Star.
London, England, 1821-06-05 00:00:00

CRIMINAL LAWS.

Sir JAMES AACKINTOSH said, that in moving
the third reading of the Bill which he had intro-
duced into the House, he should offer a few observa-
tions relative to the alterations he had been induced
to make. He felt bound to explain the present con-
dition of the Bill, the principles upon which it now
stood, the nature of the objections urged against it,
the concessions which he had already made to some
of those objections, and lhe reasons why he was de-
termined that, no further concessions should be
granted. He took it, that by the second reading of
the Bill being carried by so respectable a majority,
the House had done that which was equivalent to the
passing a Resolution declaring the expediency of
abating the punishment now inflicted by law for pri-
vate forgery ; and that must be taken as an expression
of its opinion, that in some cases the severity of that
punishment created impunity for crime, and that its
abatement, instead of giving impunity, would tend
to lessen that crime, by giving facility to its prosecu-
tion. This fact was no longer upon theory, but it
was fully illustrated in practice. The commutation
of capital punishments had been resorted to in the
cases of fraudulent bankruptcies and of felonies com-
mitted upon bleaching-grounds. From the effect of
the former no argument could at present be drawn,
as it had only been acted upon for one year, and
could not have yet developed its full operation. In
the latter instance, they had the evidence of the pro-
prietors of the bleaching-yards themselves in favour
of the repeal of the old laws, as they considered it to
be the means of affording protection to their property.
The repeal of the two laws he had mentioned were
the most recent instances in which the principles of
the present Bill had been adopted in Parliament.
Small as the progress had hitherto been in repealing
the most barbarous and cruel laws in our system, it
was a gratifying reflection to those who were anxious
to instil a larger proportion of humanity, accompa-
nied with a wholesome punishment, into our Crimi-
nal Code, to know that that progress had commenced
with the sway of George the Fourth. More had been
accomplished towards attaining that desirable object
in the first year of the present reign, than in any
since the reign of Edward the First. This was a
most auspicious omen, and he trusted that it would
lead to consequences which after-ages would view as
shedding a brighter lustre and a more lasting honour
upon the name of the Sovereign than other things
which were held in more estimation by some eyes at
the present period. The Honourable and Learned
Member then contended, that the exceptions which
he had been induced to make from the application
of the Bill ought not to be turned against the prin-
ciple upon which it was founded. It must not be
said that he distrusted his principle because he could
not grasp all which he desirei ; but it ought rather
to be taken as confidence in his principle, because it
proved his willingness to try its merits by experi-
ment, before its application was made general. He
had no doubt but it would speedily work out all ex-
ceptions; at the same time, he could not say that he
did not regret the necessity of making the excep-
tions, being fully persuaded that the universal appli-
cation of his principle might be now adopted with
perfect safety. He was happy enough to introduce
it upon a limited scale, by its application, to forgery
alone; because he was convinced that it would soon
be seen how much it was capable of effecting, if ap-
plied generally. The first exception he agreed to
make was for the forgery of Bank of England paper,
because it was an injury to the community, and one
to which no private forgery could bear the least re-
semblance. The one affected the poor, the ignorant,
and the negligent; whilst the other affected only men
of opulence, and who were almost professionally
trained to investigate and detect frauds of such a na-
ture. The next exception was with regard to coun-
try Bank-notes. He had thus distinguished the pa-
per which was the circulating currency of the coun-
try, from private negociable money papers. He was
obliged to draw this line, and to allow the exception
to go no farther, or to submit to some arbitrary dis-
tinction, founded upon mere will and pleasure, and
consequently wholly unfit to be acted upon in legis-
lating upon such a question as that which they were
now upon. He contended that the Petition which
had just been presented from the Bankers of the City
of London and Westminster was not, in point offact,
a petition against the Bill: it only deprecated excep-
tions which placed private Bankers paper upon a
different footing, in the eye of the law, with the notes
of the Bank of England. It was not against the
principle of the Bill, but against the exception; the
petitioners prayed that there might be no difference
in the punishment for public and private forgery.—
By one short Bill be could remove their objections
entirely—namely, the abolishment of death alto-
gether. The supposition of the country Bankers was,
that those who carried on the nefarious practice of
forging Bank of England notes as a trade would be
induced to forge upon them, if the punishment of
death remained for the one, while it was repealed for
the other. But for private forgeries there could be
no apprehensions of such a nature. The miserable
Birmingham ruffian, shut up at his detestable work,
could not be supposed to be acquainted with the
hand-writing of eminent London Bankers. But,
however, supposing that he did, that knowledge
,would not be enough, because be mast know the ha-
bits and connections of the usual acceptors and is-,

dorsers of documents. Besides, even if be succeeded
in the forgery, how was he to present it for payment?
How could it be expected that this Birmingham ruf-
fian could get any one to present and pass an accept-1
ance for three or four thousand pounds, in spite of
the vigilance of those whose regular business it was
to detect fraud and irregularity?
.and if not, was the
House to be called on to protect them with the gal-
lows, and to award the punishment of death to
others for their negligence ?—(Hear, hear, hear).—
The operations of the established forgers might have
been carried into the territories'of the country hanker,
but they could not touch 'upon the ground of mer-
cantile negociations. The other exceptions were for
the forgery of Wills and Marriage Certificates and
Registers. He had excepted those, because the House'
of Lords, in a Bill which passed this House last Ses-
sion, thought fit to reject the clauses which applied to
them. He next came to the application of the Bill
to the crime of Uttering ; and here he was resolutely
determined to make no concessions. The number of
criminals executed for this crime (as appeased by the
Returns), was, upon an average, fourteen in each
year. The numbers charged were seven hundred and
fifty-four; and the amount of convictions three hun-
dred and ninety-thiee. With respect to the punish-
ment, he should propose to take away transportation
altogether, and to substitute for it ten years confine-
ment with hard labour. He thought this punish-
ment might easily be mile sufficiently terrible by in-
creasing the labour and confinement, and even by en-
forcing abstinence. Transportation had been proved
to be inefficacious, and it must be relinquished. Be-
fore sitting down he woulti just observe, that it was
his intention to add a few words to the preamble of
the Bill, which were of no moment, and to strike out
the clause for giving rewards to informers. These
would be all the amendments he should have to pro-
pose—(Hear, hear).
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL considered the Bill
so objectionable that it could aot be maintained even
by its framers and supporters. He heard that his
Honourable and Learned Friend (Sir James Mackin.
tosh) had admitted that capital punishment was ne-
cessary in the excepted cases—(No, no, from Sir J.
Mackintosh). He argued from those exceptions made
by his Honourable and Learned Friend himself, that
he (the Attorney-General) was justified in this deduc-
tion, and maintained them against his Honourable
Friend's own principle; for he must admit that seve-
rity of punishment in the excepted case of forgery
would neither prevent prosecution nor deter Jurors
from convicting. His Honourable Friend had ex-
cepted private bankers promissory notes: he would
ask, why had he not extended it to their bill of ex-
change? With respect to Stock—was Government
Stock alone to be protlcted by capital punishment?—
(Cries of yes, yes). He would ask, why were India
Stock, South Sea Stock, and other similar securities,
not included in the exceptions of his Honourable and
Learned Friend ? Why not protect Deeds as well as
Wills? The Honourable and Learned Gentleman
(the Attorney-General) here contended the present
was not the proper period for introducing any altera-
tion in the laws, when that which caused the intro-
duction of the Bill (he meant capital punishment for
the forging and uttering small notes) was about to
cease, by the substitution of gold in the place of one
pound notes—before that circulating medium (small
notes) was introduced, the dread of capital punish-
ment had prevented the commission of the crime
of fr rgery. The principal object of punishment
was the prevention of crime by holding out to de-
linquents the certainty of punishment. His Ho
nourable and Learned Friend had triumphantly re-
ferred to the success which he said attended the aboli-
tion of capital punishment in the cases of bleach-
greenrobbery and fraudulent bankruptcies--as if
e peal of that punishment had prevented the com-
mission of the crime. He (the Attorney-General) re-
collected, that one of the arguments in favour of the
abolition of capital punishment in the case of fraudu-
lent bankruptcies was, that there would then be no
hesitation about prosecuting, and that prosecutions
would increase—(Hear).—Now, within the last year,
there had been no prosecutions of fraudulent bank-
rupts at all—(Hear, hear).—Was that, he would
again ask, a proof that the diminution of punishment
had prevented the crime, and that there were since
AO fraudulent bankrupts ?—(llear, hear.)—Very well.
With respect to bleach-green robbery, he would say,
that the year after the repeal of capital punishment
in that case (and he quoted the evidence of Mr. Evans
in support of his assertion), the number of prosecu-
tions for that crime had increased threefold—(Hear,
hear).—Was he to understand by these cheers that the
mitigation of punishment produced prosecutions?—
(Hear, hear).—If so, in either case, the increase or
decrease of prosecutions, both were ascribable to the
repeal of capital punishments—(Hear). He contended
there could be no scale of punishment for crimes, be-
cause circumstances, which could not alter the name,
might very materially change the nature of an of-
fence, and instanced the case of burglary. No one
found fault with executions in that case. Would it
be contended, that be who broke into a man's house
at the dead of night, and plundered it of his all, was
not more criminal than the boy who, passing through
the street, submitting to temptation, thrust his hand
through a pane of glass, and stole a watch ?—(Hear,
hear.)—Both were burglaries ; and would Hon. Gen-
tlemen say that the boy should be capitally punished?
He could not conceive that a man would rather com-
mit a crime which had the certainty of transportation
for its punishment, to which was superadded the
chance of death, than when certain that transporta-
tion alone, or six years imprisonment, were the sum
of its penalty—(Hear).—With respect to forgery,
there was hardly an instance of the conviction of the
real forger of Bank notes. The utterers could only
be come at. Did it follow, therefore, that those next
in criminality should escape? According to the old
adage, " If there were no receivers there would be
no thieves;" so in this case—if there were no ut-
terers, there would be no forgers : and he contended,
according to the principles of our legislation, it was
impossible the Bill could be carried. The Hon. and
Learned Gentleman here remarked upon the omission
of forgery of warrants amongst the exceptions of his
Learned Friend (Sir James Mackintosh). As an ar-
gument for the repeal of capital punishment in the
case of forgery, his Learned Friend, had stated the
average number of executions for that crime at four-
teen a-year. But did hii Honourable and Learned
Friend not know, that the cot.victions averaged from
,170 to 180? which included those tramportcd and

otherwise punished. His Learned Friend had said,
that Government ought to find out some secondary.
punishment. That subj.:ct was under consideration.
Bet if confinement and labour were substituted for
'transportation, there would not be found in the cram.
try jails sufficient to contain the convicts, should as
(which HEAVEN forbid!) go on increasing i:: crime
as we had done—(llear).--The Hon. Gentleman,
here argued against the introduction of a punishment
hitherto unknown to the law ; and concluded by
moving, as an Amendment, that the Bill be reed
this day sir months.
Mr. DEN MAN had given the Bill then before the
House all the consideration of which he .was capable,
the result of which was, his firm conviction that safety,
expediency—he would say necessity, required the Bin
should pass into a law. When the Learned Gentle.
Man (the Attorney-General) accused his lion, and
Learned Friend (Sir James Mackintosh) of an aban.,
donment of principle, by the introduction of the ef.
ceptions, he would assert his Hon. Friend abandoned
nothing—((fear).--His Ilan. and Learned Friend
had only been induced to make a sacrifice to expo:
diency--he gave up a part of his Bill to save there.
mainder; it was not fair, therefore, of the Hon. and
Learned Gentleman. to accuse.his Honourable Friend
of abandonment of principle--(Hear). The Hon. and
Learned Gentleman had stated, as a reason for pre.
serving the existing laws, that the principle of the
British Code wa.l.to visit offenders with the heaviest
punishment. Against that assertion he begged most
solemnly to protest—(Hear, hear).—ln the Report
so often alluded to, there was the case of a person
who had been convicted for cutting down a tree,
Circumstances might increase the turpitude of as
act, but would the Honourable and Learned Gen.
tleman contend that a man ought to be hanged for
cutting down a tree?—(Hear, bear).—The same ar-
gument would apply to the robbery of bleach-greens.
An ungrateful servant might commit that titan;
but did that isolated instance warrant the inflictios
of capital punishment upon every man "ho robbed*
bleach-green ? All the arguments against the Bill
amounted to this :—" It is necessary to repress crime,
and therefore we will continue the punishment." But
he would maintain the direct contrary should be the
inference. With respect to the case of burglary men-
tioned by the Hon. and Learned Gentleman, in solids
he had compared the case of a man whose house was
broken into—who was plundered of the accumulated
savings of a number of rats, with that of the bleak.
ing of a pane of glass by a boy and the stealing of a
watch, it was true that the law called each a but.
glary, but he would contend that that phrase was
one of those technical absurdities which disgrace out
Criminal Code. He would then revert to the Report.
The principal Bankers of London had come forwent
and declared they would not prosecute if death were
to be inflicted ; and that declaration was, to him, la
irresistible proof of the necessity for the present Bill.
Would the Hon. and Learned Gentleman say that every
person who passed a forged pound note ought to be
executed ? Did the Learned Gentleman know that of
£4.7,000 in forged pound notes, proved to have been
uttered, only 114 forgers had been brought to jus-
tice ? and he inferred, from that fact, a reluctance to
prosecute to death. In many cases transportation
was a most severe punishment. Those who commit-
ted private forgeries were, in general, domesticated
with, or friends of the parties on v:hom they forged;
and to such the punishment of transportation was a
heavy one indeed. The lion. and Learned Gentle-
man here eulogized the noble effort made by his lion.
Friend (Mr. Buxton). He had never known the ge-
nuine spirit of Christianity more admirably displayed,
without attempting to puff off its own Phalisaical
purity. He had endeavoured to do justice, tc love
mercy, and to walk humbly with the common FA.
TIIEn of Mankind—(Cheering).
Mr. DENT objected to some of the details of
the Bill.

Mr. WILMOT expressed his intention to support
the Bill as it at present stood. If that anomaly or
regard to the Notes of the Bank of England and of
Country Banks had not been removed, he should
certainly have opposed it. He was aware that the
present measure was not without its practical diffi-
culties, but he was content to adopt the principle, in
the hope thiit these difficulties would not outweigh
the proposed advantages.
Mr. MARRYATT said, he feared the proposed
measure was subversive of all legal rule, and of all
principle. lie could see no reason for punishing Bank
forgeries with death, and leaving all other forgeries
to comparative impunity. He understood the reason
for severe punishment to be most strong in cases
where the offence could be committed with facility;
and this reasoning, applied to the law against forgery,
fully justified the severity of the present punishment.
He thought also that the numerous exceptions in the
Bill went a considerable length towards destroying
its effect.
Mr. CRIPPS said, he approved of the principle of
the Bill, and should vote for the third reading ; but
he should move to except forgeries of Bankers' checks
from its operation, in consequente of the facility with
which these forgeries were committed.
Mr. MANSFIELD opposed the Bill, ashe thought
it perfectly uncalled for, and the moment chosen for
its introduction very untimely.
Mr. JOHN SMITH believed that the severity of
punishment was one great cause of the increase of
crime, as severity of punishment discouraged prose
tutors. Ile thought the forgeries upon the Bank of
England would be-Considerahly lessened if that Estab-
lishment would 'increase the difficulty of forging its
notes. The country Bank-notes were executed in a
much better manner, and the number of forgef its on
country Pwanks• was in consequence materially les..
sened. He should cordially vote for the Bill.
Mr. PEiaIISE defended the conduct of the Bank.
Theßank, he said, had always acted leniently to-
wards those who forged upon its Establislin ent, ex-
cept in cases of a second offence. He feared of
general principle of the Bill was highly dangerous.
Mr. MILLS opposed the Bill.
Mr. LOCKHART thought there w:t.: centiderable
inconsistency in the Bill. He could not admit the
justice of the distinction which had been taken be-
tween forgeries upon the Bank of England and those
upon private Bankers. The forgeries upon the latter
had often beeti made a regular systematic trade.
Mr. BARING said, all that was desired by the
present Bill was, the enactment of that mitigated
punis!mient in private cases, which the Bank, as , t
appeared from the statement of an Hon. Director

1

(Mr. Pearse) were in the habit of vi•iting in eases
against themselves. The forgeries committed in
England exceeded in number, he believed, those of
all other countries. Neither in France nor in Hol-
land (the latter a country purely commercial), was
the crime of forgery punished with death. These
two extraordinary circumstances satisfied him that
there was something wrong in our present law.—
Imprisonment and hard labour would, he thought,
be a more effective punishment. He should vote for'
the Bill, though he did not approve of the exception
by which it was clogged.
Mr. HART DAVIS said he should oppose the Bill,
unless a distinction were made between Bills of Ex-
change and Banker's checks. The latter were more
easily forged, and he therefore thought that to that
offence the capital punishment should still attach.
Mr. T. WILSON said, he thought the present was
she most unfortunate moment which could be selected
for bringing forward the present Bill. The Hon. and
Learned Mover had called Bank-notes Government
securities, but the same argument would apply to
Exchequer Bilk and East India Bonds.
Mr. HARBORI) said, the exception was intro-
duced as a matter of expediency, as there would
otherwise be no chance of carrying the Bill. The
Hon. Member at some length supported the principle
of the Bill by referring to the opinions of the late
Sir Samuel Romilly and other advocates for an al-
teration of the Criminal Laws.
Mr. MARTIN (of Galway) spoke in favour of the
Bill, on the ground of policy. It had been argued
that the forging of wills ought to be excepted from
the Act; but it was worthy of remark, that in Ire-
land the forging a bill was not felony, and this crime
was not more frequent in Ireland than in England—
(Hear, hear, hear).
Swingers were then ordered to withdraw, and the
House divided, when there appeared—
For the third reading of the Bill - - 117
For the Arroatutv-GuntaAis Amendment - 111
Majority in favour of the Bill - -—6
Sir J. MACKINTOSH then moved some trilling
verbal Amendme;:•,s, which were agreed to.
Mr. CItIPPS moved an Amendment to except
from the benefit of the Bill all persons convicted of
forgery upon bankers.
Mr. BARING said, it would be much better to re-
ject the Bill altogether than adopt the Amendment
of the Honourable Member. _ .

Dr. LUSHINGTON said, it was only lately that a
banker of his acquaintance suffered a loss of £lO,OOO
r tther than prosecute a forger to capital punish-
ment. The adoption of the Amendment would ren-
der bankers as liable to depredation as they were now.
After a few words from Mr. MARTIN, the House
again divided, when there appeared—
For the Amendment - -

gainst it - -
Majority -

.

- 102
- -7

When strangers were re-admitted to the Gallery,
Mr. Bnouctimst was on his legs. He said he should
rejoice if the Bill met with ultimate success, and ex-
pressed a hope that it would be received in another
part of the Legislature with becoming- respect.
On the question that this Bill do pass, the Gallery
was again cleared for a divisions After a long dis-
cussion, in the absence of strangers, the House di-
vided. The numbers were—

For passing the Bill
Noes - - -

11S
191

It was consequenly lost by a Majority of —6
Mr. CHETWYND rose, on the order for going
into a Committee on the Dwelling House Robbery
Bill, and having opposed the measure, moved that
it be committed this day six months.
Mr. COURTENAY supported the Bill.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL objected to it, but
did not oppose going into the Committee.
The Amendment was then negatived without a di-
vision, and the House went into a Committee on the
Bill. Several verbal Amendments having been agreed
to, the House resumed, and the Report was ordered
to be received on Wednesday.
On the order for going into a Committee on the
Navigable Rivers Robbery Bill, a motion was made,
that instruction be given to the Committee to extend
the provisions of the Bill •to robberies on Canals.—
The motion was agreed to.
The House then went into a Committee, and after
a clause had been annexed to punish robberies on Ca-
nals, the Report was ordered to be received on Wed-
nesday next.

TER TOILTITIM
Sir It. WILSON put a question respecting any orders having
been given to suspend the Dutch law and punishment of Torture,
on the Island of Demerara?
Mr. GOUL BD N said, he would answer the Hon. Membar's
isesdoa to-morrow.

inicluxatnes.
•
Mr. HUME rose on the Order of the Day for receiving the
Report of Ways and ML.,n3 and objected to bringing up the
said Report, on account of the lateness of the hour.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER consented to
postpone the consideration of the Report.
The Irish Coroners' Bill, with the consent of Mr. Mazza('
Was postponed for six months.
The other Orders were disposed of, and the House adjourned
at One o'clock.

IMPROVEMENT OF PRISON DISCIPIANIL—SatUrday,
the Annual Meeting of the Society for the Improve-
ment of Prison Discipline, and the Reformation of
Juvenile Offenders, took place at the Freemasons' Ta-
vern ; the Duke of GLOUCESTER in the Chair. The
Secretary read the Report cf the Committee, which
stated, that there had teen great improvement in
prison discipline during the last year, and alluded to
the very beneficial effects that resulted from the in-
fliction of hard labour upon old and determined
offenders. The Report dwelt strongly upon the good
effects of religious instruction to prisoners, and re-
lated many instances where, from the moment this
had commenced in prison, the number of criminals
had considerably decreased ; and there was scarcely
an instance of the recommitment of persons in these
prisons who had been once discharged. The Report
spoke in the warmest terms of the exertions of the
Ladies' Committee, and of the beneficial results of
their labours, and presented a flattering account of
the -
happy consequences which had accrued from the
Plan which the Committee had adopted of procuring
an asylum for juvenile offende:s, who, after being
punished for their crimes, were turned loose upon
society, without friends, and without any resource
but a return to tteir criminal pursuits. The Meeting
was then addressed by Lord CALTUORNI, Lord Joins
RUSSELL, Sir J. MACICINTOSII, Mr. BENNETT, the
French Nliai-ter, and other persons of distinetion.-,
The proceedings concluded with a vote of thanks to
the Illustrious Chairman.