
the public service in new and remote colonies would
lead, first to the pardon, and then to the employ-
ment in public situations, of persons convicted of
forgery, who were generally persons of education—
in order, he said, to answer that obvious objection,
he proposed to take away all power of remitting or
relaxing the punishment for forgery, except by a re-
presentation to the King of the grounds on which
it was proposed to remit it, and by a remission of it
by the King at home. These were the objects of
the clause which he proposed to the House to bring
up in a few minutes. (The Right Hon. Gentleman
here consulted with some of his friends near him,
and with the clerk of the House as to the proper
mode, in point of form, of proposing his amend-
ment.) The first proposition which he should make
to the House would be, that in page 3, line 7, the
words, " shall suffer the punishment of death," be
struck out of the Bill. If he should succeed in that
proposition, we understood him to say, that he
should not object to let the Bill be read a third time.
After it was read a third time, he should propose to
bring up his clause as a rider to the Bill.
Mr. F. BUXTON took that opportunity of ris-
ing, not so much with a view of entering upon the
discussion of this particular clause as with a view of
removing an erroneous impression that had got
abroad, in consequence of the speech made on a
former evening by the Right Hon. Baronet oppo-
site. As this was an occasion in which party feel-
ings were not likely to interfere with the object
which they all had in view—he meant the attain-
ment of truth—he was quite certain that the Right
Hon. Baronet would not complain of his conduct if
he now proceeded to show that the facts on which
he had laid so much stress had been erroneously
stated. There was nothing on which the Right
Hon. Baronet had laid greater stress than his state-
ment respecting the enormous amount of the trans-
actions which were daily passing through the banks
of the metropolis. The Right Hon. Baronet had
stated, that there had passed through the clearing-
houses, during four days of May, cheques for no
less a sum of money than 10,000,0001. sterling, and
that there had only been four prosecutions in the
last six months for forgeries upon the London
bankers ; and the inference which the Right Hon.
Baronet had drawn from this statement, of the mag-
nitude of the transactions of the London bankers, and
of the rarity of prosecutions for forgery upon them,was
this—that protection was afforded to property from the
severity with which every invasion of it was punished.
He was sure that when the Right lion. Baronet made
that statement he was not aware of this fact--that of all
the cheques which were issued fur the payment of the
10,000,000/. of which he had spoken, there was not one

hat was liable even tl the w,saility of a forgery,—
Cheers.)—The House would see at once, from the

neria which that department of banking, was conducte,l,
that such must inevitably be the case. A.trailesman pays
into his banker a cheque on another hanker, which be has
received from his cu,t6m,,r. That cheque goes to the

clearing-house, there it is exchanged f other cheques,
and the money up -n it is not paid until the morning of the
next day. Thus there were three cheques, by which a
forgery was rendtred so -difficult- as to b almost impos-
sible. First, you know from whom you received the
cheque; secondly, you had time given you to inquire
whether it was a forged cheque or not; and thirdly, you
did not pay the cheque till the next day. • On this point
he would take the liberty of reading to the House a letter
full of valuable information which he had received from

Mr. William Thomas, of 42, Itombard-street, an eminent
hill-broker, well known in the city. The Hon. Member
here read the letter, in which the writer stated that he had

been for 39 year+. engaged in business connected with
tanking, that for 20 years he had been actually a clerk in
a banking-house, that for other 12 years be had been an
inspector of the clearing. house, and that for the remainder of
the time he had been a bil'-broker. He stated that during
the whole of that time he did not recollect that any forged

!heque had ever passed through the clearing-house, or that
my banker had suffered loss from any fraud so committed.

He (Mr. F. Buxton) conten'led upon this authority that
the clearing-houses had a tendency to prevent forgeries;

. .
and one alternative, which he expected would he derived
from a mitigation of the severity of the existing law was,
that the bankers would be compelled to adept a sys-

tern of precaution, which would prevent the possibility
of forgery being committed upon them. - He must• inform
the House that it was well known in the city that there
were in Lombard-street some bankers who would prose- '
cute, and some bankers who would not prosecute for for•
very ; and yet, strange as it might appear, it was never-
theless true, that whenever forgeries were committed
upon bankers in the city, it was upon those bankers who
prosecuted and who looked for protection against forgery
in the severity of the law. The reason was obvious : one
party rested en the severity of the law, and took little
precaution ; the other party, abhorring the severity of the
law, looked not to it for protection, but to their own pre-
caution.—( Hear.)—He would also take the liberty of men-
tioningr, another fact to the House, which be considered
worthy of its consideration. Amongst the various per-
sons examined before the Committee which sat upon the
criminal laws in ISI9 was a banker, who deposed in his
evidence, that on account of the severity with which for-
gery was punished, he declined prosecuting any forgery
which he detected upon his bank. He (Mr. F. Buxton)
had been afraid, that whenever the knowledge of that cir-

cumstance should get abroad, that banker would be a se-
vere sufferer; and in consequence he (Mr. F. Buxton)
had recently asked him, whether, in the ten years which
had elapsed since he bad given his evidence, he had been
a large sufferer by forgery ? Ilia reply was--" In no case
have I paid a forged cheque. .In consequence of the
_ _

resolution to which I told the Committee that I
had come, I consider myself as placed out of the
pale of the law, and I therefore have recourse to the
greatest precaution, which as yet has kept me out
of the reach of forgeries. "—(Hear, hear.)—Another
fact, on which the Right Hon. Baronet had placed

much reliance was, the enormous transactions Of the

Bank of England. The Right Hon. Baronet had told
the llouse that the eireulat'on of the Bank of Eng-
land was at present 25,000,0001. ; and that notwith-

standing there had only been two prosecutions at
the last Assizes for forgeries up ►n it. Now he (Mr.
F. Buxton) did not quarrel with the facts which the
Right Hon. Baronet had stated ; he only quarrelled with
the inference which the Right Hon. Baronet deduced front
them. The Right Hon. Baronet had said, that these facts
proved that the system had worked well,—that the law
was operative for good,—and that property had no other
protectio❑ except the severity of the law. Now he would
admit that if the severity of the law had been operative
in the manner in which the Right Hon. Baronet described,
his argument was successful; but if he (Mr. F. Buxton)
could show that this rarity of clime arose from another
cause, then cadebat qucestio,—there was an end to the
Right Hon. Baronet's argument. Now if the system were
operative at all, it must he operative at all times,—it must
have been as operative,ten years ago, when the small notes
of the Bank of England were in circulation, as it was
now when they were withdrawn from it by Act of Par-
liament. But was the punishment of death operative as
a check upon the forgery of small notes at the former of
these two periods ? Nothing less so. This curious fact
was left on record, uncontradieted, and incapable of con-
tradiction, that in the course of the year 1817, 31,180
small notes of the Bank of England were presented at its
counter, and &eared to be forgeries.—(Hear, hear.)
Was it not a decisive proof that the severity of the law
rendered tke law itself inoperative, when so many as
31,180 capital crimes were committed within a year, and
nearly all with impunity?—(Hear, hear.) He contended
upon these daft, that the property of the Bank of Eng-
land had been protected, not by the severe and rigid enact-
ments of the law, but by the withdrawal 01. its small notes

from circulation.—(Hear.) They were in the habit o:
hearing but too often of the chances of escape which cri•
minals had from the hands of justice. Those chances were
generally stated in vague, indefinite, and conjectural terms
—for nobody knew the premises on which they ought to
be calculated. But in the case of forgery the grounds of
the calculation were unfortunately afforded them. In the
year 1817, the total number of forgeries on the Bank of
England were 31,180. Out of ibis number there were
prosecuted 142 ; convicted, 62 ; and executed, 14. —( Hear. )
So that, in that instance, after the House had exhibited
all the terrors and all the severity of the law, it was 200
to 1 that a person who had committed forgery would not
be prosecuted ; 500 to I that he would not be convicted ;
and 2,000 to 1 that he would not be executed.—(Hear,
hear.) It was this severity of law, producing as a neces-
sary consequence the uncertainty of its being carried into
execution, that produced this immense mass of crime and
forgery.—(Hear.) There was another fact which he
wished to bring before the notice of the House, which was
most conclusive upon the point, and which banished from
his mind all doubt as to the expediency of altering the
existing law. What was the point at issue between the
Right Hon. Baronet and him ? Was it not simply this--
are crimes against propei ty better repressed by ' laws of
great severity, or by penalties mild, just, and proportionate
to the offence?—(Hear, hear.) He abstained from say-
ing any thing on the present occasion as to the right of
inflicting the punishment of death for crimes committed
against property, though he did not mean to disguise from
the House that he felt strongly, very strongly upon that
point. He agreed with the eloquent language of the peti-
tion which he had that night bad the honour of present-
ing to the Hous,:—" that the Lord and Giver of life had
not invested monarchs, however powerful, with unlimited
discretion over the lives of men for any oflenres which
they might think fit to declare capital, hut that their
competency of legislating upon human life was limited by
the natural and revealed law of God."—(Hear.) He did
not intend to appeal to the feelings of humanity on this
point, he left those feelings for the present quite out of his
consideration. He took it for granted that property must
be guarded at all hazards. That being the case, the only
question was whether a system of unqualified rigour or of
mitigated severity, was most efficient in repressing crime
and protecting property. There was a fact decisive of
that question, to which be wished to call the particular
attention of the House. Some years ago they made two
experiments in criminal legislation, which completely
settled the question. In one of them they had taken
a crime which had formerly been punished slightly,
and made it a capital felony; and in the other they had
mitigated the punishment of Is crime which had formerly
been death, and for which crime a person had been exe-
cuted only the very year before. The point for the House
to consider was, the effect of these two changes. The first
alteration was made for the protection of the Excise.
Formerly the forgers, cf certain stamps of the Excise was
punished by fine and imprisonment ; the House made it a
capital felony. To learn the effects of the alteration, the
Committee which sat on the Criminal Laws in 1819,
summoned before it the Solicitor of the Excise, the late
Mr. Carr. Nothing could be fairer than to ask of that
gentleman the effect of a measure which originated from
the Government which he served, and which came par-
ticularly under the notice of the department in which he
was employed. He told the Committee that increasing
the rigour of penal laws was, in all cases which had come
under his experience, a change for the worse; that the
revenue was better protected by means of leniby than by
measures of rigour; and that he had observed that in all
cases where the revenue was attempted to be secured by
making the breaches of its laws capital crimes, it was the
fraudulent trader who was protected, and not the revenue.
Another experiment tried at the same time was this :
The linen-bleachers of England and Ireland came to Par-
liament in 1811. and stated that their property was sub-
jrct to depredation, because the parties were not prose
cuted, and therefore they prayed an alteration of the law.
This was granted; and now what was the effect ? It was
difficult to say what had beeri the effect in England, be-
cause larcenies of that description were mingled with the
others ; but he had understood from the provincial registers
that the crime had not increased. He had, however, for-
tunately obtained, within a day or two, a return from the
linen-bleachers of Ireland, in two counties in the province
of Ulster, from 1800 to 1829, from whence it appeared,

