MITIGATION OF CAPITAL PUNISHMENT TO FORGERS.
(Vol. iv., p. 434., &c.)
I have asked many questions, and turned over many volumes and files of newspapers, to get at the real facts of the cases of mitigation stated in "N. & Q." Having winnowed the chaff as thoroughly as I could, I send the very few grains I have found. Those only who have searched annual registers, magazines, and journals for the foundation of stories defective in names and dates, will appreciate my difficulties.
I have not found any printed account of the "Jeannie Deans" case, "N. & Q.," Vol. iv., p. 434.; Vol. v., p. 444.; Vol. vi., p. 153. I have inquired of the older members of the Northern Circuit, and they never heard of it. Still a young man may have been convicted of forgery "about thirty-five years ago:" his sister may have presented a well-signed petition to the judges, and the sentence may have been commuted without the tradition surviving on the circuit. All however agree, that no man who ever sat on the bench deserved the imputation of "obduracy" less than Baron Graham. I should not have noticed the anecdote but for its mythic accompaniments, which I disposed of in "N. & Q.," Vol. v., p. 444.
In Vol. vi., p. 496., W. W. cites from Wade's British History:
"July 22, 1814. Admiral William B——y found guilty of forging letters to defraud the revenue. He was sentenced to death, which was commuted to banishment."
The case is reported in The Sun, July 25, 1814; and the subsequent facts are in The Times, July 30, and August 16 and 20. It was tried before Mr. Justice Dampier at the Winchester Summer Assizes. There were five bills against the prisoner for forgery, and one for a fraud. That on which he was convicted, was for defrauding the post-master of Gosport of 3l. 8s. 6d. He took to the post-office a packet of 114 letters, which he said were "ship letters," from the "Mary and Jane." He received the postage, and signed the receipt "W. Johnstone." The letters were fictitious. The case was fully proved, and he received sentence of death. He was respited for a fortnight, and afterwards during the pleasure of the Prince Regent. He was struck off the list of retired
rear-admirals. It was proved at the trial, that, in 1809, he commanded "The Plantagenet;" but, from the unsettled state of his mind, the command had been given up to the first lieutenant, and that he was shortly after superseded. This, and the good character he received, were probably held to excuse the pardon.
I now come to the great case of George III. and Mr. Fawcett. I much regret that Whunside has not replied in your pages to my question (Vol. vii., p. 163.), as I could then have commented upon the facts, and his means of knowing them, with more freedom. I have a private communication from him, which is ample and candid. He objects to bring his name before the public, and I have no right to press that point. He is not quite certain as to the convict's name, but can procure it for me. He would rather that it should not be published, as it might give pain to a respectable family. Appreciating the objection, and having no use for it except to publish, I have declined to ask it of him.
The case occurred in 1802 or 1803, when Whunside was a pupil of Mr. Fawcett. He says: