Sitting of 6 July 1819

GRAMPOUND ELECTIONߞMR. ALEXANDER LAMBE REPRIMANDED.
Mr. A. Lambewas brought to the bar, where he received the following reprimand from the Speaker, and was discharged out of custody, paying his fees:
"Alexander Lambe, this House yesterday came to a resolution, That you, since your first examination before a committee of the whole House, to whom it was referred to consider of the Extracts of Indictments against sir. M. M. Lopez and others, for bribery at the late election of burgesses to serve for the borough of Grampound, having destroyed a material document relative thereto, have been guilty of wilful suppression of evidence, and a high contempt of the authority of this House.ߞThis is an offence of the most serious and grave nature, both as affecting the dignity of this House and the ends of justice; and had this offence been committed by you with the deliberate intention of impeding the examination now in progress, it would have been the bounden duty of this House to have punished it with the utmost severity. But in proportion as this act, if committed with such a view and such intentions, would have been disgraceful to yourself, and in contempt of every feeling of principle and honesty, in the same proportion this House is most anxious to attribute your conduct to other motives which may have actuated you, and which may explain and extenuate; and believing that the destruction of this instrument has been committed not with any intention to interfere with its proceedings, or to defeat the ends of justice, but that it originated solely from strong impressions upon your mind of the professional confidence reposed in you by your client; with this impression, and this alone, the House is prepared to extend to you its lenity, and to order that you be now reprimanded, and discharged.ߞIn obedience, then, to the commands of the House, I now reprimand you, and acquaint you, that you are discharged, upon payment of your fees."

CRIMINAL LAWS.
Sir James Mackintoshbrought up the report of the committee on the Criminal Laws, which was ordered to lie on the table.ߞSir James then rose, and spoke to the following effect:ߞIa moving that this report be

1519
printed, I think it proper to explain the reasons why no proposition has yet been submitted to the House upon the recommendation of the committee from which it proceeds. The committee has, I can assure the House, from the moment of its institution, applied itself with the utmost diligence to the important object of its investigation. It had, indeed, entertained the hope of getting through its inquiries at an earlier period; and until those inquiries were closed, or at least arrived at some degree of maturity, it was deemed inexpedient to submit any measure, to the consideration of this House; and at the present moment it would be obviously improper to introduce any proposition upon so grave a subject. But it was the unanimous feeling and decided impression of the committee, that no measure, should be brought forward, on a question of this nature, until time should be afforded for the most ample inquiry. It would, indeed, be highly unadvisable to propose, any measure at a time or under circumstances which might give rise to objections foreign to the merits of the case, and which, although so foreign, might produce impressions unfavourable to the principles of the measure itself. Hence the committee has abstained, as it does at present abstain, from proposing any measure to the consideration of the House. The committee has been anxiously occupied for the last three months in collecting every variety of evidence applicable to the case. It has particularly devoted itself to the examination of those persons who were capable of giving information, that, could be relied upon, with regard to the, effects of capital punishments upon the morality of the country. The proceedings of the committee have, indeed, been mainly pointed to ascertain, by direct evidence and detail of facts, what degree of validity really belonged to the reasons generally urged against the severity of capital punishments; that is, whether the practical experience corresponded with the general reasoning. With this view we have taken the testimony of a number of persons connected with the administration of the laws. In this important branch of the inquiry indeed, we have made considerable progress, and collected a variety of very satisfactory information. But still our information is incomplete; and with a view, therefore, to acquire farther and complete information on this as well as on other important points, I hope the
¶
1520
House will be induced to accede to the re-appointment of this committee at the commencement of the next session. But although our inquiry has as yet been incompleteߞalthough we require to examine still farther evidence before we can finally determine upon the best course to recommend for the adoption of the HouseߞI have the satisfaction to state, and I am enabled to show, that the committee has made such progress as fully to justify those who voted against the noble lord's proposition for mixing this subject with that consigned to the committee appointed to inquire with respect to the state of prisons. Experience has, indeed, most clearly demonstrated that such a combination would have been extremely inexpedient. For although two distinct committees were appointed, each of which has, I believe, been remarkable for the most assiduous investigation, neither has yet been able to come to a conclusive report. But this is not at all to be wondered at, considering the various and important matter about which each commit tee was called upon to inquire.
As to the committee with which I have had the honour to act, I take leave to say, that its diligence has not been more remarkable than its constitution is respectable. I have never, indeed, met with a body of gentlemen more decidedly superior to every thing like party feeling or influence. But were it consistent to mention the names of the gentlemen most attentive to the duties of the committee, that superiority would be readily admitted. The evidence for which we sought at the outset of our inquiry was principally documentary, that is, with respect to the commitments, convictions, and executions throughout the country; and with a view to the attainment of such evidence, we had recourse to all the public offices connected with the several departments of public justice. We have, indeed, searched in every direction with all the assiduity in our power, and I have the satisfaction to state, that we are enabled to communicate a greater body of authentic, valuable, and various information on this subject, than has ever yet been laid before parliament. The returns which. we have received under this head with respect to London and Middlesex are peculiarly satisfactory. We have, indeed, received complete returns of the commitments, convictions, and executions in those important districts, from the year 1694 to the year 1814;

1521
these returns forming a most valuable acquisition to the history of the criminal laws of the country. Those in whose department it lies, in the city of London, to furnish information of this nature, have, I must say, been most ready to afford the committee every assistance in their power. I am happy, indeed, to bear this public testimony to the meritorious conduct of these gentlemen, who will, I doubt not, continue to prosecute their diligent inquiry until their returns are completed up to the latest period. With regard to the home circuit also we have acquired a great deal of accurate information, for which we are much indebted to Mr. Knapp, the deputy clerk of assize for that circuit. From that gentleman we have had returns of the commitments, convictions, and executions from 1689, which was the year after the Revolution, up to the year 1717; also from 1755 to 1784, and from 1785 to 1814. But through the medium of this gentleman's laudable industry we hope to have the chasms alluded to filled up, and we shall then be in possession of a complete return of the administration of the criminal law for one hundred and thirty years. The returns of the western circuit have also been pretty full and accurate, but a good deal of information is yet required to complete the returns from the other circuits. It is remarkable, however, that we have as yet received no information whatever from Ireland. No notice, indeed, has yet been taken of the orders transmitted by the committee to that part of the empire, and this is seriously to be lamented, for it is much more important to obtain such information from Ireland, than from any part of England, with the circumstances of which parliament is already so much better acquainted. But let us hope that this deficiency will be supplied by the next session.
The inquiries of the committee have been directed to two great objects; first, to ascertain the state of our national morality; and, secondly, what criminal laws are useless or mischievous, and may be conveniently dispensed with. As to the first object, the House will hear with pleasure, that the information communicated to the committee is of the most gratifying description. It is indeed peculiarly honourable to the character of the country, for I have great satisfaction in slating, that this information is such as fully to justify the statement of the noble lord (Castlereagh), that crimes of an
1522
atrocious and violent character have very materially diminished in this country. The returns which the committee have received from the home circuit are in that point of view extremely interesting. It appears by those returns, that the number of convictions for murder, which took place during the first period mentioned, namely, during the first thirty years after the Revolution, was 123; and the number of executions for murder during the same period, 87ߞthat the number of convictions for murder which took place during the second period mentioned, namely, from 1755 to 1784, was 67; and the number of executions for murder during the same period, 57ߞand that the number of convictions for murder which took place during the third period mentioned, namely, from 1784 to 1814, was only 54; and the number of executions for murder during the same period, only 44. So that the House will observe, with reference merely to the number of convictions and executions for murder, that during the last thirty years that number has fallen in the proportion of more than two to one, as compared with the number in the thirty years immediately subsequent to the Revolution. That, however, would be a very weak and insufficient mode of stating the fact. For when we take into our account the great increase of population in the kingdom, and more especially in the districts surrounding the capitalߞwhen we recollect the rise and growth of a great city on the Southern bank of the Thames, in Surreyߞand when we contemplate the narrow space into which this large, increased, and increasing mass of human beings is crowded, we must be compelled to acknowledge, that the crime of murder has actually diminished in frequency in the latter of the two periods which I have just described, in the proportion of three or four to one. But, although such are the facts as manifested in the returns from the home circuit, it does not appear that there has been an equal diminution of crime in the city of London. At the same time, the facts as they have been stated to the committee, with reference to the metropolis, are of considerable importance with reference to that view of the subject. It appears that the number of convictions for murder was in the city of London, from 1754 to 1734. was 71; that the number from 1784 to 1814 was 66; and (which is well worth the attention of the House), that the

