The Sun.
London, England, 1832-08-14 00:00:00

CHOLERA.

The Marquis of LANSDOWNE laid upon the table of
the House Orders in Council issued under the Cholera
Prevention Act.

FORGERY BILL.

On the Report of this Bill being brought up,

The Earl of ROSSLYN said, that in the absence of
his Noble and Learned Friend (Lord Wynford) he bad to
move an amendment, which would have the effect of ex-
cluding from the operation of the Bill the forgery of will:,
testaments, codicils, or testamentary writings, with a view
to defraud any person whatsoever, or powers of attorney
for the transfer of stock, or for the receipt of interest of
stuck.

The Noble Earl having read his amendment,
The LORD CHANCELLOR said, the opinion he bad
expressed Last night remained unaltered. The reason and
the ground on which he voted in the other House of Par-

liament was principally taken in the ease of forged nego-
tiable securities. The immense amount of money con-
stantly pa,sing by means of cheques on bankers, to the
amount of millions in the year, arid the risk to which that
property was exposed, were the principal reasons
why the punishment of death was so long continued
by the other House of Parliament in regard to those se-
curities, but those reasons did not apply to the cases of
forged bills and powers of attorney. In cases of cheques,
one person at once could accomplish the forgery and pro-
bably escape, whereas in cases of forged wills, a
person did not obtain the money at once, but went
to the proctors, frt quently thereby leaving plenty of oppor-
tunities for suspicion and detection. It was, in fact,
almost impossible to carry into effect a forged will, unless
there was a conspiracy between several persons, all
of whom must be conversant of what was going
forward. In his opinion, therefore, if there was
any one case in which the punishment of death ought to
be continued, it was in the case of negotiable securities,
and if there was any one case from which the punishment
of death might be taken away, it was in cases of wills
and powers of attorney. He admitted that there was
a distinction between wills and powers of attorney, but not
such a distinction as to take either out of the line of his
argument. He was, therefore, against the introduction of
the proposed clause ; but if he found the House wished
that it should be carried, he would not propose it.
The Bishop of HEREFORD expressed his opinion
against the exceptions. He was strongly opposed to the
taking away any protection to property from the mercan-
tile part of the community ; hut after the speeches of last
night, and the speeches of the Noble and Learned Lord
to night, and looking at the number of petitions proving
the reluctance of many persons to prosecute under the
present law, he thought that the punishment of death for
all offences against property should be abolished.
Earl GREY said, if the clause would deprive
persons of the security they otherwise possessed,
he would not be in favour of it, but his conviction
was, that in cases of will and powers of attorney
there was not that reluctance on the part of the
public to prosecute that there was in other cases. It was
admitted the crime was one of great enormity; indeed,
forging bills and powers of attorney had the effect of ruin-
ing whole families, anti therefore he thought those offences
required a stronger operation of the law. It was stated
last night as a proof of the public feeling against capital
punishments, that a great deal of sympathy was felt in the
case of Fauntleroy. He (Lord Grey) certainly, averse as be
was to the shedding of blood, felt no such sympathy,
for considering the magnitude of his crime, and the
ruin he had entailed on others, if ever a man deserved his
punishment it was that man. That also he believed to
have been the opinion of many others. He had heard of
cases of morbid sympathy towards other great criminals,
such for instance as was shewn• towards Thurtell, but
that would not induce him to alter his opinion.
Under these circumstances, he was in favour of the clause,
and it it should be found hereafter to be ineffectual, it
would always be in the power of the House to alter it, and
give, by the certainty of punishment, a better security to
property. .

- The LORD CHANCELLOR, with the permission of
their Lordships, must s iv, with respect to what had been
stated by his Noble Friend, that he did not state that that
species of forgery, which had been referred to, was of
often and frequent occurrence; but that it was not of that