BILL FOR CAPITAL PUNISHMENT IN CASES OF FORGERY.
On the 1st of April Mr. Peel brought in a bill to alter the law in cases of forgery. The principal object of this bill was to abrogate partially the capital punishment which had so long been affixed to almost every branch of this offence. Thus he proposed to remit the capital punishment in all those cases where serious doubts attended its infliction, and where the complainants by due caution could have saved themselves—such as forging receipts for money, orders for the delivery of goods, forging stamps, uttering forged stamps, attempting to defraud by issuing forged orders for goods, the fabrication of the material of Bank of England paper, and forging deeds and bonds. Capital punishment was still retained in all forgeries of the great seal, privy seal, and sign-manual; in forgeries of wills, on the public funds, on bank or money notes, or orders for the payment of money; and, in a word, of all documents which represent money, and are negotiable and transferable for it. This bill did not meet with the views of a strong party in the house, who thought that the punishment of death should not be inflicted in any cases of forgery, nor extended to any offence short of murder. On the third reading of the bill, Sir James Mackintosh moved a clause repealing the punishment of death in all cases of forgery, except that of the forgery of wills. It also provided that any person against whom a conviction of forgery should pass should lie in prison, either with or without hard labour, at home for the space of fourteen years, or if sent abroad to a penal colony, should be transported for any term not exceeding that number of years. He further proposed to give, not only the power of inflicting either of these punishments, but also that of accumulating both whenever the circumstances of the case should be so atrocious as to deserve the greatest severity. He proposed, likewise, to vest a power in the crown, authorising it to treat all persons convicted of forgery in such a manner as would mark forgery as an offence of a blacker dye than any other which was not directed against life. Finally, to meet the objection that the importance of employing persons of education in the public service in new and remote colonies would lead, first to the pardon, and then to the employment in public situations of such persons convicted of forgery, he proposed to take away all power of remitting or relaxing the punishment of forgery, except by a representation to the king of the grounds on which it was proposed to remit it, and by a remission of it by the king at home. This clause was carried, and Mr. Peel thereupon relinquished all charge of the bill, hinting at the same time that the house would probably regret the decision to which it had come. On its introduction in the lords, therefore, the lord chancellor declared himself against so sweeping a repeal of the capital punishment, and moved that the bill should be restored to the state in which it had originally been introduced into the house of commons. His views were supported by Lords Tenterden, Wynford, and Eldon. The amendment of the lord chancellor was carried by a large majority; and although when the bill was returned to the commons those who supported Sir James Mackintosh’s amendment complained that the lords had improperly treated them, the lord chancellor’s amendment was finally agreed to, and the bill passed.
BILL FOR AMENDING THE LAW OF LIBEL.
In a previous article certain state prosecutions for libel have been noticed. These prosecutions, and the conduct of the attorney-general in promoting them, were brought before the house of commons by Sir Charles Wetherell, on a motion for copies of the proceedings on the three ex officio informations against the proprietor of a London newspaper. As the motion was merely for the production of papers, and the attorney-general was willing that the papers should be produced, there was no debate, but the general impression of the house seemed to be that the prosecutions were harsh and vindictive, and that Sir James Scarlett, notwithstanding his Whig education and opposition life, was inclined to be a very dictatorial attorney-general. Sir James attempted to recover the favour of the house by a bill to mitigate in some respects the laws of libel as they existed in what were called the Six Acts. By one of these acts it was provided that a second conviction for a seditious or blasphemous libel might be punished with transportation; and another set forth that every person who should publish a newspaper, or certain other publications, should first enter into a recognizance of three hundred pounds, with two sufficient securities, in the metropolis, or of two hundred pounds, if in the country. The object of this clause was to guard against the circulation of blasphemous and seditious libels, and to ensure a forthcoming fund, out of which their authors should pay the awarded penalty. By the bill now introduced the punishment for the second offence was to be repealed, and the securities demanded raised from three to four hundred pounds in London, and from two to three hundred pounds in the country. To the first of these propositions there was no objection; but a strenuous opposition was made to the second, to adopt which, it was said, would be imposing new shackles on the press. When the bill was in committee the clause was rejected on a motion by Lord Morpeth; but on the third reading, the attorney-general having collected a more numerous attendance of ministerial members, moved and carried its restoration.
ALTERATIONS IN COURTS OF JUSTICE.
Committees of the house of commons, and the law-commissioners appointed by the crown, had recently found much to blame in the arrangements for the distribution of justice in Wales. In consequence of this an act was passed during the present session abolishing the separate system of Welsh judicature, and annexing the jurisdiction of the Welsh judges to that of the judges of England. By the same bill the number of puisne judges was increased from twelve to fifteen—a new one being added to each of the courts of king’s bench, common pleas, and exchequer. In Scotland, on the other hand, while courts were abolished, the number of judges in the remaining court was diminished by the subtraction of two from its fifteen lords ordinary, or working judges, on whose ability to get through the work depends whether the eight other judges, who sit four and four in two courts of review, shall have judgments brought before them.