LAW OF FORGERY.

HC Deb 01 April 1830 vol 23 cc1176-88

Mr. Secretary Peel

was not disposed at that hour to persevere in the Motion with respect to the Law of Forgery, of which he had given notice, but that he felt it absolutely necessary to do so in order to the successful introduction of any Legislative measure which might have the chance of passing into a law during the present Session. In the course of the prosecution of the task he had undertaken,—namely, the Revision and Amendment of the Criminal Law— the crime of forgery had appeared to him to occupy a most important station in the list of offences, and to it he was now anxious to direct the attention of the Legislature. Before he stated the object he had in view in the amendment of the laws respecting forgery, he hoped the House would permit him to present them with a slight view of the existing laws on that subject, and the way in which they arrived at their present extent. Originally there was no statute law relating to forgery. Up to the time of queen Elizabeth the punishments for forgery were inflicted under the common law; and it was not until the fifth year of the reign of that Queen that a statute was passed inflicting a penalty on the offence of forging documents relating to real property. That penalty, however, did not extend to the punishment of death. The statute authorised imprisonment for life, the pillory, branding and loss of ears, according to the nature of the offence. It was not, indeed, until the reign of king William that any statute imposed the punishment of death. At that time the Bank of England was established, and the punishment of death was awarded to those who forged the negociable securities of that establishment, but in all other respects the punishments for forgery remained the same from the time of queen Elizabeth until the reign of George 2nd. In the year 1728, however, in that reign, a very material addition was made to the list of offences punishable as forgeries—the issuing of forged promissory notes and bills of exchange being made a capital offence. He believed there could be very little doubt that the extreme rigour adopted at this particular time on the subject of forgery, was owing to the alarms created by the very extensive and somewhat extraordinary forgeries of an individual, a full account of whose depredations would be found in the State Trials of that period. It appeared that this person, whose name was Hale, committed a number of forgeries on a Member of that House, named Gibson. One bill was for 1.600l., another for 400l., another for 700l and one for 6,500l. At that lime it was the practice of a Member, in franking a letter, to write his name with the word "free "in the corner, leaving the superscription to be filled up in the writing of the person sending the letter. Hale, it appeared, procured a number of these franks, and having changed the words "free" into "for R. Gibson," and then filled up the blank at pleasure, he was thus able to commit the forgery with ease. He had little doubt that the indignation and alarm produced by this forgery were the principal causes of the enactment of the laws to which he alluded; but in consequence of the extension of trade, the statutes on the subject of forgery were subsequently increased to a great extent, each department bringing in, with very little consideration, an Act to punish the forgeries applicable to their own business. To such a magnitude had this evil arisen at the time Mr. Justice Blackstone wrote his Commentaries, that he observes, with respect to the Law of Forgery— "In addition to the number of general and special commissions, there was not a forgery which could be practised on a real or a fictitious person, for which a law did not exist which made the crime a capital offence." He believed, indeed, that the whole number of statutes on the subject amounted to 120. These statutes might be divided properly into two classes. Those relating to public and general affairs, and those relating to official and departmental. In the first class might be comprised all documents relating to the public funds and to negociable securities—to bills of exchange and promissory notes, and all documents connected with the transfer of property—all papers relating to marriage settlements and testamentary bequests, and registers in public offices. Under the second head, the official and departmental, might be included all documents connected with the Navy and the Army, the Customs, the Excise, the Post-office, and Greenwich or Chelsea Hospitals—every Act relating to which contained some enactments on the subject of forgery. In attempting, then, to consider what course was to be pursued, he felt there were not many difficulties to be overcome with reference to the general and public securities which were transferable and negociable, but that there were very great difficulties in the way when they came to deal with the official and departmental. To take, for instance, of the latter class, the Act relating to the land-tax. In that Act there were 200 separate clauses, although only one of them related to forgery, but then that clause, the 194th section, overruled and referred to the whole of the other clauses, and expressly declared, that the penalty affixed to the crime of forgery attached to forging the documents referred to in the preceding clauses. In the same manner the Navy Pay Act contained twenty clauses, and the clause relating to the forgeries of orders for pensions and other documents referred to all the clauses contained in the Act. If, therefore, he merely took out the forgery clause, and did not alter the whole of the Act, he did nothing in the way of a consolidation of the Law of Forgery, and left the offences unprovided for. Now he proposed to meet the difficulty in this way. He proposed to leave to each department the task of revising and altering the Acts connected with it. The Customs had 360 acts connected with that department, and they had already re- duced them to the number of ten. The Stamp-office was engaged in the same task. The Navy Pay-office, and those connected with the hospitals, were engaged in the same task, and he was informed that in a short time the whole of the Acts relating to them would be reduced into a very small compass. He proposed then to repeal all the Acts which inflicted a capital punishment for forgery, whether the offence be either public or departmental, and to name a certain description of offences for which, and no other, the punishment of death was to be inflicted. Of the 120 statutes to which he had alluded, 61 inflicted the punishment of death. The Bill he proposed would contain only four clauses, and in them he proposed to consolidate the whole statute law relating to forgery. It would contain in one clause a distinct enumeration of all forgeries for which the punishment of death was to be inflicted, whether the offence was committed on the general or the departmental class, and the Act would, therefore, consolidate the whole of the laws relating to forgery in all public and private affairs. He thought it a most important object to diminish, as much as possible, the number of offences to which the punishment of death had been attached. He had, indeed, no hesitation in avowing, that he was a strong advocate for the mitigation of capital punishments. He wished to remove, in all cases where it was practicable, the punishment of death; for it was impossible to conceal from ourselves, that capital punishments were more frequent, and the criminal code more severe, on the whole, in this country, than in any country in the world. It was better, however, to proceed cautiously, so as not to embarrass their judicial functions, in the event of any increase of crime taking place, and that increase being attributed to the laxity of punishment they had introduced. They had, however, both reduced the number of offences for which death was inflicted; and that punishment had also, in all cases, been more sparingly applied. On a comparison of the number of executions in London and Middlesex, in time of war and peace, it appeared they were much more numerous in time of peace. Whether it was, that dishonest and profligate persons were carried off by the demands of war, or that the quantity of employment was greater for all, it was impossible to say; but the fact was so, as the return suffi- ciently proved. In the seven years of peace which succeeded the year 1783, although the number of the population was less and the number of crimes less, yet the executions were much more numerous than at any former or succeeding period. The executions in the seven years amounted to 378, or 56 on an average in each year. In 1787, 97 executions. And now, taking the seven years from 1816 to 1822 both inclusive, the executions were only l92, or an average of 27each year; and in the last seven years, from 1822 to 1829, there were only 122 executions, making an average of 17 each year, or about one-third of the executions of 1784. He would now proceed to state the offences on which he proposed to remit the punishment of death. The great principle to which he adhered was, to confine that punishment to the forgery of negociable and transferable securities, and to everything which represented money. He might add to them the forgery of the Great Seal, the Privy Seal, and the Sign Manual. He should also add the forgery of wills of personal property. In documents of that kind no witnesses were necessary, and as they were generally not produced till the death of the parties, and might therefore be made the instruments of great deception, and cause great injury to families, he had thought it right with regard to them to retain the capital punishment. He added to these all false entries relative to public stocks. All forgeries of promissory notes—all fraudulent attempts to procure money— all forgeries of the notes of the Bank of England—in fact, all documents representing money, or which came under the denomination of negociable or transferable securities. In the cases where he remitted the punishment of death, he was confident there would be much difference of opinion as to their propriety, and that some persons would be inclined to suppose he had not gone far enough, and others much too far; but he was of opinion that there would be more security in that course, and that a great deal of good might be done by the increased caution which these exceptions would introduce. He proposed, therefore, to except from the punishment of death all forgeries of receipts for money and goods—all issuing of forged stamps, or forgeries of stamps— all attempts to defraud by forged orders— all fabrications of bank paper, that is, the paper on which notes are stamped—all forgeries of deeds and bonds, and every document which did not come under the class he had named, and which were not negociable or transferable securities. For these offences death was now very rarely inflicted, and he was ready to admit that it ought not to be inflicted. He had been guided in this course by the opinion of the Committee which sat to inquire into the Criminal Code in 1819. The Report of that Committee says, "it has sometimes been said, that the abolition of penal laws, which have fallen into disuse, is of little advantage to the community. Your Committee consider this opinion as an error. They forbear to enlarge on the striking-remark of Lord Bacon, that all such laws weaken and disarm other parts of the criminal system. The frequent occurrence of the unexecuted threat of death in a criminal code tends to rob that punishment of all its terrors, and to enervate the general authority of the government and the laws. The multiplication of this threat in the laws of England has brought on them and the nation a character of harshness and cruelty which evidence of a mild administration of them will not entirely remove. Repeal silences the objection. Reasoning, founded on lenient exercise of authority, whatever its force may be, is not calculated to make a general and deep impression. The removal of disuses is a preliminary operation which greatly facilitates a just estimate (and where it is necessary), an effectual reform of those laws which are to remain in activity. Were capital punishments reduced to the comparatively small number of cases in which they are usually inflicted, it would become a much simpler operation to form a right judgment of their propriety or necessity. Another consideration of still greater moment presents itself on this part of the subject; penal laws are sometimes called into activity after long disuse, and in cases where their very existence may be unknown to the best-informed part of the community; malicious prosecutors set them in motion; a mistaken administration of the law may apply them to purposes for which they were not intended, and which they are calculated more to defeat than to promote; such seems to have been the case of the person who in the year 1814, at the assizes of Essex, was capitally convicted of the offence of cutting down trees, and who, in spite