Star.
London, England, 1830-05-25 00:00:00

FORGERY.

The order of the day being read for the House to resolve itself
into a Committee on the Form Punishment bin,
Sir J. MACKINTOSH said, he wished to move an instruction
to the committee to receive certain clauses, which he was apprehen.
hive were too extensive to be otherwise adopted in the committee.
The SPEAKER said, instruction to a committee was only ne-
cessary to increase the power of the committee, not to Instruct it to
do what they had the power to do already, which was the case with
respect to amendments of which the right hon. gentleman had given
notice.

Sir J. MACKINTOSH said, the only difesence of opinion on
the bill was, the expediency of continuing capital punishment for
any acts of forgery. He had supposed that it was necessary to
make the motion in the house; but was perfectly ready to move his
amendment in the committee.

Mr. PEEL said it was perfectly competent foe the committee to
receive any clause that might be moved to be added to the bill.
The house resolved itself into a committee. On the clause, that
forgery of exchequer bills, bills of exchange, and warrants for pay.
anent of money, should be capitally punished,
Sir JAMBS MACKINTOSH said, be should endeavour to con-
fine himself to the question before the committee. He would not
enter into the history of the discussions that had taken place in par.
liament on this subject since it was introduced by Sir S. Hominy,
20 years ago, to the present time. He could not reflect on the differ.
ent feelings between that period and the present without a gratifica-
tion which it was impossible for him to express. He had lived to
see the day when a minister of the crown was anxious to reduce the
severity of punishment. He congratulated himself to see, in the
short period of twenty years, in that house, two ages of such con-
trasted character. When he recollected the small beginnings of
that able, intrepid, and honourable man, Sir Samuel Romflly, and
now saw the table crowded with petitions, praying to abate the
severity of punishment even beyond the proposal of a reforming
minister, who placed his game high above the reach of chance or
accident, amongst the benefactors of mankind—his gratification
and delight were indescribable. The number, and profession, and
character of the petitioners, who had long cherished severe punish-
ment as the shield of their rights, but who now appeared it the
bar praying for a mitigation of punishment as necessary m their
security, were entitled to the greatest consideration. He had pre-
sented a petition from Edinburgh, signed by all the principal men
of every profession, and by 17 bankers out of 18, who had peti-
tioned the house to deliver them from the pretended protection, but
real danger, of the law. Throughout England, 1,700 bankers had
petitioned the house to give security to their property, by deliver.
tog them from the danger, of a law, become inefficient by its seve-
rity. These petitioners were entitled to the greatest attention, as
they spoke the language of experience. They were witnesses ;
and if they were called to the bar to give an opinion on any
question of trade, that opinion would be entitled to great respect;
but here they were witnesses of a matter of fact. Amongst them
the house was to look for prosecutors, and witnesses, and jurors,
and they told the house that the law was too odious to be exe-
cuted. Would the house say to such a body, " We understand
your interests better than you do I" Their present petitions were
contrary to all their former prejudices and feelings; and they now
state, in the strongest manner, that whatever utility might be in
those laws in farmer times, the age was now too humane for their
execution ; and as the people were not to be re-barWbcd, the laws
must be humanized.—(- Hear, hear, bear.)—A petition had been
presentedyrom three traders in the City of London, one of whom
discountednegotiable paper to the amount of 22,000,0001. annually,
and the three discounted upwards of 50,000,000 L a.year ; sod they
asked to return to that ancient system of legislation, from which
England only began to deviate in the reign of George the Second,
and which had obtained for England the reproach of being cruel