that in t'••e first Ave years the !limber of persons com-
mit-4d fir the cr'ine when it was a capital offence was,

sixty-one; in the last five years, when the offence was
transportable, the number of persons committed wa,
thirty-seven only; so that although in the latter
period the number of offences generally had increased ;
this offence had decreased. But the most curious point in
the return was the number of convictions. Of the sixty-

one persons committed in the first period, only three
were convictezl, and 5S e,icapel ; whereas during the latter
years, out of 37 committals, 17 were convicted.—(Hear,)
—Here, then, the experiment had been completely suc-
cessful; and the circumstances of the linen-bleachers of

Ireland were the same as those of the bankers of England.
Both stated that their property was exposill to depredation,
which they ascribed to the severity of the law. The question
then was, why the House should not grant to the bankers
of England, who made the same request as the linen-
bleachers of Ireland, what they claimed. The petition of
the bankers,of England had been read before to the House;
but this petition, signed by 1,000 bankers, was so im-
portant that he could not refrain from qucting a passage of
it i—" Your petitioners find by experience, that the pe-
nalty of death prevents the punishment of crime, and in-
jures the property it was intended to protect." The Ilon.
Member then proceeded to state, that he bad rec-ived a
variety of letters from bankers throughout the country,
which he had intended to read, but they were too nume-
rous. All complained that tile Right Hon. Gentleman
opposite (Sir R. Peel) had not gone far enough ; that he
. _

;ould not be acquainted with the situation of bankers in
he country; that forgeries were committed on them with

impunity, for those who were forged upon would not pro-
secute ; whereas, if the penalty were less than death, no

_ .
consideration of trouble, of expense, or of inconvenience,
would prevent them from prosecuting to conviction. One
of them said, " I know of innumerable cases in which
parties have refused to prosecute," so that nothing sur-
prised him (Mr. Buxton) more than to see, notwithstand-
ing this repugnance, the number of prosecutions. Many
of the p trties to wh,m be referred complained of the lan-
guage he had used on a former occasion, and that be had
appeared to give his approbation to the course which had
been pursued by the Right Hon. Secretary. lie (Mr.
Buxton) gave it as he felt it. The Right lion. Gentle-
man had been a very active reformer of the criminal law,
and had cleared our statute book of a mass of ancient rub-
bish. In one of his speeches the Right Honourable
Gentleman had described our criminal law as the
most s inguinary in the world ; and be had observed,
" I have been the instrument in many cases of miti-
gating the severity of the law, and I can assure the House
that in no instance has any obstruction of justice arisen
from such mitigation." He (Mr. Buxton) admitted that
the Right Hon. Gentleman's speech and his Bill were at
variance, as appeared evident to himself, for he bad made
an apology for not going further, by saying that the public
were not yet ripe for the improvement. But the public
were now fully ripe; the bankers had come forward and
said, " Give us the protection which would result from a
milder law." Then he hoped that the Right Hon. Gen-
tleman would Consent to the reformation of his own Bill,