of the earnest applications for mercy from the prosecutor, the committing magistrate, and the whole neighbourhood, was executed, apparently because he was believed to be habitually engaged in other offences, for none of which however he had been convicted or tried." The right hon. Gentleman then eulogised Lord Bacon, who contended in his works for the principles he now asserted; and having adverted to the wonderful sagacity which that great man displayed, he expressed his surprise that any persons in authority could have perused his recommendations, and left it to the present day to carry them into effect. He confessed he never heard the name of Lord Bacon without feeling the force of those lines of Cowley, which he thought very preferable to those celebrated verses of Pope, in which he described him connecting together his glory and his disgrace, as at once the greatest and the meanest of mankind. Cowley's commendation was contained in his Address to the Royal Society, and his comparison of Bacon to Moses might be extended beyond the bounds of learning and philosophy. If he had not led statesmen and society out of the wilderness, he had pointed out the path. That glory was his, the neglect was his successors. Bacon, like Moses, led us forth at last, The barren Wilderness he past, Did on the very border stand Of the blest Promised Land, And from the mountain-top of his exalted wit, Saw it himself, and showed us it."' Before making his present proposition, he had referred to the Bill of 1821, which had been read a third time in that House, but did not pass into a law, and he found that there was no very material variation in the principle of the two measures. He had also referred to the Code Napoleon, and he also found that there was no very material variation in the principle of his proposition and that of the Code Napoleon. There was one peculiar reason for being cautious in their advances towards the mitigation of the punishment of forgery: it was an offence chiefly committed by persons of ability and information, and whose ability and information frequently gave them the means of committing it to a great extent: for instance, in the case of Fauntleroy, the forgeries which he committed amounted to above 400,000l. If the capital punishment were entirely remitted, some secondary punishment must be substituted. Now, however mischievous and extensive was the crime of Fauntleroy, he was quite sure that if such a person had been sentenced to such a punishment as two years' hard labour on the public roads, the sympathy of the public would soon have been excited at seeing him degraded to the condition of associating with the commonest and vulgarest criminals. If he had been sent to New South Wales, such a man in that colony would have found that transportation was the slightest punishment that could have been inflicted on him. Looking at these and other considerations, he must deprecate the sudden and entire cessation of the punishment of death for forgery. Let the effect of the measure which he was now proposing be watched. Desirous as they all were of gradually mitigating the severity of our criminal code, he entreated the House not to load such a disposition with the opprobrium which might be cast upon it, should premature efforts prove injurious. Let the progress be gradual and cautious, and he was confident that the object would eventually be attained. It ought to be recollected that the number of offences to which the present law applied was very considerable. Upon the average, every one of the sixty-one Acts which he had described comprehended five distinct offences. Of this, however, he was persuaded, that the mitigation of the punishment would diminish the present facilities which the offender had of escape. It would insure his conviction. There were offences connected with forgery which the existing law did not touch. One, and that a very great one, was the forging of acceptances of individuals on foreign bills of exchange: he doubted if any penalty whatever attached at present to such a crime. It was his intention, however, to remove that doubt, by comprehending the offence in the provisions of his Bill. There were several other offences, the punishment of which was at least doubtful. If an English person dying at Paris made a will, and another will was forged, that offence ought to be subjected to the same punishment as the forging of a will in this country. He meant, therefore, to propose, that it be enacted, that wherever a document of that nature was executed, the punishment of forging it should be the same as if it had been executed in this country. He proposed also to remove a great imperfection in the law, by proposing to alter the law of venue; and to dispense with the necessity of proving the place where the forgery was committed, provided the fact itself were proved. He was ashamed to trespass so long on the attention of the House; but he trusted the importance of the subject would be his apology. The right hon. Gentleman here briefly recapitulated the objects, as they regarded forgery, which his Bill contemplated. Connected with the Law of Forgery was the Law of Coining. It was his intention to propose the consolidation of all the laws having reference to Coining, and to mitigate the law with respect to capital punishment, as it affected one offence, in the same manner as he proposed to mitigate it as it affected the other. Should these Bills pass during the present Session of Parliament, little would remain to be done in the consolidation of the Criminal Law. He had been encouraged to pursue the course which he was pursuing, by the fact, that in no single instance had what had hitherto been done proved injurious. Although so many statutes had been repealed by his former measures, no evil consequence whatever had resulted. He could not conclude without repeating his deep obligations to the two gentlemen whose invaluable assistance he had obtained in the preparation of his measure. The one was Mr. Hob-house, who, having fulfilled the duties of Under Secretary of State for several years with great zeal and ability, had retired into private life, retaining his disposition to be serviceable to the public. The other was his friend Mr. Gregson, whose aid had been most material. Nothing could exceed the zeal of that gentleman in the work; and to him and to Mr. Hobhouse the country was greatly indebted for their persevering exertions. The right hon. Gentleman concluded by asking leave to bring in a Bill to amend the Law relating to Forgery.

