Sitting of 4 June 1821

FORGERY PUNISHMENT MITIGATION BILL.
On the order of the day for the third reading of this bill.
Sir J. Mackintoshsaid, that from the objections which had been made to this measure, he felt it necessary to submit a few observations to the House. He should endeavour to state, as briefly as possible, the changes which this bill proposed to enact—the principles upon which those
1100
changes rested—with the nature and the grounds of the exceptions which he had been urged to introduce into the bill, and the grounds upon which he felt it his duty to oppose any further exceptions. It was of course competent to any gentleman to propose such exceptions as he thought proper in the present condition of the bill. He did not mean to overstate the case when he said, that the House, in agreeing to the second reading and the committal of this bill, had done what was tantamount to a resolution, that it was expedient to mitigate the punishment of forgery. But this was not the first occasion in which that House had borne testimony to the principle, that the mitigation of punishment was the best mode of preventing crime; for by the 52nd of the late king, no less than eight capital felonies were repealed with respect to the collection of the revenue, all those offences being made clergiable, and experience had since proved the success of the measure for the object which the legislature had in view. Again, we had the experience of the law with respect to bleaching grounds, which was so amply and ably stated by his hon. friend (Mr. Buxton) on a former evening, and which, by abating punishment, had served to prevent crime. But a farther recognition of this principle was afforded by the legislature, in the repeal of some capital felonies, connected with bankruptcy, within the last session. It was, indeed, a happy omen, that within the first year of the present reign of Geo. 4th, more capital felonies had been repealed than within the reign of any monarch since that of Edward 1st, and he had no doubt whatever that this fact would be much more honoured hereafter than many other things which had occupied a larger space of public observation. But he had a farther and a high authority in support of his principle which must operate with peculiar force. It had been observed, that the advocates for the mitigation of punishment were actuated by weak or womanish feeling. But he apprehended that no such feeling could be ascribed to a religious persecutor, who, indeed, least of all other tyrants, was likely to evince any tenderness for his victims. Upon that horrid breach of faith and humanity, the revocation of the edict of Nantz by Louis 14th, which condemned so many protestants to a dungeon; it was also ordained by the tyrant, that any one who should attempt to escape

1101
from a prison or from France should be guilty of a capital crime. This tyranny was consummated, any Protestant who avowed his religion being consigned to a prison, while such as attempted to seek safety in flight, were consigned to the scaffold. But the latter edict was repealed the very year after it was issued, and the punishment of death commuted for that of a sentence to the galleys. No effeminacy of feeling could surely be imputed to Louis 14th, especially towards the Protestants. But the cause for the mitigation of the punishment was distinctly stated in the edict by which it was decreed. It was because the punishment of working in the galleys was deemed more efficient to prevent the flight of marines and artisans, and because prosecutors and witnesses could not be found to come forward while the more severe punishment remained. He could not, he thought, appeal to a higher authority than this in support of his principle. Had the government, indeed, been better, the authority would have been worse; for, where all the malignant ingenuity of despotism was notoriously exercised to prevent what it deemed an offence, experience served to show that the laws were most impotent where they were most severe.—The hon. and learned gentleman here proceeded to observe upon the exceptions to the principle of his bill, which he had been induced to bring forward. But before he entered into those exceptions, he expressed a hope that no one would attempt to maintain that exceptions to the principle of any legislative measure amounted to any thing like an abandonment of that principle; for no man could consistently argue, that a moral principle should be deemed as fixed and unchangeable as a geometrical proposition—for any moral principle must, in legislation, admit of modifications, according to the opinions, the passions, the prejudices, and the habits of mankind. Even in an arbitrary government its decrees must occasionally bend to the prejudices or impressions of great bodies of people; and it would ill become any men legislating for a free nation to disregard any prevalent notions. To such notions, then, he felt it his duty to concede. But no one could expect to carry any measure in a country like this, without some concession to the opinions of others. He regretted the necessity of making the exceptions to the principle of this bill, which he had been urged to pro-
1102
pose; for, according to his own opinion, the better course would be the universal adoption of his principle. It was not for him, however, to discard the opinion of those who were willing to cooperate with him to a certain extent, particularly where such co-operation: was essential to the attainment of any portion of success. Now as to the exceptions which he had proposed: the paper of the Bank of England was excepted from the operation of the law, not for the sake of the Bank of England, because they never paid their forged notes, but for the sake of the community, because their paper circulated through the hands of the poorest and most negligent persons, who had no opportunity of protecting themselves against the consequences of such forgery by caution and examination. There was no case of private forgery which bore any resemblance to this offence, with respect to the consequences which resulted from it. The paper of the Bank of England passed through the hands of the whole community without distinction, whereas private negociable securities passed, for the most part, through the hands of men of opulence, who were professionally trained to the exercise of the greatest vigilance and acuteness in their examination. This was a broad and striking distinction between the forgery of the circulating paper of the kingdom, and the forgery of private securities. The same arguments were applicable to country bank notes, inasmuch as the whole body of the country bank notes constituted a general circulating medium. He was aware that a petition had that day been presented on the part of the bankers of London and Westminster, praying the House to make no difference in the punishment for forgery on the Bank of England, and the forgery of private securities. He denied, however, that this petition was to be considered as a petition against the bill. There was nothing in its colour or character which opposed the present bill; on the contrary, its prayer would be satisfied if the punishment of death were abolished altogether. Nor did he rest here, for he had a positive assurance that the opinion of many gentlemen who had subscribed their names to this petition was favourable to the total abolition of the punishment of death. Another circumstance worthy of observation was the silence of these petitioners upon one important fact, namely,

1103
that a great majority of the cases of private forgery went unpunished, in consequence of the severity of the existing laws. It had been said, that the persons who now carried on the infamous trade of forging Bank notes, were likely to turn themselves to the forgery of private securities, upon the small notes being withdrawn from circulation. But what had the manufacture of Bank paper to do with the forgery of private securities? How was an ignorant Birmingham ruffian to become acquainted with the handwriting of eminent bankers, and to acquire a knowledge of those peculiarities which would enable him to forge private securities? The forgery of such instruments was not founded upon a mere knowledge pf the hand-writing of the drawer or acceptor, but upon a knowledge of all the circumstances connected with commercial transactions, which it was impossible for such obscure and miserable ruffians to acquire. Was it likely that if persons of this description attempted to pay away a bill, any man would receive it without making the most rigid scrutiny as to the means by which they came by it? Or, admitting that any man could be so careless of his own interests, was the House to be called upon to guard such negligence by the gallows? He was ready, for the reasons which he had stated, to put country bank notes upon the same footing as Bank of England notes; but there was no ground whatever for extending the exception to private securities. With regard to wills, he was ready to include them in the exception; for these instruments stood not upon principle, but upon circumstances peculiar to themselves. There were two peculiarities which distinguished these instruments; one, that in case of their forgery, the best and most conclusive witness could not be produced, from the very nature of the crime, and the other, that from the same cause no human caution could guard against it. He should except wills, for the reason which he had stated to the House, and he was ready to put the forgery of certificates of marriage registers upon the same footing. With respect to that part of the bill, however, which related to uttering forged notes, he would make no concession. The state of the law, with regard to the punishment for uttering, he could not but regard as one of the most unfortunate occurrences in the administration of justice. To remove
1104
the confusion and uncertainty which now prevailed, it was necessary to make the offence of uttering no longer subject to discretion, but to positive rule; to reduce crimes to classes, and to deal with those classes by positive enactments, instead of legislating at discretion. He admitted that some cases of uttering might be of an aggravated character, but there were many also of a most alleviated description, and the only criterion capable of being reduced to a rule, would be to make a second conviction only subject to the exception. It was necessary at once to do away with that anomaly in the administration of justice, by which the prerogative of mercy was transferred from the Crown to the Bank of England, and he was persuaded that that corporation would be glad to be relieved from the exercise of so painful, so invidious, and so unpopular a discretion. The present state of the law had surrounded the offence of forgery with a sort of compassion, which did not naturally belong to it, and which extended to the wholesale manufacturer, as well as to the poor man who was, almost, innocently drawn into the, offence of uttering a forged note. For these reasons he was anxious to divest the higher crime of that aid, and to separate the two offences by a clear and accurately defined barrier. With regard to the punishment, he was willing to substitute imprisonment and hard labour for transportation, in compliance with the suggestions of gentlemen, for whose opinions he entertained a great respect, though he was far from being convinced of the utter inefficacy of the punishment of transportation. There could be no difficulty, he apprehended, in rendering the punishment of imprisonment and hard labour, either on shore or in the hulks, sufficiently terrible. Public labour had been suggested as a desirable expedient, but that was a punishment to which, he thought, recourse ought not to be had, except in the case of irreclaimable criminals. At present there were fourteen utterers of forged notes annually executed; and supposing the crime to continue the same, that legislature must indeed be barren of expedients, and ignorant of the elements of the science of legislation, if they could not contrive to make the punishment of imprisonment and hard labour sufficiently terrible to fourteen persons annually convicted of the crime of uttering.
The Attorney Generalsaid, that so far