1523
number in the years 1815, 1816, and 1817, was only 9; whereas the number in the three years immediately preceding it was 14. On estimating the convictions for murder in the city of London for 60 years, that is to say, from 1755 to 1815, it appears that the average annual number is about 9. Now, Sir, I have no means of comparing this calculation with the state of morals with reference to this crime, in any of the other capitals of Europe; first, because there is no city in Europe the population of which amounts to a million; and, secondly, because there is no city in Europe whence it is practicable to obtain such accurate returns as those with which the committee has been furnished by the city of London: but this I may say, without fear of contradiction, that that calculation shows the security of life against violence in this great metropolis to be, if not complete, as nearly so as can in any place or condition of society be expected. From that calculation it is evident that the chance every year is 500,000 to I against the murder of any individualߞa chance so remote, that a very small premium indeed would be required to cover the risk by those who engage in pecuniary speculations on such subjects. There is also another circumstance to be taken into the account, to which, however, I confess that other members of the committee have been disposed to attach more weight than I myself have. In considering the security possessed for life in a great city, in which that security exists principally in the humanity of the inhabitants, and is little attributable to any supposed restraints resulting from a system of police, it has appeared to several members of the committee to be indispensable to compare the security enjoyed with the restraints imposed. Unquestionably, it is the object of all legislation on this subject, to afford the greatest security with the least restraint. Those members of the committee to whom I allude, are of opinion, that we must consider the existing security for life in the metropolis, with reference to the existing improvement in its police. It has been of late years, for instance, that the day police of the city of London has been put on its present footing. For myself, however, I frankly confess that I have always doubted' whether that destruction of the feelings of independence and self-respect, the best guards, allow me to say, of public morality, occasioned by vexatious and numerous restrictions on
1524
human conduct, is not more powerful in the production, than in the repression of crime. At the same time, it would be very improper, were I not to state, that the views on this part of the subject of several members of the committee for whom I entertain great respect, differ materially from my own.ߞBy the returns which have been received by the committee from the western circuit, it appears, that in that district there has been at least no increase of the crime of murder. For the last 50 years, the annual number of convictions for that crime in the western circuit, has been pretty nearly the same. So that on the whole, it clearly appears, that however the people of England may have been oppressed by distress, and however they may have been driven, by indigence to the commission of crimes of minor importance, they have not lost their ancient character for humanity, for repugnance to shedding blood, for abhorrence of cruelty. To that character, untainted by any temptation which the circumstances of the times might have been supposed to generate, they are now, as much as ever, entitled. Sir, I could not omit the opportunity of stating the gratifying truth, that whatever the population of this country may have lost, it has not lost a particle of that dearest and most valuable of its possessionsߞits repuation for national humanity [Hear, hear!].
Sir, I now proceed to advert to the second topic, for the elucidation of which the returns that I have mentioned were, sought by the committee; namely, to ascertain as far as such returns can be supposed to assist in ascertaining, what statutes, constituting capital felonies, have proved useless, or have become obsolete. In making this inquiry, we assumed as a principle, that the continued existence of laws, which had not been executed for above a century, could not be considered as very necessaryߞthat laws which had slumbered so long could be considered only as an incumbrance to the statute book, and as bringing on the nation imputations of a more sanguinary nature than it de-' serves. I am aware that there are hon. members who will not coincide in the justice of this remark. I am aware it may be argued, that the terror of the law frequently prevents the perpetration of crime; and that a law often seems to be useless, only because it has completely produced the effect contemplated by it. I will not detain the House at present by inquiring

1525
if this argument be well grounded:ߞIf it be applicable at all, it is applicable only to those conspicuous crimes the penalty attached to which is generally known. It must be wholly inapplicable to those obscure laws, obscure crimes, and obscure penalties, the very existence of which it requires extraordinary effort on the part of the most accurate and well-informed lawyer habitually to remember; and which are rarely mentioned but by those who wish to produce an impression unfavourable to the character of our general code. I will not read the list of the acts of parliament of that description, which the committee proposes to parliament to repeal. The statutes to which the committee wishes to direct the attention of the House, are divisible into two classes, respecting which the committee proposes that two bills shall be introduced in the next session. The first class consists of acts, constituting misdemeanors, which having become matters of indifference, or nearly so, it is proposed entirely to repeal:ߞthe second class consists of acts, for the capital punishments comprehended in which it is proposed to substitute either transportation or hard labour, at the discretion of the judgeߞgiving that discretion in the most ample manner.
Sir, there is one part of the evidence taken before the committee, to which I wish more especially to call the attention of the House, as it relates to the dispute to which I have already alluded, between those on the one hand, who, with me, are of opinion that the undue seventy of law encourages, rather than represses crime, and those on the other hand, who hold that if to any, however few cases of a particular nature, capital punishment ought to attach, the denunciation of that punishment should be allowed to exist on the Statute-book, with reference to all crime of that description, as a terror which they think operative in diminishing the frequency of its occurrence. The evidence illustrative of this subject has been produced by the examination, for the first time, of the very persons who are the most intimately acquainted with it. By the examination of those who suffer loss when thefts or forgeries are committed; by the examination of those who prosecute when crimes of that nature are prosecuted; by the examination of those who are witnesses; by the examination of those who sit as jurors; by the examination of all these and other parties, the committee has tried to ascer-
¶
1526
tain what effect is produced by the denunciation of capital punishment; whether it tends to deter persons from the commission of crime, or enables, malefactors to escape with impunity. With this purpose the committee entered on the examination of several sorts of witnesses. We did not examine the judges of, the land, from considerations founded on the dignity of their stations, and on the feelings of delicacy and respect due to them, We thought it would be unbecoming us to call on those learned and venerable individuals for an opinion on the propriety of continuing a description of punishment, which they would perhaps almost, immediately afterwards be required, in the discharge of their duty, to direct to be inflicted. It appeared to us to be repugnant to all notions of prudence and decorum to expect a condemnation of the law from those who were appointed to administer it. Not being free to condemn it, their commendation, had they com-mended it, would have had no weighty for what value can attach to praise when, there is no liberty to censure? On those grounds therefore, and not from the, slightest distrust of the soundness of their judgment, or of the value of the information which they were capable of communicating, the committee, after much deliberation, determined that it would be, unfair and unbecoming to examine them. With respect to those learned persons who have retired from the judicial bench, they appeared to us to be placed in a very different point of view, and we accordingly desired the attendance of five! of those learned individuals, namely, lord Erskine, sir William Grant, sir Vicary Gibbs, sir James Mansfield, and sir Alan Chambre. Circumstances rendered the; attendance of lord Erskine, sir Vicary Gibbs and sir William Grant inconvenient; but we have reason to believe that those learned persons adhere to the opinions which, they have expressed on the subject in this House. It also appeared, that it would be inconvenient to sir James Mansfield and sir Alan Chambre to attend the committee; and as it did not appear that those learned persons had formed any decisive opinion on the subject at issue, the committee, in consonance to their wishes, abstained from pressing their attendance. Sir Archibald Macdonald had the goodness voluntarily to attend the committee, and his evidence we consider to be of very great importance; the

1527
House will perhaps, therefore, pardon me if I state briefly its substance. It is the opinion of sir Archibald that the infliction of capital punishment on crimes, not of the most atrocious nature, renders prosecutors reluctant to proceed, witnesses reluctant to give evidence, and juries reluctant to convict; and, therefore, that the chance which a criminal has of escaping with impunity is greatly increased by the existence of that punishment for such crimes. It is his opinion, that against treason, murder, arson, and crimes of that description, the punishment of death ought to be continued; but forty years' experience convinces him, that with reference to crimes unattended with atrocious or violent circumstances, the existence of that punishment is injurious, rather than beneficial to the community.