and would raise it to what be (Mr. Buxton) believed to be
his own principle, ae well as to what had been asked by
the bankers of the country.
Mr. LENNARD was acquainted with many bankers,
. _

and bad received many letters, all agreeing in the senti-
ments contained in the letters referred to by the lion.
Member (Mr. Buxton). There was one case of a banker
who had been often forged upon, and he had paid the bib

out of his own pocket, rather than suffer the offenders to
be prosecuted. In another case, a banker had been forged
upon 20 or 30 times, by the same individual, but in con-
sequence of the severity of the law, he had refused to take
any measures against him. There never was a case more
completely made out than the unwillingness of the public
that this severe law should continue in force. The feeling
lend been entirely on one side, for whilst the table had
been loaded with petitions against the continuance of the
existing law, not a single petition bad been presented in
its favour. The expression had not been confined to any
particular class; it had proceeded from every class; and if
Honourable Members would take a map of England, he
would defy them to put their finger upon any place
from which a petition had not come. The public feeling
was even stronger than had been expressed. Many per-
, sons engaged in trade had abstained from avowing their
sentiments, for fear that the knowledge of their unwilling-
ness to prosecute would leave their property without any
protection. An attorney in the country had informed him
that he had several clients who had been forged upon, who
refused to prosecute; but they declined appearing as peti-
tioners to the House, lest they might expose their property
to depredation. With respect to the Bill, he admitted
that it had some merit as being a good digest of the law of
forgery ; but as.a practical mitigation of that law, it was
of no value whatever. It was only necessary to look into
other countries—France, for instance : hardly any instance
took place there of the punishment of death for the crime,
Let a forged Bank of England note be passed in France,
the utmost punishment would be branding. and the gallies
for five years. But if a forged note of France be uttered
here we put the criminal to death. Might it not be bet-
ter to try the system in the latter country ? Forgery was
only a species of robbery, and to punish it with such seve-
rity, was to confound the distinctions of guilt. The doc-
trine he held was no novelty : it was inculcated in one of
our oldest statutes—a statute of Henry VIII. Some
allusion had been made on a former night to the expence
of prosecutions. Let the Right Hon. Gentleman appoint
a public prosecutor, or adopt any other expedient to ob-
viate the evil; but unless it were accompanied by some mi-
tigation of the criminal law,hie reform would not be effectual.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL began by complaining
th_t the Hon. Member for Weymouth had strained facts
and made exaggerated statements not warranted by the
facts. Every man, both in the House and out of it, must
be so anxious not to impose the slightest unnecessary
punishment, that it seemed invidious for a person to advo-
cate the continuance of the law as it stood. It might be
imagined that his Right Hon. Friend had proposed to ex-
tend the punishment of forgery, instead of diminishing it.
If he had come down and taken away the capital punish-
ment for any such an offence, that would have been treated
as a great boon ; but as the Bill was a consolidation of the
laws regarding forgery, it seemed to be regarded as an in-
crease of the punishment. But he would call the atten-
tion of the House to one clause in the Bill, which abolished
capital punishment for forging deeds. He (the Solicitor-
General) had thought this a dangerous alteration ; but his
Right Hon. Friend thought otherwise, and had inserted
the claus t. Advocating the law as it stood, he (the Soli-
citor-General) had the satisfaction of thanking that he was
deterring persons from the commission of crime, and doing
what was just and right, in protecting the property of
those en whom forgery was committed. We should not
reserve all our tenderness for the offender ; some should be
shown towards those who suffered from their crime. The
number of persons committing the offence went a long way
to justify the law. These persons were always of some
education, and they calculated the probability of escaping
with impunity. They were persons deeply in our confi-
dence, and familiar with our habits of business and mode
of writing. Looking, therefore, at the description of per-
sons who committed the offence, atthe means and opportu-
nities they had, if the punishment of death was justifiable
by the laws of God and man, it was justifiable in reference
to this crime. There were some of those who opposed the
application of this punishment to forgery, who were op
posed to capital punishment altogether. There could be no
doubt, that that respectable body, the Quakers, had set
- their mind upon doing away with the penalty of death for
forgery ; but they were prepared for abolishing it in every
other offence. Was the country prepared for this ? Was
it prepared to bring our criminal code down to the level
of the opinions of that respectable body? Was it a reason
because they had prejudices upon this point, therefore the
people were to have this protection taken from theta ? As
to the petitions being all on one side, the reason was that
all the activity had been on one side, and none on the
other. All this activity had been from the Quakers; but
the opinions held by that respectable body on this subject,
he could not hold. He must say that he thought the appal-
ling punishment of death, executed as it was with so much
ignominy in the public streets, where criminals were sus-
pended before a gazing populace, was greatly calculated to
deter men from the commission of crime. Ile had not,
however, understood his Right Hon. Friend to bind him-
self nut to extend the lesser punishment to other cases than
were included in this Bill; all that he had understood his
Right Hon. Friend to say was, that they must proceed
with caution. He saw no secondary punishment which
could be expected to act so strongly for the prevention of
crime as the greater punishment. His Hon. and Learned
Friend (Mr. Brougham) opposite had said, that out of 117
convictions, the punishment of death had been inflicted
only in 24 cases ; but he did not think that the argument
his Learned Friend had drawn from this was a legitimate
one; for, although the secondary punishment was here
inflicted
.upon so many, and the capital punishment on
so few, yet the terror of the greater punishment hung
over all. He did not think that, although the chances might
be nine or ten to one against a man being hanged, the
man would have the less terror of that punishment. It
was the greatest of all punishments, and the uncertainty
attending the infliction of it did not lessen the fear of it,
much less could the chances of nine or ten to one have
that effect. From the conduct of the present Govern-
ment there ought to result the greatest confidence that the
utmost penalty of the law would only be carried into effect