1105
were the amendments from removing his objections to the bill, that they had confirmed them. So little reliance did his hon. and learned friend place on his own principles, that he had surrendered them, so far as forgeries on the Bank of England and on country banks were concerned. Why did the exception not extend to the bills of exchange of country banks as well as to their promissory notes? The principle which his learned friend wished to introduce into the administration of the criminal law could not be sustained. Instead of a bill like the present, his better way would be, to call on the House to sanction enactments, excepting certain cases of forgery from capital punishment. His learned friend contended that the capital punishment awarded in cases of forgery had not been effectual in preventing that crime. This he denied; and he was well convinced that had the punishment been less, the crime would have greatly increased. The case of his learned friend rested mainly on the forgery of one-pound notes; but certainly it was a strange time to alter the law on this subject, when notes of that description were withdrawn from circulation. His learned friend had argued that the first and the only good end of punishment was, the reformation of the offender. To a certain extent this was a great object, but he submitted that there was one still greater, namely, the prevention of crime. His learned friend, in illustrating his argument, had referred particularly to the crime of stealing in bleaching-grounds, and to the capital offence of a bankrupt not surrendering his effects. But it was evident that he did not argue from experience, but on a principle which he had himself previously laid down. His learned friend had said on a former occasion, "If you repeal the capital punishment, in cases where a bankrupt conceals his effects, you will find that individuals will not be slow to prosecute for that offence." But the experience of the last year proved the contrary. He had no doubt that as many fraudulent bankruptcies had occurred in that, as in almost any preceding period; but no prosecution had taken place. Again, his learned friend had argued, that the certainty of punishment would produce a diminution of crime. Experience also proved this to be incorrect; for there had been recently more prosecutions at one sessions in the county of Lancaster for
1106
stealing in bleaching-grounds, than had ever before been known. It appeared, that the offence, instead of being checked, had increased under the new system. Neither of these instances went to support his learned friend's proposition. His learned friend would admit of no alteration in his bill with respect to the punishment to be inflicted for the crime of uttering; but at the same time he admitted that in some instances the utterer was as culpable as the forger—where, for instance, an individual came from Birmingham, loaded with fraudulent paper. Now he (the attorney-general) could not recognize these excepted cases. He was legislating for a class, leaving it to others, before whom the different cases might come, to distinguish between the various shades of guilt. The principle of British legislation had always been to impose on great crimes the highest punishment, and not to provide for variations in the offence. Of course, cases might occur which called for a mitigation of the law's severity; but those who were most competent to judge, were left to decide on those cases. He would, for instance, refer to the crime of burglary. This was an offence which on the first blush every man would admit ought to be punished with death. But there was in the offence as many degrees as could well be conceived. How vast was the difference between the case of a man forcibly entering a house at night and taking away property, and that of a boy thrusting his hand through a window and stealing a watch! The law declared each to be a burglarious breaking, and each was punishable capitally, subject to the peculiar circumstances which appeared on the trial. How, he asked, were these variations of crime to be met? It was impossible that they could have a minute scale of punishment, to meet every shade of offence; and, therefore, it was better to leave the power of discrimination in the hands of the executive government. He would ask whether this system in practice had not worked well, and did not at present work well? In his opinion, the law as it at present stood was much more efficacious than it would be if the proposed alteration were made. And he thought so for this reason:—at present those who were convicted were sure of being transported or imprisoned; superadded to which was the dread that death, the heaviest of all punishments, might be inflicted

