The Sun.
London, England, 1830-05-14 00:00:00

CRIME OF FORGERY.

Sir J. MACINTOSH presented a petition,
Signed by"6o7 inhabitants of the city of Edinburgh,
riving that in all cases of forgery the punishment
a death should be abolished. The Right Hon.
Gentleman observed, that the petition was signed
by 16 clergymen of almost all the religious per-
suasions established or tolerated in Scotland, by the
Professors of the University, by almost the whole of
the bankers of the city of Edinburgh—a city whose
principal trade was banking,—and al,o by the emir
merit persons who were at the head of the bar of
Scotland.
Mr. H. R. LOTT assured the House that the in-
terests of the banking part of the clunnunity were
not protected by the law as it now stood, and he
was prepared, by every means in his power, to sup.-
port the prayer of the petition.
The LORD ADVOCATE observed, that the
law, as it was administered in Scotland. operated to,
prevent the growth of this offence. He regretted
to say, that though crime generally had latterly mush
increased in Scotland,that observation did not apply
to forgery. Ihe execution of capital sentences in
cases of forgery were of very 'are occurrence in
Scotland. He regretted that the returns had not
been brought down to a later date; but they were
perfect for the ten years preceding 1826; and it ap-
peared from the return, that the number of persons
committed for trial for forgery, and uttering forged
notes, from 1815 to 1826, only amounted to 194.
In the seven first years only seven persons had suf-
fered capitally, and in 1824, 1825, and 1826, only

one or two. therefore he argued that the law did
accomplish its object. If, however, Parliament
should be of opinion that this penalty should be
abolished, he certainly would not oppose the measure.

Mr. BARING observed, that this was a most
important-question, affecting, on the one side, the
feelings of great numbers of the people, and the in-
terest of a very large and influential body of men
on the other. He should like to know what those
who called for the abolition of capital punishment
in those cases nizant to press on the House in the
way of a secondary punishment. That was, in his
mind, the great difficulty of the case. Transportation
would not be any punishment. That would be only
sending a class of persons to another country where
their superior education, their knowledge of figures
and accounts, would enable them to distinguish
themselves. If nothing but that could be proposed,
it would really be no punishment at all, and it would
assuredly open a wide door for the commission of
crime. Imprisonment, with hard labour, and taking
from the person condemned any hope of an early re-
mission of punishment, would perhaps deter more
than the mere forfeiture of life, which persons in
deep distress did not view as a dreadful calamity. lf,
however, t:iis alteration were made in the criminal
law, he thought it must be extended further ; for he
could not see, if they removed the penalty of death
from forgery, how they could retain it in cases of

sheep-stealing for instance.
Sir M. W. RIDLEY believed it generally hap-
pened that individuals going out of the country
under sentence of transportation one day, were in a
short time better off than they would have been had
they remained at home. If transportation were the
punishment finally fixed upon in cases of forgery, he
trusted it might be rendered a punishment to be
dreaded.

Mr. BUXTON said, upon the simple principle
of taking the most effectual measures for the pro-
tection of property, and not upon any vague idea of
humanity, he was a friend to a mitigation of the
present punishment. He had in his possession a
petition, signed by four hundred bankers, belonging
to two hundred firms, in which, on the principle of

affording further and more efficacious protection to
property, they asked for a remission of the punish-
ment of death in cases of forgery.
Sir J. NEWPORT admitted that transportation
was a most unsatisfactory punishment in cases of
forgery, as not carrying with it, to the persons likely
to commit that offence, those terrifying consequences
which a law intended to prevent a crime of such
magnitude should. In his opinion, no crime should
be punished with death but murder, burglary, or
offences involving a violation of property accom-
panied by violence to the person. As matters now
stood, in nineteen cases out of twenty, the law by its
severity defeated its own object.
Sir T. BARING thought that forgery was an
offence which might be suppressed more effectually
thar at present, by what we were in the habit of
considering inferior punishments—transportation, or
solitary confinement for any great length of time. If
so, the purposes of humanity would be attained, and
crime checked. His Hon. Relative was mistaken

in his opinion of the nature of transportation, which,
however, he believed to have been formerly what
was described. Formerly, transportation, as re-
garded the lower classes, was a change from misery
to comparative enjoyment ; but now the case was
different ; convicts were put to hard labour, and
their condition rendered anything rather than too
comfortable. He believed that nine persons out of
ten who committed forgery escaped through the feel-
ings of the sufferers, and their reluctance to enforce
a severe law.