in her laws, careless of shedding human blood, and valuing
nothing but money. These petitioners only asked for the general
law of the civilized world—for the law of France, of Holland, of
Prussia, in fact of all civilized Europe, no part of which cemented
their commerce with blood. It was the repeal of the accursed law
which made this country an exception to all civilisation that these
petitioners asked. He admitted that by the law of France
papers issued by the royal banks were secured by capital punish.
meat. Since the restoration of the Bourbons, there were but
two prosecutions under that law, and all the prisoners, sight in
number, were acquitted. He thought it probable that the severity
of the punishment might have contributed to the acquittal. In all
the other forgeries of Francs the punishment was imprisonment and
bard labour. France was a great country, and Its legislation
o was
worth the consideration of statesmen. property France was
protected, without the effusion of a single drop of blood, against all
those dangers which were apprehended in this country if we ceased
the practice of blood.shedding. (Hear, hear.) Forgery, by a pub-
lic officer of France, of the most aggravated kind, was
not with death, but hard labour for life. Whoever contended for
capital punishment for forgery, was bound to chew that it was ne.
cessary to the preservation of the most important interestsfof so.
ciety. He must *hew that f cannot be prevented without ca-
pital punishment. Till that was he (Sir J. Macintosh,) must
consider the execution of every man for forgery as an unnecessary
punishment, and a crime in the law and the lawgiver. Every
unnecessary capital punishment was, in the view of religion and
morals, a legal murder. In the year 1826, there were nine
capital sentences in France, and an appeal was made to the Court
of Caseation, and it turned out that every one of the nine were
innocent, though their guilt on trial appeared to be clearly proved.
He called upon the house to say whether the same thing might
not happen in any country, and should not be a warning to us
against the hasty resort to terrible punishment, which, wherever it
was erroneous, inflicted an irrevocable wrong. A writer of cull.
nence had said, that no one in Rotne or Naples would dare to give'
any assistance to the execution of public justice, because public
justice did not stand well with the public. Unreasonable severity
would produce at 'imam feeling in any country. If equal punish.
meat was applied to unequal aimes, gross injustice must be the
consequence. Tae punishment of imprisonment might be applied
in Mutat proportions ; but this was not the ems with death, our
highest punishment. We put a parricide to death, and we put a
sheepetealer to death. While we continued this inequality of
punishment, we were guilty of the most flagrant Injustice.—
Our ancestors were more consistent, for they inflicted on
aggravated crimes a cruelty in death, which, thank GOD,
would not now be endured, which made a scale of punishment,
bearing some proportion to the magnitude of offences. In the last
seven years, there were 217 convictions for forgery, of which 24 were
followed by the punishment of death. This showed the great chance
of escape there was from the conviction that was felt of the too great
severity of the punishment. If there were vated eases of for-
gery, that required a greater email of punishment, they should be
defined, that the punishment should be known, and not left in that
state of uncertainty which was the consequence of the t diapto.
portions between the convictions and the extreme piplinnent. In
the same period of seven yam the convictions for am& were 99, and
there were 88 executions. This showed sound Mote of the law,
that the prerogative of the crown won not esereasi in making out
who was to be destreyod, but in distinguishing those who
might be the power sitheils of loyal msg. Flalleet
Ins, the eziamissa IMO 110, of whisk rainy was he mur-
der, and twenty Sot all other ins. This shwa a wits =MI.
don of the law, the severity of which was disooloilagehme tM Woe
of murder, *in which, It went along with the smisasi:=1of
mankind. la &ilia is the year 1818, 1j wow foe

murder and 39 for all other crimes. So that in England thin woo
more than three tinnit the quantity of blood shed for the prolsedss
of property that was shed for the protection of life; and in RIMS
there was more than tour times the number of capital punkin
meets for the protection of life that there were for the pees&
don of property. This was in conformity with what would have
been a wise maxim of legislation, had it wanted the sanction of
a precept, " Whom sheddeth man's blood by men
shraelliiiriblood be shed." In England it appeared that the pro-
portion of persons charged with crime were to thelopulation as
one to 200,000, in France as one to 450,000. This difference, hewn
confident, only impeached the wisdom and justice of the laws, and
could be fully explained by a reference to the different system of
laws in both countries-(Hear.) In the reign of Charles the fecund
it was the boast of Sir Matthew Hale, that every man in England
could know, with certainty, the punishment of any crime banks
commission : the multiplication of capital punishments, since that
period, had completely destroyed that security, and made the push&
ment that might follow the commission of crime, a 'natter of the
greatest uncertainty. And what was a great aggravation, all the facts
and circumstances on which the life or death of the convicted de.
pended were unknown to the public who had been present at his trial,
and probably to himself. It was decided by asecret tribunal, whose
proceedings, though conducted with great care and misty,
were concealed from the public and the criminal, who was
sometimes doomed to death for some circumstance of apparent
aggravation which he could have explained, had the opportunity
been afforded him. But this secret revision and decision must go
on, till the number of capital punishments shall be reduced by
law. (Hear.) He was aware that secondary punishment was by
some deemed an inadequate protection against the crime of forgery.
Was it clear that the punishment of death was peculiarly adapted
se the prevention of the crime ? He would ask any man ac-
quainted with the workings of the human mind, whether the
punishment of death was most feared by the class of persons
most likely to commit forgery ? (Hear, hear.) They were per.
sons of some education, who- were used to speculation and ho-
card ; who had great fear of degrading employment, of dmdgary
I and infamy. The sting of death is not the mere loss of life-it Is
dishonour and disgrace. The class of forgers would prefer a M-
I den death to a life of disgrace. There was something sublime is
death, which in most cases gave its endurance some appears= of
superiority ; it should only be inflicted as • punishment in mess
where such violence had been offered to human feelings as mid
make it be regarded as the sentence of justice, not with the limilegs
of sympathy for the sufferer. He would propose that the si
punishment inflicted for forgery should be imprisonment, withul=
e
labour, and that a power should be given of adding solitary mine.
mem, or that it should be transportation for more than 14 years; and
that in cases of great aggravation, both punishments should be in-
flicted in succession. (Hear.) The offence of forgery might be of
very different degrees of guilt, which would require different
degrees of punishment • besides which, he wished to eve
the Courts the power of makingi the experiment of secondary pit. 1
nishment, in such a form as they might think best. He would also
propose that the power of pardoning convicts. now vested in the
Governors of Colonies, should, in cases of forgery, be taken',
away. It hod been said, that if these punishments failed to
prevent the crime of forgery, that we could never return to the
present system. That argument he considered a complete admission
of the whole case against capital punishment; for it admitted that if
mitigation was found to fail the feelings of the country would never
permit a return to the present system. The supporters of mitigation
were willing to put their plans to the test; the objectors appeared
to be afraid of appealing to any test. This was not a party question,
and he hoped it would not be decided as a party question. The
Right Hon. Gentleman (Sir Robert Peel) thought the time foe
so great a change in the criminal law was not yet come; but would
there be any harm if the house, acting on behalf of the Ist:opts of
PEaltwere to endeavour to quicken the Minister of the ?
psd'the Minister might think it right to stand in the breach
made in ancient prejudices, and make sure that if the question was
carried, it was carried by the decided will of the people, and be
might, therefore, go to a division ; but his determination should not
influence the votes of others. By a return on the table, it appeared
that there was but one conviction for forging a will in ten years.--
Was it necessary to continue an almost impracticable punishment,
he the sake of that offence which so rarely occurred ? Even with
is clauses he meant to propose, the punishment of forgery would
be severer in this country than in any other civilized country in the
world. Was it certain that the people of this country required
such sanguinary laws to deter them from the commission of crime ?
The right hon. gentleman concluded by moving, that the words
" suffer death as a felon," be left out of the bill, and the following
words be substituted : "be transported beyond the seas for life, or
for any term not less than 14 years, or be imprisoned for a period
not less than 7 ars, and not exceeding 14 years, and, if the pri-
soner be under 66 anof
be kept to bard labour, and be sub-
ject to solitary confinement for such time and at such places as the