1107
on them. He did not understand the workings of the human mind, if the man who was certain of imprisonment in case, he was found guilty, superadded to Which certainty there was the chance of death, would not be less likely to commit an offence than he who was assured that he could only be imprisoned. Now, with respect to the punishment to be awarded to the utterers of forged notes, it must be observed, that those who were the actual forgers of those notes were very rarely detected. He recollected but few instances, one of which occurred recently at Warwick, where such a discovery took place. What, then, was to be done? Where the principal could not be discovered, surely it was wise to affix a capital punishment on him who was next in guilt. His learned friend wished to punish in a particular way the first offence. But it should not be forgotten, that there might be three or four charges of the same nature against the same individual, who though he seemed to be a novice in crime, might perhaps be an experienced offender. There were many anomalies in the bill, which, he conceived, his learned friend could not reconcile. Why, for instance, did he except transfers of stock, and not dividend warrants, from the operation of his bill? If all the exceptions which he had introduced were admitted, the principle of the bill was at an end. His learned friend had observed, that on an average of the last seven years only 14 persons had been annually executed for forgery, and he inferred that the country would only have to provide for that number if the punishment were hard labour and imprisonment. But it was not merely the number of those who were executed, but of those who were convicted, that must be taken into consideration, and in that case it would be found that 170 or 180 persons must be provided for. What would be the consequence? They would be obliged to build a prison, which would be denominated a bastile, and which would be execrated in every part of England, for the security of those individuals. It was clear that this must be done, for the prisons throughout the country, in their present state, would not admit of such an accession of numbers. Moreover, this measure went to introduce a punishment unknown to the law of this country—imprisonment and hard labour for ten years. For this and other reasons be should move as amendment, "That
1108
this bill be read a third time this day six months."
Mr. Denmansaid, if he was not convinced of the injurious tendency of the measure now under consideration by the acute and ingenious speech of his learned friend the attorney-general, it did not proceed from his not having paid due attention to all the arguments which he had urged in opposition to it. He had carefully canvassed every part of the measure; and he could declare, with the most clear conscience, that in his mind, every objection which had been raised against the bill had been completely removed in the course of the different discussions to which it had given rise. Unless he had been satisfied of the safety, expediency, and he would almost say necessity of the measure, no feeling of friendship nor sentiment of partiality should have induced him to support it. The attorney-general had said, "Here is an admission made—here is a concession granted; even the advocates of the bill are compelled to abandon the ground on which it originally rested." Now he would state that he did not abandon any portion of the measure, except from absolute necessity. He took all he could obtain, and he took it thankfully; but he regretted that he could not procure the whole of what he desired. He acted from a principle of expediency, because he should be sorry if, in consequence of opposition, the success of the measure, as it at present stood, were put in peril. Therefore he gave up points from which otherwise he would not recede. The attorney-general had asserted that it was a constant principle of the English law to decree the highest possible punishment to any class of crime, the most flagrant instances of which could alone justify the infliction of that punishment. He protested against this, doctrine. He could find no such principle in the common law of England—although it might be perceived in the conflicting and contradictory enactments of the legislature, founded on temporary circumstances. It had been argued, that severity of punishment prevented crime, because it struck a salutary terror into the minds of bad men. He, however, thought otherwise: it appeared to him that excessive punishment struck terror into the minds, not of offenders, but of those who were injured, and whom it prevented from prosecuting. Those who saw the necessity of an alteration, in the law did not act

1109
upon visionary, wild, or fantastic notions, but proceeded on the opinions of men perfectly conversant with all the bearings of the subject. When he said this, he would refer to the report of the committee, and to the evidence on which it was founded. If, after reading that evidence, any sort of doubt was entertained as to the expediency of altering the law, it showed that sort of blindness to practical truths, which could only be accounted for by an admiration felt by some persons of every thing which had long existed. The bankers of London came forward and stated that they did not like to prosecute while the culprit was liable to be visited with the punishment of death. When men of such respectability stated this, the question in his mind was decided. To permit the law to remain in its present state, was, under such circumstances, an encouragement to forgery. With respect to the punishment to be attached to the forgery of country bank notes, he thought it would be wrong if it were not the same as that which was annexed to the forgery of those of the Bank of England; because, otherwise, a sort of premium would be held out for the forgery of country notes. But with regard to the forgery of promissory notes, bills of exchange, &c, the question there referred to a matter of hand-writing. It had nothing to do with the introduction of that manufacture, which appeared to have been carried on at Birmingham. It was confined to the individual; and the offence might be in a great measure prevented by a little additional attention. With respect to the punishment, he approved of the certainty of imprisonment and hard labour: but he could not agree with the hon. member for Shrewsbury, that transportation was no punishment. He thought that they had authorities on this subject which they ought to bow to. For his own part, if he had only the authority of his hon. friend near him (Mr. Buxton), whose great exertions of talent, whose industry and humanity, were so conspicuously shown on this occasion, he should be satisfied. They had, besides, the testimony of practical men, whose evidence had not been contradicted; and these considerations united, were with him conclusive. More of wisdom, more of benevolence, more of practical demonstration, he had never witnessed in the course of his parliamentary career, than in the energetic speech of his hon. friend near him. Never, he was sure, did the spirit
1110
of Christianity display itself in a public assembly with an effect more beautiful. It was not called into life with the intention of puffing off its own Pharisaical purity; but it was placed before them in the true spirit of the Scripture, to lead men "to do justice, to love mercy, and walk humbly," with the common father of mankind. It was to him a matter of great satisfaction to have the opportunity of paying this honest and well-deserved tribute to the splendid address of his hon. friend, the member for Weymouth.
Mr. Dentobserved, that the bill was considered an experiment. Now the term experiment implied a doubt of success, and in this case a failure would be productive of much greater evils than those which the measure was intended to remedy.
Mr. Wilmotsaid, he would bore opposed the bill if the anomalous distinction between forgery on the Bank of England and forgery on country banks and private individuals had not been removed. Adverting to the punishment of transportation, he observed that every body allowed that it was practically inoperative. It was an additional reason with him, therefore, in voting for this bill, that it would compel the legislature to look out for some secondary punishment more effectual. He thought nothing so likely to deter from crime as the punishment of hard labour for a term of years, combined with as plain and moderate food as was consistent with the support of life.
Mr. Marryatthought the exceptions in the bill were subversive of all fairness and justice; seeing that, they negotiable securities of the Bank land on a different footing from any private or country banker.
Mr. John Smithbelieved that the severity of punishment had been one great cause of the increase of crime; because it restrained people from prosecuting. It would be very difficult, however, to show why the Bank of England should be protected in preference to other bankers. He thought, on the contrary, that the Bank had almost less pretence to such an exclusive advantage than any other set of individuals. The notes of the country banks were better executed and less easily imitated than those of the Bank of England.
Mr. Pearsethought it would be great advantage if the seller of forged notes could be punished by the operation of this bill. He was not for severely punish-