in cases which required it. If they took . a secondary

punishment, it must be the maximum of punishment, and
then they would find it necessary to relax again ; for few

men would agree that in every c tse the maximum to
.ititat?ver that maximum might be, should b,
inflicted. They hal now secondary punishments for cases
which required siich punishments, and they hid also the
penalty of death for extreme cases. If they were to miti-

gate the law, as now proposed, they would still have to con-
tend with public sympathy, and as there were now persons
too conscientious to prosecute, because the penalty of the

offence might be death, so they would have others re-
fuse to prosecute because the punishment might still be
greater than, in their opinion, the offence deserved. Fo,
his own part, he should not now, and much less if th(
punishment were mitigated, have any hesitation in pro-
secuting for such an offence, yet they had seen that others
were actuated by a different feeling. Such were th.-

Quakers and other conscientious persons who could not
bring themselves to prosecute for cases to which the penalty
of death was attached ; but, as he had before observed, it
was impossible to tell how far the scruples of persons might
he carried, even though other punishments should be sub-
stituted for that of death.
Mr. MACAULEY said that on a farmer occasion the

Right Hon. Secretary had assured them that he did not

consider it to be a question on which the supporters of
Government were expected to vote in favour of the Bill.
If this assurance were sincerely given, he must sly that
the decision of the former evening was a matter of astonish-
ment to him, for he thought the question must have pre-
vailed if it bad been left to stand or fall by its own merits.

To-night, however, that assurance would be put to the
test ; and if the question were lost, he confessed that he
should find it very difficult to believe that ministerial in-
fluence had not contributed to the defeat. In advocating
the mitigation of this part of our criminal code, be heiged

leave to say that he proceeded not upon considerations of

humanity, and that he did not participate in that con-

scientious feeling which prevented some persons from
consenting to the infliction of the punishment of death.
But while he disclaimed this compassionate sentimentality,

allow him to say, that it was far more creditable than the
vindictive sentimentality of the Learned Solicitor-General,
who had condemned even some of the mitigations of
punishment c,nt .ined in the Bill of the Right Hon.
Secretary.—( Hear, hear.)—The vote he should that night
give would be founded upon the conviction, that if they
meant the law to be executed they must mitigate the
severity of it. They could not punish forgery with death,
and it was vain for them to flatter themselves that
they could. They might bring in a paper called a
Bill ; they might read it three times ; they might
send it up to the Lords, who might agree to it, and
read it three times also ; it might receive the Royal Assent ;
it might be sent to the King's printer, and be placed
among the rest of the statutes—and then they might say
that they had made a law which would punish forgery
with death. But if they said so, they deceived themselves.
—for they would only have added another to the number of

those pages in our statute book which were the scorn of
criminals and the disgust of sober mett,—mere abortions of
laws, which were dead before they were born. To make
it a law they must get it acted upon ; but this, it had been
seen, was beyond their power. In first place, men
would not prostcute. It had been said th‘t the Bank of
England always prosecuted, and doubtless that MS true ;
but then the Bank was a corporation, and Lord Coke told
them that a corporation had no soul. The question was,
would individual members of society prosecute? Expe-
rience had shown that they could not. The Right Hon.
Secretary, indeed, had said that the B ink prosecutions
were a fair measure of the number of prosecutions gene-
' rally, but as it appeared to him, the contrary was true ;
for the Bank prosecuted in every case, and for this very

reason, therefore, its prosecutions could not be taken as a
fair measure of the whole. The Right Hon. Secretary
had admitted that a disinclination to prosecute did exist,
and while the Right Hon. Gentleman gave to some the
credit of acting upon conscientious feelings, he said that
many were hypocrites, and that they made their con-