court before which he was tried, or his majesty's privy council, may
think fit; and that it may be competent for the court before whia
the conviction took place, to sentence the convict to transportation
after the expiration of a term of imprisonment." The right his.
gentleman sat down amidst loud cheering.
Sir ROBERT PEEL wished be could take the view of the quer.
don the right bon. gentleman and the petitioners had taken; but
after mature deliberation he could not agree in their opinions. He
would state the facts and circumstances on which his opinion was
founded, snd the house would decide whether it was a prejudice, or
had a better foundation. When he came into office, seven years
ago, he did consider that the criminal law of this country, the se-
verest of the civilised world, should be mitigated; and it was an
object of his ambition to follow those who had led the way la the
work of mitigation. In every Act he had introduced he bad
trgormitigation of punishment. The present Act did
eci thought It better to proceed with caution, and looked
forward to the time when the whole criminal law would he
• reviewed, with a view to a further mitigation of pu-
n.mt. In the seven years previous to his coming into office, in
1822, there had been 731 executions. In the seven years the num-
ber had decreased to 423. In London and Middlesex, in the former
there had been 192 executions; in the latter period 122
period, a diminution of 70. But notwithstanding his general opinion
of the policy of mitigation, he must pause before be weed es the
proposition of the right hon. gentleman, for the total &Deaden of
capital punishment for forgery. Whentbe great magnitude of the
offence was considered, great caution should be used for rernevig
any of the securities against it. In the case of Fauntleroy, the
Bank of England actually became responsible, and paid for his fee
pries sums amounting to 360,0001. When the temptation to the
commission of the crime was also considered ;-a man, over.
whelmed with embarrassments, sees that he can relieve him.
self, perheps acquire a fortune, by the commission of a forgery, for
which there is no necessity for &confederate, and,of which the deter.
tion Is most difficulti-if he chooses to have a confederate, and an,
by bribing • banker's clerk, obtain possession of cancelled
the success is almost certain; it may be said, that bankers
not have the life of the offender ;as a esawhy for their negligence;
but bow else is their property to be secured ? It often cannot be
traced-it is generally paid to on innocent person ; the criminal is
not known, for be does not appear. When all these circumstances
were considered, it did appear to him that there might be
danger in suddenly withdrawing the safeguard against a crime
so easy of commission, and so ruinous in its consequences.-
He said he did not wish to check the direction of public ern.
patby;-:-he did not seek to iprotect bankers merely; but if it were
shown that the fear.of death did operate as a prevention to the amt.
Woolen of this aims, ought that punishment, in a country peat.
Hardy circumstanced like this, to be removed without some very pe.
culler cause ? It ought to be borne in mind also, that the ahne of
forgery had considerably diminished since the suppression of the ILI
notes ;-•-thsy were frequently forged because such notes had passed
amongst the lower orders. It was now urged that there was pecu-
liar reluctance to prosecute for forgery. He was willing to give
the fullest credit to amsdentious motives for not presssuting
for forgery; but ha thought that other motives might Mee ism
the reluctance to prosecute-the trouble and expense dpromindoo.
As to reluctance to prosecute, be would trespass on the bum with
some comparisons. In seven pm for murder, highway robberies,
&c. there were 8,382 charges, of which there were 1,085 that were
not prosecu or one-eighth ; for tbe same period there were 373
charges for forgery; of that number S 2 were net prosecuted-cr
one-eighth. So much for the peculiar reluctance to prosecute for
forgery. That argument then was thus removed. The necessity
for all possible security, when the magnitude of commercial trans-
actions through the medium were remembered, be thought required
no comment. The bank had 300,000 stock accounts ; it also bad
400,000 stock transfers annually; its means woe to the ex-1
tent to 26,000,0001.. It bad not now pending one prosecution for
forgery; than would the house on light grounds withdraw the pro-
tection against forgery held out by the punishment of death ?
What would be gained for that security which would be lost ?
As to the bankers Wog deterred from prosecutions for forgery, on
account of the south of the punishment, it was notorious that
thirly.eix banking is in Louden had combined to pro.
ascots it (icier. He bed been curious to ascertain the amemt of
their dealings. Be found that at their clearing house, in thiamin
them were passed 46,800 bills, and drafts foe 10,111111,880 L
Fear of these houses passed, in the course of one yea% bills,
dis. that were exposed to forgery to the mem of
Hear, bees, hear.) Remaining that face-4he
extent tits temeostisus-Ive hundred millions liquidated by taw
banking aibilimins le ens year I—sad shat the bank bad bet
two pressolluts, said riot um ems poodle& would the bans
ess shemiat liatimarSawabuisb policed so nub security
ed thst
theyay within,. die epaidratut at leak he fear
transpertedes or would operate sea say dekko so.
curity as amposed with that now gamed. The recommendation
of punishment byagaxamillawnent required sedans maim
don ; it ought to be with a delicate haad....it produced in
many looms . If course were adopted, what seas.