Mr. Fowell Buxton

said, that though he could not but be disappointed at some parts of the speech of the right hon. Gentleman, there was much in his statements which met with his cordial approbation. It was but justice to him to declare, that he had introduced very many, and very great improvements into our criminal law. The right hon. Gentleman had, in former years, swept away a multitude of capital enactments, in which the crime on the one hand, and the penalty on the other, were so utterly at variance, and in such monstrous disproportion, that those laws never were, and never could be, carried into execution. Again, he had rendered the law clear and definite, by collecting into one statute enactments which had previously been scattered over many. Again, he had given us a vigilant and effective police. He had improved the discipline of our gaols, and to such an extent, that while in former times England stood as low, or lower than any nation of Europe, in that respect, it was not, perhaps, too much to say that now she equalled, perhaps surpassed, every other country. Finally, he had rendered our secondary punishments efficient; transportation had in former days been a bounty upon crimes; the condition of those who were so fortunate as to be convicted of a transportable offence was positively improved. Under the administration of the right hon. Gentleman, this was no longer the case. For these benefits, he, for one, felt grateful; but nothing that had been said or done by the right hon. Gentleman had afforded him so much satisfaction as the language and the sentiments which he had this night promulgated. Not that he (Mr. Buxton) thought that the right hon. Gentleman had gone far enough,—not that he thought that right hon. Gentleman had acted up to his own principles, still less to those of Lord Bacon,—not that he thought that the law as to forgery, after passing through his hands, would not retain a great deal too much of its original ferocity,—but this was his satisfaction, that the enlightened mind of the right hon. Gentleman was turned to the consideration of the question; and he knew that that inquiry, if pursued, would inevitably lead him to the conclusion, that excessive severity defeats its own purpose, and causes the crimes which it is intended to repress. His hon. friend (Sir James Mackintosh) much lamented his inability to attend in the discussion of a question in which he felt so deep an interest, and in the advancement of which he had so large a share. He had commissioned him (Mr. Buxton) to announce his intention of introducing a bill, repealing the penalty of death for forgery. He was also disposed to introduce one sweeping measure, confining punishment of death to cases of murderous violence. Whenever he introduced those measures, Sir J. Mackintosh should have his cordial support. Whether he would persevere in his intentions this Session, after the concessions of the right hon. Gentleman, it was not for him to determine. Understanding that what had been done to-night by the right hon. Gentleman was only a forerunner of larger improvements, he should be not dissatisfied if the matter were left for the present in the hands of the right hon. Gentleman, and he could not but confess, that the country had gained a great deal, if they gained no more during this Session than what had been conceded this night.