sciences a stalk ing-horse to cover their real motives, which
were to save the expenses of a prosecution. Now this,
instead of being an argument against the mitigation of
punishment, appeared to him to constitute of itself one of
the great abuses of the present system ; it gave people an
excuse which was universally admitted to be good in the
ease of forgery, but which would be at once laughed at if
it were put forward in cases of arson or murder; and if

there were as much of this counterfeit coin abroad as the
Right lion. Gentleman supposed there was, it was a proof
that much sterling. currency must exist, or the former
could never circulate.—( Hear, hear.) But, suppose they
got a prosecutor, then the case went before the grand jury,
where bills, though supported by the clearest evidence,
were constantly thrown out. It was only the other day
that Mr. Holder said this repeatedly occurred. However,
let the grand jury find a true bill, then it went down to
court with the names of reluct int witnesses on its back,
and what reception it met with in its next stage .he need
hardly remind the House. By the last papers connected with
this subject, which had been laid uFon the table, it appeared
that during the nine years ending 1828, there had been
708 persons committed on the capital charge of forgery,
and that, out of these, no less than 344 had got off before
before the Grand Jury ; while, out of 558, who had been
committed on the minor charge, not capital, only 57 had
got off before the Grand Jury.—( clear.) The Learned
Solicitor-General had toll them that, with regard to the
punishment of death, the diminution of the chances did not
diminish the fear ; but allow him to tell the Learned

Gentleman that the chance even of deaen might be reduced
so low that the fear of death would have very little weight.
Besides, men saw these chances differently ; for instance,
there was scarcely a gentleman in Westminster-hall who
would not refuse to go out as a Judge to Bombay, and a
man who could not muster up courage enough to fight a
dual would forge you half a dozen acceptances in no time.
—(Hear, and laughter.) Yet the climate of Bombay had
been fatal to very many, and there was more danger in
forging than in fighting duels. But the objection to the
law was, as he had bef ,re stated, that it could not be
executed. The Judges, the Juries, the witnesses, aye, and
even the Secretary of State too, were against it ; for
whatever ground the Secretary of State might take in that
House, it hail been shown that only one-ninth of the per-
sons convicted had been executed.—(Hear, hear.) And
yet this was an argument in favour of the existing law,
both with the Right Hon. Gentleman and with the Learned
Solicitor-General.—( Hear.) The latter too thought that
the ignominy of the punishment was not without most
salutary effects ; but when the drop fell, amidst cries of
" shame" and " murder" all horror of the crime, all
dread of the punishment, was lost in disgust at the
exhibition. To show to what extent this sympathy
was carried, let him remind the House that, in the case
of Mr. Fauntleroy, the case which was so often quoted
against them, a petition, praying that the life of that
man might be spared, was signed by no less than 6,000
persons. Now the case of Mr. Fauntleroy was, one
would imagine, the strongest possible. The sympathy that
it excited was, therefore, the more remarkable evidence of
the opinions of the people with regard to capital punish-
ments for forgery. Whatever punishment the offerces of
Mr. Fauntleroy might have been thought to have deserved
—(same might think that he deserved to be put to torture,
or to be roasted by a slow fire, or to be broken on the
wheel, and left to die of thirst)—yet that was not the way
in which legislators ought to look at crime. The opinion
of the people ought to regulate the measure of punishment.
See what that opinion was, and to what measure it carried
men. Juries and witnesses constantly acted in violation of
the oath they had taken. He did not mean to say that
such juries and such witnesses were not guilty of a great
moral offence ; but was he, while he admitted this, to ac-
quit those fiotn whom the offence came? He would not
defend this conduct in juries, but, at the same time, far
be it from him to defend the constructors of the law. if
juries had become legislators in this respect, let the blame
of so peat an inconvenience rest on the heads of Ministers,
who had forced men to choose between perjury and what
they considered to be bloodguiltiness.—(Hear, hear.)—
They were teaching the people to look to juries for that
laxity which, if it should become common, would he one
of the greatest curses that could befall the country—a
curse, however; which they could not avert, if they per-
sisted in making popular tribunals administer unpopular
laws.—(Hear, hear.)—The knowledge and the extent of
this evil might be shortly illustrated by an occurrence
which took place the other day. In a prosecution of this
nature, the Counsel for the Crown rose and intimated to
the jury that they need not be afraid of convicting the
prisoners, for, though it was a capital offence, yet
it was not probable the men would he banged.— i
The Counsel on the other side said, and said very pro-
perly, that his Learned Friend had no right to take such a
course with the jury. This occurrence showed the state
to which things had arrived ; the feeling of juries on these
subjects were notorious, as indeed, how could it be other-
wise, when they, answerable to no one, had so fre-
quently proved that they would commit perjury and be-
come legislators themselves rather than do the bloody
drudgery which . these who alone ought to legislate,
thought fit to put upon them? Of this feeling it might be
said, as the old ellytnists said of water, that it is incom.
, pressible ; they might multiply restraints upon restraints,
. but still it would have vent, it would burst through every
. crevice, and ooze out at every pore.--(Hear, hear.)—The
ancient principle of legislation, which experience had
proved to be utterly fallacious, was, that the more severe