Lord J. RUSSELL agreed with the Hon. Ba•
ronet, that at present transportation was a punish-
ment very different from what it once was, and
thought it might be rendered a punishment of great
severity. Certainly it was no sufficient excuse for
a Government adopting the punishment of death,
because it had neither succeeded nor tried to render
transportation severe enough. He was satisfied
that, under proper regulations, it would be a more
efficacious punishment for forgery than the punish-
ment of death. The argument of the Hon. Mem-
ber,. for Callington, when► he contended that we
ought not to remit the capital punishment for
forgery, as we still retained the punishment of death
for sheep-stealing, presented no serious obstacle to
the desired change. We could remit the punish-
ment in both cases. He should support any mea-
sure that might be introduced with a view to miti-
gate the existing law.
Mr. O'CONNELL supported the prayer of the
petition, and stated that he had been long of opi-
nion that the punishment of death should be abo-
lished in all cases of offences unaccompanied by
actual violence. He should give his decided support
to any measure for the abolition of capital punish-
ments in cases of forgery.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER
said, it had been stated that the severity of the law
prevented prosecutions in cases of forgery; but how
many persons might there not be who were deterred
from the commission of crime by apprehensions of
the severity of the punishment ? The effect might
be injurious to property if the law were relaxed : on
this point he admitted it might be difficult to form
a precise opinion, but he thought the experiment
would be hazardous in a country where such an
amount of property was at stake. In his opinion,
his Right Hon. Friend (Sir R. Peel) acted wisely
in proposing gradually to remit the punishment of
death, as applicable to one class of forgeries, thus
giving us an Opportunity to conjecture what might
be the effect of withdrawing capital punishments in
other cases of the crime, by observing the conse-
quences of the mitigation in a single instance. This
was the safest, and, he was sure, would ultimately
prove the most humane course.
Mr. HUME said, if it were considered desirable,
with respect to one branch of forgeries, to mitigate
our sanguinary law, he could not see why we should
make trial of one portion, and leave the other un-
touched. The mischief of our law consisted in the
uncertainty of punishment arising from the unusual
severity of our code. He was of opinion that the
punishment of death should not be inflicted except
for murder or treason, which latter crime might in-
volve many deaths. The Right lion. Gentleman
who had effected so many improvements in the cri-
minal law ought to carry the principle still further.
Mr. LENNARD then rose and observed, that
the Right Honourable Gentleman had only to
look at the petitions proceeding from monied ir.-
terests which had been presented in favour of the
abolition of capital punishments in cases of forgery,
in order to see how ill-grounded were his ap-
prehensions. He thought that the statement
made by the Lord Advocate furnished an argument
in favour of a mitigation of punishment. The
Learned
_Lord said, that during 12 years the crime
of forgery had riot increased in Scotland ; and he
also stated, that although the punishment of death
in such cases nominally existed in that country, yet
that it was, in point of fact and practice, abolished.
Mr. M. A. TAYLOR spoke in favour of the abo-
lition of capital punishments in cases of forgery, and
expressed a determination, whenever a motion
shisuld be made to do away with them, to support it.
Mr. WARBURTON said, that it was the cer-
tainty, not the severity of punishment, that prevented

crime.
Mr. FORBES said a few words, which did not
reach the gallery.
Mr. ROB IN SON said that the law did not afford
protection to the banker and commercial man,—be-
cause the severity of it prevented prosecutions. For
this reason, if for no other, the severity of the law
ought to be mitigated.
Mr. MARRYAT said, that the severity of the
punishmept prevented prosecutions in nine cases
out of ten.
Mr. BROWNLOW had a petition to present
from the bankers of Belfast, who expressed the
same opinion.—The petition was then ordered to
be printed.
ir J. MACINTOSH postponed the second
reading of
se'nnight. the Registrar at Madras Bill till Friday
Lord SANDON moved for a return of the num

her of applications for the erection of churches or
chapels which had been made during the last year
to the Commissioners under the Church Build-

ing Act.
After a few words from the CHANCELLOR of the
EXCHEQUER, which were not audible, the motion
was agreed to.
Mr. SPOTTISWOODE had to present a peti-
tion respecting the present mode of interment in
the metropolis. The petition was that of George
Frederick Carden, barrister-at-law, of the Hon. So-

ciety of the Inner Temple. The petitioner stated
the number of interments annually in the metropolis
to he not less than 40,000, and described the places
of sepulture as offensive to public decency, and dan-
gerous to the health of the people. Any Hon.
Member who had visited the butial-grounds of the

metropolis would [Tree in the correctness of this

description. The petitioner went on to state many
other things respecting the system of interments now
practised in the metropolis, which were deserving of
attention, but with which he would not trouble the
House, as he intended to move that the petition be
printed. He would however mention, that since the
petition had been put into his hands, other cases had
been mentioned to him. The burial-grounds of a
chapel in Fetter-lane, of St. Mary Abchurch, and of
St. Giles's church, were all offensive and dangerous
nuisances. With respect to the latter, he found
that an able and intelligent officer of the House,
Mr. Luke Hansard, had, in his evidence before the
Select Vestries Committee, described the St. Giles's
church-yard to have been a nuisance from time im.
memorial, and shown that Pennant spoke of it as
such. The petitioner prayed that a Cominittee
should be appointed to inquire into the evils of the
present system of interment within the metropolis,
and to take into consideration the plan proposed by
the petitioner, of establishing a general cemetery
without the metropolis. For his own part, he was
convinced of the necessity of some alteration, but
he thought Committees of that House were more
remarkable for blaming abuses than for remedying
them. He should content himself for the present,
with moving that the petition be printed, in order
that all gentlemen might read it, and he should con-
sider what would he the best mode of proceeding.
Lord LOWTHER agreed with the petitioner as
to the impropriety of the present system. In St.
Martin's church-yard, the only place over which he
had any control, he had had catacombs dug under
ground, and he hoped to see the example followed
in other places.

Mr. PitOTHEROE said it would have been
better if the Noble Lord had removed the burial-

place out of the metropolis altogether.
Lord LOWTHER.—That would have been bet

ter, certainly, but I had not power to do so.
Mr. HUME said, that there ought to be an Act
prohibiting all burials in the metropolis for the fu-
ture. Decency and the health of the inhabitants
called for such a mea,,ure.

The petition was then read, and ordered to be
printed.
Mr. BROWNLOW presented a petition from
bankers of Belfast, praying that the punishment for
forgery might be mitigated.—To lie on the table.