ߞThe next class of persons examined by the committee consisted of experienced magistrates, who, engaged as they constantly are, in the examination of accused persons previously to their committal, have more direct access to a knowledge of all those circumstances of which it is indispensable to be informed in an inquiry of this nature, than even the judges of our criminal courts, or any other description of individuals. Dr. Colquhoun, who was for 27 years a police magistrate, informed the committee, that in his opinion, the existence of capital punishment for the crimes to which I have alluded, frequently prevented the conviction of offenders. In that gentleman's opinion, it is indispensable to punish treason, murder, arson, burglary, &c. with death; but he expressed his persuasion, that the public mind revolts from the infliction of that punishment in cases not attended with circumstances of violence or atrocity. Dr. Colquhoun's evidence is confirmed by that of Mr. Mainwaring, a very intelligent magistrate for the county of Middlesex; as well as by the officers of the Old Bailey, especially the clerk of the arraigns, and by the clerks of the various police offices, who have the best possible opportunity of knowing the facts. The last declared to the committee, that it is a frequent, and almost invariable question to them, on the part of those who suffer from the commission of crimes, "Is it a hanging matter? Can you not reduce it below forty shillings?" The officers of the Old Bailey stated in their testimony, that a number of bills found by the Grand Jury are not prosecuted on account of the repugnance
1528
of those who ought to be the prosecutors, to the idea of endangering the life of a fellow-creature. From another class of individualsߞthe traders of London and Westminsterߞthe committee received the most important and satisfactory information. I must say, that it is most important and satisfactory; not only as it relates to the present object, proceeding as it does from those who are the near and constant observers of the circumstances connected with it, but that it is most important and satisfactory as displaying a sound intelligence and a feeling of morality in that valuable part of the community, which, with all my previous respect for it, I own I was not so sanguine as to anticipate. I do not hesitate to declare, that in my opinion, the individuals of that description examined before the committee, manifested as great a degree of good sense, as muck conscientious consideration, and as sterling humanity as could be found in an equal number of men taken from any station whatever in society. They showed a reluctanceߞfounded on the most respectable groundsߞto prosecute, in consequence of the excessive severity of the existing punishments, which, considering; their situation, and the extent to which they are sufferers, from forgery and fraud, is, in my opinion, highly honourable to their character, and through their character to the character of the nation. I will not go through the evidence of those persons (whose principles and conduct shall always remember with the greatest pleasure), but I will shortly describe that given by one or two of them, from which the House may judge of the rest. One, a tradesman in the city of London, expressed to the committee his belief that there was not a single shop from Cornhill to Charing-cross, which did not suffer from various depredations, to an extent that no man not conversant with the facts, could imagine. Yet this same witness represented it to be the unanimous feeling of persons engaged in trade, that the severity of the punishment for those depredations should be mitigated, in order that the delinquents might be punished, and the sufferers be relieved from the obstacles which their humanity at present interposed in the way of obtaining justice. Another excellent witness, a tradesman in Westminster, who has been for twenty years engaged in an extensive concern, told the committee, that no porter had ever been discharged by him for any cause

1529
but the commission of theft. Some years ago, this gentleman brought a porter to trial for theft, who was capitally convicted; and he declared to the committee, that the pain and anxiety which he and his father felt, until it was ascertained that the royal mercy would be extended to the offender, were such as to deter them ever after from taking a similar step, and, to induce them to suffer any depredation, rather than again incur so melancholy a risk. Sir, it is not so much to the virtue of such conduct, as to its good sense and prudence, that I wish to call the attention of the House. The opinions which I have quoted are not the opinions of visionaries and enthusiasts, but the opinions of rational individuals, pursuing their business in the way which they think best calculated to ensure success; and they distinctly tell you, that they believe the best security which the legislature could devise for their property, would be the abolition of those sanctions by which it has hitherto been so ineffectually guarded.