he law, the more effective it. would By acting on
his principle they had made the people combine to cheat
he Custom-house, and they were now making juries com-
jine to cheat the gallows. This House often found thorn-
Ayes situated with respect to the upper House, as they
rnv found themselves situated with respect to their con.
,tituent.. They passed a Bill, and sent it up to the Lords,
vhere amendments were made which were not liked by
hose with whom the Bill originated; but the Bill, with
i,s amendments, was accepted, because euch an act was
n•eferable to none at all, or such alteration better than the

,xisting law. Let them pursue the same course on e:c.
'resent occasion towards their constituents, whose voice

.vas quite as powerful, though not so efficiently expressed,
s the voice of the Lords. Their constituents had sent
,aek to them the law which had been passed on this sub-
j,,ct ; they had now a favourable opportuttity of re-con-
idering it, and he did implore the House—snot on consi-
lerations of humanity, but as they value that commerce,
the protection of which they professd to have so mach at
heart—to remove from the statute books those enactments)

vhich were a disgust to those who did WA and a laugh-
ng-stock to those who did ill.—(Cheers.)
Mr. CRIPPS said, that he perfectly concurred with
hese who looked upon this question as one stripped of tcli
party and political considerations. For his own patt 110
considered it purely on its own merits. He had pre-
sented three petitions from his constituents against the
Bill of the Right Hon. Secretary ; but he had told his
•onstituents that his own opinion did not coincide with
theirs. In opposing the views of his constituents Le
knew that he ran a very great risk, and particularly at
this time—(Hear, and laughter)—but he thought that
ill who knew him would acquit him of giving his vote
in this occasion, because he wished to support the Go-
vernment. He gave his word and honour that he did not
vote for the Bill, because he wished to support Ministers,
nut really and honestly because be thought it necessary to
retain this punishment. He had examined the Right
lion Home Secretary's Bill, and the Right Hon. Mem-
!)er for Knaresborough's clause, with his best attention,
ind the result at which he arrived was, that the Bill sof,

ficiently discriminated between those cases to which the
extreme penalty of the law should or should not apply,
and that the cause provided no valid subitifitte for the
punishment of death in the rnOrtaggravated cases of for-
gery. He therefore should'vote' for the Bill, whieb in-
deed he thought more decidedly based on principles of cle,
mency than the proposition for'commuting punishment
of death to 14 years' transportation, with a tirellous long
solitary confinement.
Sir C. WETHERELL was one of those who should
vote for the Right Hon. Home Secretary's Bill without
the fear of the imputation of being enrolled among those
who. it had been said, were biassed in their votes by the
political influence of the Right Hon. Gentleman. Such
an imputation was most unfounded, he would say, when
the conscientious characters of many of those who had
voted on a former occasion, and probably would vote that
evening with the Right Hon. Gentleman, was taken into
consideration. That Bill was in the spirit of incederate
reform, which characterised the several improvement's ire
our laws, of which the Right Hon. Home Secretary v(64
the official instrument, and as such was entitled to the
support of every Hon. Member who had voted for those
improvements. He was aware that many of those who
were most eager to see his Right Hon. Friend's clatit.o
adopted professed to set little value on the measures for
the improvementof the administration of justice to which
he had just alluded, on the ground that they did not go
far enough. The Hon. Member for Weymouth (Mr. F.
Buxton), for example, seemed to =Raider them to' be
nothing more than a kind of small beer reform—(Lauglx-
t?r)—and that nothing had been done since the punish-
ment of death was inflictable for other crimes than mnr..