rity would they have that pnblic sympathy would not be excited in
favour of the •ictims of solitary confioement—of those who were ex-
posed to a system that too often produced insanity. He had too
much doubt about the efficacy of secondary punishments to acquiesce
in the proposition now made; and yet he should gladly agree to it,
if his judgment and experience told him that the mitigation would
have a beneficial result.

Mr. BROUGHAM said that he could not admit that secondary
punishments were not adequately efficacious, and he thought too
much stress had been laid on the consequences of solitary confine-
ment. Ingeniously as the statements were put, he could not admit
the force of them. Much stream was laid on the security now ex-
perienced by the associated London bankers • but what was it that
gave that security but the e6cacy of secondary punishments.—
In the last two years there were convictions for forgery ? In
how many cases was the satisfactory punishment of death in.
flicted ? In 24 only, one in ten. Then, the secondary punish-
ment had been influential. Did the one in ten operate as terror;
or did the nine who escaped death have its effect ? The man-
ner in which the law was administered had the most effect on
the multitude. Ought they to add to the sanguine calcula-
tions of escapes; or ought they not, as nearly as they can, to re-
duce the laws to an almost absolute certainty ?—(hear)--or ought
they to hold out the chances of escape from prosecution altogether.
The hon. and learned gentleman concluded by calling the attention
of the house to the safes, to the hundreds, nay, he might say,
to the thousands of petitions from bankers and mercantile men, in
all parts of the kingdom, which had been presented to the house,
in favour of a commutation of punishment; to these individual
credit was the breath of their nostrils, and their opinion was of the
utmost value.

• Mr. FOWELL BUXTON supported the motion. If forgery
were to be punished by solitary imprisonment, to imprisonment
with hard labour, or even to transportation for the remnant of his
days, he should prosecute to the utmost. As the law at present
stood, the criminal was protected, and the banker and merchant were
deprived of that protection which a more lenient punishment would
secure.

Mr. WYNN supported the amendment.
Jr. 111ARTYN rose amidst loud cries of question, and said a
few words in support of the amendment.
Sir JOSEPH YORKE would vote with the right hon. the Se-
cretary of State, whose opinion he preferred to the whole of the
thousand hankers who had petitioned the house.
Sir THOMAS DYKE ACLAND also said a few words in sup.
port of the bill.
After a few words from Mr. PHIL and Mr. BROUGHAM in ex.
planation, the house divided, when there appeared—
For the amendment
Against it

Melees against die annniemst . .15
The other clausal the bill assn pond through a committee,
and the report was ordered to be received that day.
Mr. POWELL BUXTON gave Mies ea the past of his
sight hon. Mend (Sir J. Mackintosh) Ent he iimeM, mimes the re-
port was brought up, move, that imprisonment or tarspeselis be
substituted for the punishment of death.