All the traders who were examined by the committee declared that they spoke the opinion of at least nine-tenths of their acquaintance, respecting the crimes of shoplifting, stealing in warehouses above the value of forty shillings, and, above all, respecting the crime of forger. With reference to the crime that I have just mentioned, I am anxious to dwell more particularly on the evidence of two remarkably intelligent witnesses examined by the committee. The first was Mr. Carr, solicitor to the board of excise, a public officer of great experience, and who gave his testimony in a manner that reflected the utmost credit on his understanding. Besides the expression of a strong general opinion on the subject, Mr. Carr stated several particular circumstances and cases highly deserving of attention. Prior to the year 1806, the forgery of an excise stamp was punishable only by the infliction of a penalty of 500 l. At that period it was made felony. Mr. Carr detailed to the committee a comparative statement of the number of prosecutions and convictions for that offence before, and the number after it was constituted felony. During the twelve years preceding 1806 there had been twenty-one prosecutions, and nineteen convictions; during the twelve years subsequent to 1806, there had been nine prosecutions, and only three convictions. So much were juries disinclined to convict since
1530
the offence was made capital, that although before that increase in the severity of the law they had convicted in almost every case submitted to them, since its occurrence they had convicted in only one-third of the cases submitted to them. This fact Mr. Carr considers, and justly considers, as decisive with respect to the general principle. The House will perceive that it is not to the diminution in the number of prosecutions that I advert, that may be susceptible of various explanations; but it is to the diminution in the number of convictions, as compared with the number of prosecutions; a circumstance which it must be generally admitted is attributable only to the increased severity of the law. Mr. Carr mentioned to the committee another interesting and important fact, namely, that in his professional intercourse with fraudulent traders, he had always found them desirous of heavy penalties, because they believed that such penalties would not be enforced. They dreaded moderate penalties, because they believed that such penalties would be enforced.ߞOf these facts a still more striking proof exists in the evidence of the other witness to whom I have alluded ߞevidence which, I am persuaded, will be heard by the House with great interest. It is that given by Mr. James Harmer, the solicitor in Crown prosecutions at the Old Bailey, who, in the course of twenty years practice, has had professional and confidential intercourse with more than 2,000 persons brought to trial in that court, and who must therefore be as familiar with the causes of crime, with the hopes and fears of delinquents, with the temptations which allure them to the commission of offence, and the punishments calculated to deter them from it, as any man living. And, Sir, I beg to add my conviction to that of the whole committee, that a witness of so much judgment and intelligence, or who exhibited such evident marks of a conscientious and humane character, has seldom appeared before any assembly. It is, indeed, difficult for me to imagine the evidence of any witness on this interesting subject entitled to greater weight than that of Mr. Harmer. Among other things, Mr. Marnier saidߞand I repeat, that this gentleman's testimony is peculiarly deserving the attention of hon. gentlemen, who call those who think with me on this subject visionariesߞthat he knew many persons who had suffered considerably

1531
from acts of larceny and forgery, but who had declined prosecution, lest the delinquents, if convicted, should be punished with death; that he had frequently observed the same disinclination to serve as jurors, arising from the same cause, and inducing individuals to bribe the summoning officer to leave them out of his list; that he had repeatedly known juries, influenced by the existence of capital punishments, acquit in minor cases, especially in forgeries, where the proof of guilt was irrefragable; that old and professed thieves who were aware of this feeling on the part of juries, had often told him, with the sagacity and sharpness prompted by a knowledge of their own interest, that they were desirous to be prosecuted capitally, as affording them the probable means of escaping with entire impunity. If so, Sir, if our present Jaws afford security to the enemies of society, they must be pregnant with insecurity and danger to the lives and property of all good members of society. In the continuation of his evidence before the committee, Mr. Harmer declares it as his decided opinion, for the reasons which he had already stated, that the present numerous enactments for taking away human life were inadequate to the repression of crime. To the admirable passage which follows, and which exhibits in a brilliant point of view this gentleman's sound judgment, humane feeling, and (which is certainly of comparative unimportance) powers of composition, I beg the attention of the House. "If I were asked, said Mr. Harmer," what description of punishments would in my opinion be productive of benefit, I would answer, such as might force the delinquent into a course of discipline totally opposite to his habits. Idleness is assuredly a part of his character, which industry would counteract. Set him to labour. He is probably debauched, and abstinence would be advantageous to both his mind and his body. Apply it. He has been accustomed to dissolute companions, separation from whom would essentially ameliorate him. Keep him in solitude. He has hitherto rioted in uncontrolled liberty of action. I propose that he should be subjected to restraint, and the observance of proper decorum. Were these or similar suggestions attended to, I have no doubt that the number of criminal offenders would soon be considerably reduced" [Hear, hear!]. Mr.