1111
ing the utterer or buyer of the notes, because he was generally poor and miserable, and the dupe of the seller. With respect to the forgery of one-pound Bank of England notes, that was a crime likely to cease with the issue of those notes. But whether crimes of a different nature would not rise up in its stead (he meant the counterfeiting of the coinage, increased robberies, &c.) he could not venture to predict.
Mr. Millsthought that this bill was forward at a most inauspicious time. The persons who had been long accustomed to forge would not be idle; but would go on, and profit of the interval that must elapse before any of these provisions could be finally enacted by parliament.
Mr. Lockhartopposed the exceptions in favour of the Bank, and dwelt on the increased risks to which they would subject the country bankers and others.
Mr. Baringbelieved that the crime of forgery was carried on to a greater extent in this country than in all the rest of civilized Europe. There must be therefore something wrong in the present law. It had been contended that the punishment of death was not safely to be dispensed with. In Holland, however—a country where the people were very conversant with all matters that regarded the security of their private interests, and the interest of the state—the crime of forgery was not punished with death; in Hamburgh it was not so punishable; in the French commercial code death was not the punishment attached to it. In assimilating the law of this kingdom to the law of the greater portion of the civilized world, the House consequently need not apprehend that inundation of forgeries which had been denounced as the immediate effect of such a measure. The punishment at present decreed by our law was either transportation or death. Transportation in many cases, however, so far from being an effective punishment, was an event much desired, and as to the punishment of death, it had been proved by experience that the dread of it would never effectually operate to deter from the commission of the crime. Desperate men who were reduced to such an extremity, were very willing to put their lives to hazard. Yet these very men might look at the punishment of six or ten years' hard labour, as one which they must sink under. As to the bill, he could
1112
not see any good reasons for the exceptions; but he should still vote for it. It might not go so far as might perhaps be desirable, but it was calculated to do a great deal of good.
Mr. Hart Daviswould oppose the bill, unless a distinction were made between bills of exchange and bankers checks. The latter were more easily forged, and therefore to that offence the capital punishment should still attach.
Mr. T. Wilsonstated the object of the merchants and bankers in presenting a petition. The petitioners conceived that mercantile property was entitled to the same protection as the bank of England.
Mr. Harbordsaid, he would vote, for the third reading, protesting, however, against the exceptions which had been introduced.
Mr. R. Martincontended that all forgers, if asked in a body, whether they would rather have the punishment of death with all its chances of escape, than the certainty of hard labour for ten years to be the law, would answer in the affirmative. He had lately been in a coffee-house where a person had been pointed out to him as one who had prosecuted a friend for forgery. The friend had been hanged, and this person was regarded by every one with execration. He knew many who had prosecuted for forgery, and who would lament it to the day of their death. In Ireland the forging of a will was not a capital felony, and it did not occur more frequently there than in England.
The House divided: Ayes, 117; Noes 111. The bill was then read a third time.

