§ EARL LOREBURN rose to call attention to the Report of the Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament on the Forgery Bill [H.L.], and to introduce a Bill. The noble and learned Earl said: My Lords, this Bill, which is not before your Lordships for the first time, requires a little explanation in the peculiar circumstances. It was introduced two years ago as one of a series of Bills to consolidate and codify the Criminal Law, and it was referred to a Joint Committee of both Houses. We sat nearly two years, off and on, and took evidence as to the best mode of accomplishing the consolidation which we had in view; and in the end we came to an agreement in regard to the Bill that it should, so to speak, produce photographically the law of forgery as it is at the present time. But when we had done that we found that there were so many anomalies and inequalities that the Bill in the shape to which we had reduced it would really be, if carried into law, a photograph of confusion. An Advisory Committee consisting of seven or eight very able and distinguished gentlemen—Lord Desart was one of them, and Mr. Justice Avory, was the chairman—considered the Bill as we had framed it and advised that it would be undesirable to proceed with it unless some amendments, really unimportant but still amendments, were made which would convert the Bill into a suitable and workmanlike shape.
§ The Joint Committee considered the matter, and the Report and recommendations which we made, and upon which we unanimously agreed, are on your Lordships' Table. We came to the conclusion that sentences had been awarded in a promiscuous and inconsistent manner in the course of many decades, and that the description of documents the reproduction of which was to be indictable as a forgery was so confusing, and that in other ways the work taken as a whole was so unworkmanlike in the series of Statutes which had been passed and which had little reference one to the other—each draftsman, apparently, disregarding the language used by his predecessor—that it would be, as I have said, almost reproducing the confusion to pass the Bill in its then form. But we felt that we were bound by the instructions and direction of Parliament—that we should simply consolidate and codify the 771 law. We did not feel at liberty to insert the necessary amendments in the Bill, because that would have been departing from our instructions; and, of course, the only hope of carrying forward the process of codifying and consolidating the law is by a loyal obedience to the directions of Parliament, without which it is quite impossible to expect that Parliament will accept our word. Therefore we did something different, of which I hope the House will approve. We prepared a second Bill, which in my opinion does not, except in the particulars that I will in a moment indicate, affect in a material sense the law of forgery. But it cannot, in the circumstances, be called a purely Consolidation Bill, and it is this Bill to which I shall ask your Lordships to give a First Reading to-day.
§ To begin with, the new Bill follows, except in one particular which I need not trouble about, the lines of the Report made to us by the Advisory Committee to which I have alluded. This, in the first instance, can be said with regard to it, that it does not make punishable any act or create any offence which is not already punishable under one denomination or another. But it does have the effect of making some alterations, and I will state what the chief of them are. In the first place, it standardises the punishment. In nearly all cases it makes the punishment less than it is according to the existing law, where in some cases the maximum punishment is ferocious and unjustifiable. There are a few increases, but very few, in the maximum punishment, and for the following reason. In past Statutes certain documents contemplated as the subject of forgery are given under specific and separate descriptions; as, for example, whenever a new set of Stock for London or for some other part was issued, without the least regard to the existing law, the draftsman would describe the document to be hereafter issued and say that the reproduction of it was to be forgery, and then appropriate apparently whatever maximum sentence he thought fit; and each of these separate documents appears in a string of Statutes. What we have done is this. We have tried to group them under a general description. For instance, we have made the forgery of a valuable security, calling it a valuable security, a punishable offence instead of specifying the great list of valuable securities enumerated in the different Statutes. 772 The result is that one maximum punishment is given for the forgery of any valuable security; and this has the effect in a few cases—very few—of slightly increasing the maximum punishment which may be awarded. Another change is this. In the case of two offences—the forgery of Excise permits and the forgery of certificates of births and deaths—we have changed a misdemeanour into a felony. The punishment is not changed in any way, but this class of document is brought within the class of similar documents the forgery of which is at present a felony by law. At one time felony was a very different matter from a misdemeanour, but at the present time the difference is almost an archaic one. The change has been done for convenience of drafting and in order to enable us to group the different offences more properly.