1532
Harmer further states, that he has frequently seen juries reduce the estimated value of the thing stolen in order to screen the prisoner from capital punishment; that no reluctance appears to exist in the public mind to see the punishment of death inflicted for crimes accompanied with circumstances of atrocity and violence; but that those who suffer death for offences of a less aggravated description, are consoled by the public sympathy; and that thus the public feeling is excited against the whole code of our criminal law. Sir, all these judicious observations apply to persons whose punishment depends on the value of the property which they have stolen. In those cases, however, there are easy means of evading the Jaw, and especially by undervaluing that property. In cases of forgery, that practice cannot, however, be resorted to. I am sure the House would listen with attention to the whole of the evidence given before the committee with respect to the crime of forgery, for it proceeds from some of the most eminent bankers and merchants of the city of London; but I will at present content myself with a very abridged statement of its substance. Mr. John Smith, the banker, a member of this House, stated to the committee, that he knew an instance of a prosecution for forgery having been relinquished on account of the punishment of death, which he had no doubt would have been carried to conviction had the punishment for that crime been of a less severe description. Mr. Barnett, the banker, also a member of this House, declared to the committee his conviction that the infliction of capital punishment for forgery tended so materially to diminish the number of prosecutions for that offence, that he believed the majority of private forgeries passed unpunished. Mr. Edward Forster, amidst other valuable information, stated a single occurrence, namely, that in an instance of forgery with which he was acquainted, a friend of the prisoner's contrived, by the connivance of the prosecutor, who was averse to conviction, to seize the forged check, and to throw it in the fire. Mr. Forster also said, that he believed half the private forgeries passed unpunished in consequence of the existence of the capital punishment. Mr. Fry, a banker, likewise described four remarkable cases of this sort; and declared to the committee, that he should consider his property to be

1533
much more secure were the severity of the present punishment for forgery mitigated. Mr. Samuel Hoare's evidence was also highly worthy the attention of the House. That gentleman informed the committee, that in most cases in which the life of a prisoner was endangered, he observed, that there was great reluctance to prosecute, but in a case of forgery more than in any other; and that, instead of thinking that the security of property would be diminished by a mitigation of punishment, he was persuaded it would be increased. Mr. Goldsmid, the broker to the Bank of England, declared that he knew many hundred instances, in which the capital punishment had prevented prosecutions for forgery.
Sir, I will not fatigue the House by any further details of this nature. When the report comes to be printed, I am persuaded that the evidence which it contains will be read with no ordinary interest. I shall now, therefore, close the observations with which I have troubled the House, by merely stating the general instructions which I have received from the committee. The committee desire that I will propose the introduction of two distinct bills. The one, a bill for the abolition of 35, or perhaps rather more capital felonies. The other, a bill to consolidate and amend the existing laws respecting forgery; to bring them all into one statute, and to make such amendments as may seem expedient. I proceed to give a general idea of the proposed amendments. And here I beg to observe, that besides the general evidence given before the committee, to which I have already adverted, there are other considerationsߞconsiderations of policy of a very grave natureߞwhich ought to induce the House to consider the amendment of the laws respecting forgery as an imperative duty. Parliament has recently adopted a most important, and, in my opinion, a highly beneficial measure; a measure which I trust no temptation or occurrence will ever induce it to repeal. It has pledged itself to return to the ancient standard of our currencyߞto that intrinsically valuable standard, which so long existed in this country, in common with the other countries of the civilised world. It has pledged itself to abandonߞwhat I trust will never under any circumstances be re-adoptedߞa system, which, however it might be excused by the extraordinary pressure of the time at
1534
which it was taken, is acknowledged by every body to be inconsistent with all those principles on which the permanent well-being of society depends. In doing this, nevertheless, we cannot dissemble from ourselves that we are taking a step, which, however beneficial on the whole, must be attended with partial danger, with considerable sacrifices, with serious injury to individuals. Under the agitating circumstances necessarily consequent on so great a change, it appears to me to be the policy of parliament to give character and popularity to the change itself, by removing from the laws which regulate our paper currency the odious imputation of a sanguinary character, which the execution of those laws has but too frequently warranted. In my opinion, parliament ought to render the measure it is about to adopt as acceptable to the public as it can. This seems to me, to be also expedient for the sake of the Bank of England, which has of late been charged, and perhaps unjustly, with conduct not altogether reconcilable to the principles of justice, or at least of humanity. Sir, it is most desirable, that all these things should, if possible, be forgotten. It is most desirable that they should be imputed to the necessities of the times, and be dismissed from men's minds. Sincerely do I wish that the Bank of England may continue the inspectors of our domestic circulation; and that they may continue to afford aid to government, if government should need their assistance; and therefore do I also wish, that we may signalize the great change which is about to take place, by such alterations in the law as may restore to the Bank, and to all connected with recent events of a financial nature, the character which has at least been so seriously endangered. Sir, the amendments in the law proposed by the committee are founded on this principle. It appears to them, that as long as the small notes of the Bank of England continue in circulation, forming as they do a great portion of the currency of the country, it may be right to place them on the same footing as the metallic currency of the same value. With great pain and reluctance, therefore, the committee recommend, that the actual forgers of those notes shall continue subject to capital punishment. At the same time, the committee suggest that it may be worthy the consideration of parliament to inquire into the expediency of adopting the sug-

1535
gestion of the commissioners appointed to examine into the means of preventing the forgery of bank notes, to offer an unusually high reward for the detection of the actual forgers of those notes. There does not appear to me to be any danger in this proposition. No jury will convictߞ no jury ought to convictߞon the evidence of informers alone. A verdict of guilty can be pronounced only on the discovery of the materials and implements necessary for carrying on the illegitimate manufacture. I repeat that no jury will convict on the evidence of an informer, without these corroborating circumstances. With respect to the utterer of forged notes, it is proposed by the committee to lighten the law. It is proposed to punish the first offence either with transportation or with hard labour, at the discretion of the judge; but to place the offender on the second or third offence on the footing of the common better of money, prosecutable capitally; leaving it, however, open to the prosecutor, to prosecute if he shall think fit as for a first offence. It is not proposed by the committee to make any change with respect to the person found in possession of forged notes, except that it shall be left to the discretion of the judge, whether to subject him to imprisonment, or to hard labour.