Mr. Lennard

also expressed the great satisfaction with which he had listened to' the right hon. Gentleman. At the same time he regretted that the right hon. Gentleman had not gone further. He did not, however, distrust the right hon. Gentleman, and therefore looked forward with hope to a future period when more would be done. The right hon. Gentleman had spoken of the difficulty of fixing on a secondary punishment as an obstacle in the way of abolishing the punishment of death. Now, although hard labour in the country might not be a fitting punishment, he did not see why hard labour in the West Indies, or other colonies, might not be so. In his opinion, the fear of it would operate more effectually to deter from the commission of crime than the fear of capital punishment. Among other things, the country was greatly indebted to the right hon. Gentleman for this, that he had relieved the question of the mitigation of the Penal Code from the odium of being considered a party question. He remembered the time when every proposition similar to that of the right hon. Gentleman was considered to be made in hostility to the Government and the laws. The right hon. Gentleman had the high credit of having destroyed all such prejudices.

Mr. Spring Rice, entertaining the same feelings which had been expressed by his hon. friends who preceded him, could not remain entirely silent on an occasion so interesting to humanity and the public good, He thought that the mode which the right hon. Gentleman had adopted was very ingenious, and was well calculated to diminish the obstacles in the way of the attainment of his wish. For his exertion the right hon. Gentleman would receive that most gratifying reward, the approbation and applause of every man in the country whose approbation and applause were valuable. He hoped, however, that the right hon. Gentleman would attend to the Departmental Bill as well as to that for which he had that evening moved. While, however, he admitted the great obligations which the country owed to the right hon. Gentleman for what he had already done, and while he was anxious not to urge him beyond a wholesome speed, being satisfied, on the contrary, that to outrun the public feeling, or to create an alarm out of doors, would be most pernicious to a system which could be advantageously supported only by public opinion—he regretted that the right hon. Gentleman had not at once determined to go further. But although the right hon. Gentleman had postponed the consummation for which he (Mr. Spring Rice) wished, he was persuaded that he had not postponed it indefinitely; but that his object was, to approach it by degrees and with caution. On one point, however, in the proposed measure, he would take the liberty of remarking. The right hon. Gentleman proposed to retain the capital punishment as applicable to the forging of Promissory Notes and Bills of Exchange. Now, in his opinion, Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes stood on different grounds; and however grave the offence of forging Bills of Exchange, it was not to be compared to the offence of forging Promissory Notes, which passed at once, and without difficulty, from hand to hand. He confessed, therefore, that he should think the right hon. Gentleman's Bill more perfect if it removed capital punishment from the offence of forging Bills of Exchange. He wished that the discussion had come on earlier, that he might have entered more into the question.

Mr. Alderman Thompson

would not acknowledge any difference in the offences of forging Bank Notes and Bills of Exchange. Immense sums were employed in London in the discount of bills, and every protection ought to be given to them against forgery.

Mr. Trant

thought, the country would be disappointed on learning that a greater mitigation, or rather the total abolition of the punishment of death, had not been proposed. He declared that were he a juryman, and had to give his verdict on a man who had been guilty of sheep-stealing, he would rather commit the minor crime of perjury, by giving a verdict contrary to his oath, than, by condemning the man, be accessory to what he considered nothing short of the crime of murder.

Mr. Martin

could not make up his mind to the total abolition of the punishment of death; but if such a measure were to be adopted, it should at all events be carried slowly into effect. He had, therefore, heard the right hon. Gentleman's statement with great satisfaction.

The Solicitor General

said, he should be sorry if the measure of his right hon. friend should be construed into a preliminary for abolishing the punishment of death. He believed great alarm would be excited in the country if it was understood that this was only a preparatory step to that measure. Whatever might be the opinions of enlightened persons, the country at large was not prepared for the abolition of capital punishments. If the measure was found to work well, then the House might go a little further.

Mr. Benson

was of opinion that the right hon. Gentleman had gone as far as the state of feeling in the country would allow him.

Leave was then given to bring in the Bill, which being done by Mr. Peel, it was read a first time, and the second reading fixed for Monday, the 26th of April.