List of the Majority.

Abercromby, hon. J.

Clifton, visct.

Allen, J. H.

Coffin, sir I.

Bent, John

Concannon, L.

Burrell, sir C.

Crespigny, sir W. D.

Benett, John

Crompton, Sam.

Belgrave, visct.

Calvert, N.

Bentinck, lord W.

Cholmeley, sir M.

Blair, J. H.

Cherry, G. H.

Burrell, Walter

Crawley, Sam.

Barham, J. F.

Child, W. L.

Barham, J. V. jun.

Cripps, Jos.

Baring, H.

Courtenay, W.

Barnard, visct.

Davies, T. H.

Becher, W. W.

Denman, T.

Benyon, Benj.

Denison, W. J.

Bernal, Ralph

Dundas, hon. T.

Byng, Geo.

Duncannon, visct.

Baring, Alex.

Deerhurst, visct.

Chaloner, Robt.

Ebrington, visct.

Calcraft, John

Evans, W.

Calvert, C.

Ellison, C.

Carter, J.

Fitzroy, lord J.

1113

Folkestone, lord

Palmer, C. F.

Fleming, J.

Parnell, sir H.

Forbes, C.

Price, R.

Gordon, R.

Ricardo, David

Grattan, John

Rice, J. S.

Graham, Sandford

Robarts, G.

Grain, J. P.

Robinson, sir G.

Grenfell, P.

Rowley, sir W.

Griffiths, J. W.

Rumbold, C.

Gaskell, B.

Russell, lord J.

Gladstone, John

Russell, lord W.

Haldimand, W.

Smith, J.

Hamilton, lord A.

Smith, Wm.

Harbord, hon. E.

Smith, R.

Heron, sir R.

Scarlett, J.

Hobhouse, J. C.

Stopford, lord

Hume, Jos.

Sebright, sir J.

Hurst, R.

Taylor, M. A.

Hutchinson, hon. C.

Tierney, rt. hon. G.

Hare, R.

Tennyson, C.

Hamilton, sir H. D.

Warre, J. A.

Knox, hon. T.

Western, C. C.

Lennard, T. B.

Whitbread, W. H.

Lushington, S.

Whitbread, S. C.

Littleton, Ed.

Williams, W.

Legh, J. H.

Wilson, sir R.

Maberly, W. L.

Wyvill, M.

Macdonald, Jas.

Wynn, C. W.

Mackintosh, sir J.

Ward, hon. J. W.

Maxwell, J.

Wellesley, Rd.

Milbank, M.

Westhenra, hon. H.

Milton, visct.

Wortley, J. S.

Monck, J. B.

Whitmore, W. W.

Marjoribanks, S.

Wilmot, R.

Martin, John

Newport, rt. hon. sir J.

TELLERS.

Nugent, lord

Buxton, T. F.

Old, W.

Bennet, hon. H. G.

Ossulston, lord

Mr. Crippsthen moved to except out of the bill "any promissory note, bill of exchange, or order for the payment of money drawn by, or upon, or made payable by any banker or bankers."
Mr. Baringsaid the clause proposed would include every bill in commercial transactions. If the House admitted this clause, the bill might as well be thrown out altogether.
Dr. Lushingtonsaid, he was desired to mention to the House that a banking-house of the greatest eminence had lost 10,000 l. by forgeries, and preferred to sustain the loss rather than prosecute. The words of the letter he had received on this subject were:—"If the punishment of death is continued, we are put out of the pale of the law; we will not prosecute, and we cannot protect our property."
The House divided: For the Amendment 109. Against it 102. On the question, "that the bill do pas," the marquis
1114
of Londonderry signified his intention of taking the sense of the House upon it.
Mr. Broughamsaid, he heartily agreed in the principle of the House, he hoped it would be received elsewhere with that attention which was due to a measure which bead undergone so much consideration. He regretted that the noble lord had made that stage of the bill the cause of division and debate.
Sir J. Mackintoshstrongly objected to this manœuvre of the noble lord, observing that many of the friends of the bill had quitted the House, in the persuasion that no further opposition was intended. Since he had sat in parliament he said he had never known so unworthy a manœuvre practised. Sir James ended by moving "that the House do now adjourn," and after a warm discussion, in which Mr. Brougham, lord John Russell, and lord Londonderry took part, the two former-representing the proceeding as a parliamentary stratagem; a division took place on the question. "That the Bill do pass." Ayes 115. Noes 121. The Bill was consequently lost.