These, Sir, are the measures which I am instructed by the committee to recommend to the House. I will close my observations by endeavouring to describe what appears to me, from the evidence before the committee, and from other sources, to be the general opinion of the public on this interesting and important subject. The number of the petitioners whose petitions are on our table, praying for a mitigation of the criminal law, exceeds 12,000. We have besides, the petitions of the corporations of London, of Norwich, of Portsmouth, &c. We have the petitions of numerous grand juries, and of a large portion of the clergy. But the petition from the city of London alone, speaking, as it does, the sentiments of the great majority of the metropolis, conveys the opinion and wishes of a much greater number of persons than those I have already mentioned. All the witnesses who have been examined before the committee concur in declaring that the severity of the law ought to be mitigated, and that such are the sentiments of the majority of those with whom they are acquainted. It is the deliberate opi-
1536
nion of the public at large. It is no popular clamour, likely to subside with the temporary cause which gives it voice. It is the well-grounded persuasion of that numerous and respectable class of society, to the soundness of whose sentiments I have endeavoured, however feebly, to do justice. It is the decided conviction of all, that it is impossible to execute the Jaws as they stand at present on our Statute book; and I am therefore justified in asserting, that there can by no possibility be any subject to which a wise legislature ought more speedily or more intensely to direct its attention. Sir, I move you that the report be printed [Loud cries of Hear, hear! followed this speech, which, during its delivery, was listened to by the House with profound attention].
The Report was ordered to be printed.

LORD E. FITZGERALD'S BILL.
A message from the Lords announced, that their lordships had passed a bill reversing the attainder on the late lord E. Fitzgerald.
Lord Castlereagh, in rising to propose that the House should agree to this measure without delay, expressed the gratification which he knew the illustrious individual in the exercise of regal authority in this country experienced at exercising the present gracious prerogative of sovereignty. It was highly gratifying to those who were connected with that part of the empire to which the measure especially referred, to contemplate that tranquil state which rendered the present proposition so advisable. He repeated, that it was highly gratifying to the illustrious representative of the sovereign to consult, by this act, the feelings of one of the most illustrious families of which the empire could boast; and to him (lord C) who, in his official character in Ireland, had been the painful witness of the circumstances out of which the proceeding that the proposed bill went to overturn arose, it was extremely gratifying to be the humble instrument of proposing to the House a measure, the adoption of which would, he trusted, assist in the consummation of that for which every good and honest mind must wishߞthe oblivion of all the circumstances in which the necessity for it originated.
Lord W. Fitzgeraldcould not refrain from expressing his sense of this gracious act on the part of his royal highness. It was a truly gracious and noble act, con-

1537
forcing the highest obligation on those who were connected with the objects of it. He could not sit down without acknowledging the kind and liberal manner in which ministers had carried into effect the commands of their royal master.
Sir F. Burdettcongratulated the House and the country on the introduction of the present bill, which he characterized as an act, which although one of justice, yet evinced a magnanimous feeling on the part of the Prince Regent, that entitled him to the warmest attachment and gratitude [Hear, hear!].
Mr. V. Fitzgeraldalso expressed his unequivocal approbation of the proposed measure.
The bill was read a first and second time.