der, for such, in fact, would be the effect of his Right
Hon. Friend's clause, if adopted. Now this was a sub-
ject on which he had bestowed more than ordinary consi-
deration. He knew that many, he was free to admit,
conscientious, theoretical sentimentalists, had maintained
that because in Revelation punishment of death was not
declared against any crime but murder, that therefore 'it
would be immoral, illegal, and irreligious, to infliet it for
robbery, or any modifiratiou of the crime of property spo-
liation. But such was not, however, the opinion of Paley,
or Kippis, or Blackstone, or other high authorities in the
ethics of jurisprudence. They maintained, in his mind
soundly, that it did not follow, that because death -was not
enjoined in the Scriptures as the punishuient of any crime
except murder, that therefore its being extended in the
pro,ress of society to other offences was not consonant nor
congruous with the Divine Law. For what would be the
consequence of f4ilowing up the theoretical principles of
the class of sentimentalists to their legitimate and li;gically
consistent extent, unless to disarm Government of its
powers, by doing away with all the principles and institu-
tions of Criminal Law?—(" No !")—He said yes; 'far did
not the class to which he alluded not only maintain that
punishment by death was immoral, illegal, and 'irreligious,
but also maintain, and, what was more, acted upon, the
principle that all litigation was unrighteous 7-4" No,
no," from Dr. Lushington.)—He repeated, notwithstand.
ing the civilian " No," which had reached his ear, that
class of sentimentalists to which he had referred, did main-
tain and act upon those principles, and therefore could not,
in consistency, he content till there sewed to be any pu-
nishment at all. When did the lion. and Learned Ci-
vilian see a Quaker a suitor in Doctors' Commons, or its
any of the courts of common law ? But, to return to his
Right Hon. Friend's clause. He felt in relation to that
clause precisely as the Hon, Member for Callington had
on a former occasion dem ibed himself to feel—that is, ho
would willingly support its adoption, were it first made
clear to him that it provided a bona fide substitute for
the punishment of death. But it did no such thing ; and
while it went to take away every existing scheme of ven-
geance which the present law sanctioned, it left no substi-
tute in its stead. What did the clause propose ? Why,
that the crime of forgery should be punished—instead of
by hanging in any case—either by fourteen years' solitary
confinement, or by fourteen yearsj transportation, or
by both, according to circumstances. With respect
to the first of these propositions, it appeared to him
a sufficient answer to repeat what had been said en a
former occasion. It was no punishment at all in care
of large forgery spoliations, for whet was there to prevent
the convict criminal from carrying out with him the
money in gold which he had defrauded some person of,
and thus rendering punishment by transporation a perfect
mockery of legal revenge?—(Hear.)—Then with respect
to the 14 years' solitary confinement proposition, he should
like to know whether public 'feeling, of which so much
had been said, as being scared by the spectacle of execu-
tion% for forgery, would not be still more scared by the
sight of the misery of the slow, tedious, wearing, energy-
consuming, punishment of solitary confinement? Would-
it nut be, in fact, generally felt that that species of pu-
nishment was actually more severe than the punishment
of death? He maintained it was, and that the existing
law was far more merciful in its tendency than such a
proposition. Then with respect to the third remedy of
his Right Hon. Friend—the transportation after solitary
confinement—all he should sty was, that every objection
to either punishment singly applied a fortiori to their
union. What would be its effect? Why, to justly make
forgery-criminals the objects of public pity much more
than their execution at present. Had • criminal, after
his fourteen years' solitary confinement, -with hard tread-
mill labour, by which it might be thought be had expiated
his offence, in fact become an emeritus of his pri-
son, and therefore unrestrained by its regulations, to be
debarred from leaving that prison, and told " now
your 14 years' transportation commences?"—(Hear.)--
Punishment of death would be ' much more humane
treatment. He knew that the opinion that punishment
by death was as impolitic as it was cruel, in offences
against property, was daily making-way, was creeping
over the face of public opinion.--( Hear.)—Still he was not
a convert to it, and be would venture-to say, though
not a Quaker; he felt. as warmly and as deeply for the
sufferings of his fellow-creatures as any theoretical senti-
mentalist of them all. But his was no bastard inconsis-
tent sympathy ; he was for no pseudo morality—no small
beer relaxation of the sternness of criminal jurisprudence.
—(Hear, and a laugh.) He should like to know from
some of the sentimental theorists how they reconciled the
consistency of abolishing punishment of death in cases of
forgery with their keeping it in force for highway robbery.
or spoliation of property ?---(Hear, hear,) Surely if it
was objectionable in the one instance, it was at least
equally so in the other cue. If they believed their prin-
ciple to be good, they should, in consistency, extend it to
all offences against property besides. forgery. Indeed, he
thought forgery in nine cases out of ten to be a much more
aggravated crime than the majority of robbery cases that
called down the severity of the law; for the 'former was a
deliberate, concerted violation 'of the law, by persons gene-
rally of education and less pressed by want of the:necessi-
ties of nature, while the latter were too often the pro re
;iota offspring of want or drunkenness, or the influence of
abd associates. The Hon. and Learned Gentleman pro-
ceeded to argue, in answer to the Hon. Member for Caine
that there were two classes of forget, criminals—that in
which there was a breach. or trunt,' and that in which
there was no such breach—between whom the Bill before
the House drew. a proper line of distinction. The Hors.
Member had alluded to the case of Fattutleroy, and had ad -
mitted that not only-it was not too severely punished. but
that ingenuity might, -bethought, be exercised in devising
some fitting torture for that lAA criminal.. New was it