§ Although I have thought it my duty on behalf of the Joint Committee, for all of whom, I am happy to say, I am able to speak, to state fully to the House what it is that we are proposing, yet I think I am making more of the changes than they really are in order that the House may not be taken by surprise and imagine that this is wholly a Consolidation Bill. The changes are not really what I would describe as material. This is one of a series of Bills which during the last five or six years have been brought forward for the purpose of consolidating and codifying the law. I have had the honour of sitting as chairman of the Joint Committee during the whole of that time. We have had before us a number of important Bills, and I am happy to tell the House that we have never had a difference of opinion; we have never had even a Division. We have not been dealing with controversial matter, but merely with the attempt to put into plain and intelligible English the law as it now is, with little or no modification. We have finished the codification of perjury; and if we are enabled to accomplish this work on which we are now engaged we shall have codified the next most difficult subject in the Criminal Law. We have had many meetings and have devoted much trouble to the matter, and I hope we shall not be disappointed in getting the assent of Parliament to the new Bill which I am introducing to-day. If this Bill becomes law and we are encouraged in our work, I hope we may proceed to other Bills much easier, shorter, 773 and simpler, until either we or our successors, if we do not live long enough, will be able to reduce the Criminal Law of England into a complete codified whole, which will be to the great advantage of the people of this country and of the British Empire as a whole.
§ For the reasons I have stated I hope your Lordships and the House of Commons will extend to us more than a usual share of confidence. This is an intricate work; and if we begin to discuss the Bill, to analyse it, and to treat it as an ordinary measure neither this nor any other Codification or Consolidation Bill will ever become law. It is only by taking it upon the faith of the unanimous opinion of the Joint Committee, supported by the opinion—the unanimous opinion, I believe—of the strong Advisory Committee, with whom we agreed in everything except that they would have gone in one respect further, only that we were unwilling to go so far, in the way of change—it is only by that method that this work, which has been recommended by many distinguished men, can be accomplished; and I hope that your Lordships will show the example—which I trust will be followed by the other House—of extending confidence and so enable us to pass this Bill into law without that discussion which would be fatal to it if it were carried out on anything like a large scale.
§ THE LORD CHANCELLORMy Lords, I think that not only we in this House but the public may well feel grateful to my noble and learned friend for the record of work which he has just given. It is, perhaps, in this House that that kind of work is best done. It requires great care, great patience, and great knowledge, and my noble and learned friend has brought to his task these qualities. The new Bill, I think, has rightly gone beyond the limits of a mere Consolidation Bill. To deal with a branch of the law so intricate as that with which the Joint Committee have dealt would be in my opinion a mistake, unless they were at liberty in the work of consolidation to make such amendments as were reasonable. I have only to say, on behalf of His Majesty's Government, that we welcome the Bill, and will give to it the most favourable consideration and every assistance in our power when it goes to another place.
*THE EARL OF DESARTMy Lords, I feel some hesitation in saying anything after the sufficient statement made by the noble and learned Earl who has introduced this Bill and the blessing which has been bestowed upon it by the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack; but as I took a small part in connection with the consideration of the previous Bill and the preparation of the Bill which is now before your Lordships, I think I might not unfittingly say a few words.
When we came to examine the question it was proved that the law was full of anomalies. There were inequalities of punishment; the degree and character of offences were illogical; and in some respects the law was ambiguous. Having regard to that, it seemed to us that to introduce a merely consolidating Code would be at great expense of time and trouble to re-enact that which ought not in its entirety to be re-enacted. Therefore we turned our attention first to putting into shape the law as we conceived it to be, and then to drawing attention to the various matters in respect of which it required amendment in order to make it reasonable and applicable to modern conditions. The language in some cases was archaic and really out of date, and we substituted modern terms. I agree with the noble and learned Earl that such amendments as we propose do not really affect the actual law, but merely bring it into line with modern conditions and with common sense. It is, in my judgment, very desirable that this opportunity should not be lost of bringing the law of forgery into one Act of Parliament. As we know, a good many attempts at codification have been made but they have led to elaborate discussion of details, which I hope may be avoided in this case.
Before sitting down I should like to express the indebtedness which in my opinion the community owe to the labours of the noble and learned Earl, who when he was Lord Chancellor turned his attention to this question of bringing the Criminal Law generally into reasonable form. It is important that the people should know what the Criminal Law of the country is, and this is a step towards their enlightenment. I hope that in due time we shall deal in a similar way with other matters. If I might express a personal wish both to the noble and learned Earl himself and 775 to the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack, it is that at an early date attention may be drawn to Criminal pleading. At present Criminal pleading is complicated and very technical and calls for amendment. In a good many cases the indictment—I have known one fifty feet long—means little or nothing to the prisoner. I hope that the good work of codification may proceed, and that it may be encouraged to do so by a favourable reception being given to the Bill which is now before your Lordships.
§ EARL LOREBURNI should like to say, in reference to the noble and learned Earl's remark about procedure, that a Bill dealing with the question of pleadings has been ready for two years, and as soon as this Bill passes I hope we shall be able to proceed with it. I have first to ask 776 permission to withdraw the Forgery Bill now before the House.
§ Bill (on Motion), by leave of the House, withdrawn.