tioned by time and by great names? The preamble of the bill stated, that the present law was ineffectual for its object. This the solicitor-general denied; the present law, he believed, was as effectual as any law could be. There might, no doubt, be cases, in which the injured declined to prosecute, from an aversion to bring afellow-mortal to an untimely end. But if the substitution of transportation for death might increase the number of prosecutions, it would also increase the number of forgeries; and thus the evil would still be augmented by the alteration. The object of punishment was the prevention of crimes. This bill proposed transportation as a punishment, which was to diminish the crime of forgery: was transportation likely to do so? The men who committed forgeries, were usually individuals in a distressed and embarrassed situation; but still in such a situation as rendered it probable, that the crime would be successful. A man in such circumstances, provided this bill were to pass into a law, would thus argue with himself:-" The punishment of the offence which I am now going to commit is only transportation; and in my circumstances, the change, which such a punishment will create in my habits and comforts, is scarcely to be deprecated; if I succeed and can effect my removal to another country, I shall live for the future in ease and affluence." For the House would recollect that the crime of forgery was one, by which not only a few pounds, but a large fortune might be acquired in an instant. Sir James Mackintosh had said, that he did not intend to make transportation the only punishment for forgery; for, in

some cases, he would have the of fender imprisoned and kept to hard labour. In reply to this argument, the solicitor-general urged, that there was no such punish. ment for any great crime in this country, as imprisonment and hard labour. What there might be hereafter, he could not tell; but, at present, it appeared, as if hard labour had always been considered by the legislature, as insufficient to deter from crime, especially when the crime was likely to be attended by great pecuniary advantages. The ques tion came ultimately to this"Has the hon. and learned gentleman, who introduced this bill, attached any penalty to the crime of forgery more efficacious than that which he is endeavouring to take away?" The solicitor-general contended that he had not, and therefore could not give his assent to the proposition. He was well aware, that, in other countries, the laws against forgery were not so severe as in England. But other countries had means of prevention which this country had not: other countries had means of detection and conviction, through the agency of their police, which this country had not, and which, he hoped to God, it would never have. In France and in other continental countries, private forgeries were not punished by death, but by the law of France, and by its system of police, which never could exist in a country with a constitution like our own, crimes could, in the first instance, be more effectually prevented than in England; and in the second, more easily detected; inasmuch as the individual charged with them was compelled, by a kind of

cross-examination, to confess his own guilt, which was never the case in England, except when an individual was unfortunately called to the bar of that House. No inference, then, ought to be drawn in favour of the present bill from the practice of foreign countries; and therefore unless his hon. and learned friend was prepared to inflict upon the crime of forgery some punishment already recognised by the law and the constitution, he would give his warmest opposition to the measure.

Mr. Buxton followed the solicitor-general (but did not attempt to reply to him) in a very elaborate speech, which dilated at great length on the general theory of penal codes, but did not state a single fact, or adduce a single argument, that bore directly upon the measure actually before the House. Dr. Lush ington spoke more to the purpose. The forgery of wills, he said, had been described as a very beinous offence; but it was also a very rare one. During a connexion of thirteen years with that court, before which all disputed wills must necessarily come, only three instances of forged wills had occurred, and in none of them had there been any prosecution. To forge a will was by no means an easy undertaking, particularly for the purpose of passing real property; because, in that case, it was necessary to forge not only the name of the testator, but also the names of three witnesses. The destruction of wills was a more dangerous crime. It was more easily effected, and it held out a much greater temptation. Any individual getting possession of an in

strument by which the property of a person recently deceased was devised, might, by destroying it, entirely frustrate the intention of the testator; and wills generally fell into the custody of those, who were more or less interested in the disposition of the property devised. Now, what was the punishment affixed to the perpetration of this crime? The House would be surprised to hear, that there was actually no punishment at all. Here, then, was a vacuity to be filled up in the criminal code; and he called on the attorney-general to introduce some measure for that purpose. It was a curious circumstance, that, dur ing the last thirteen years, exactly the same number of wills had been feloniously destroyed as had been forged, namely, three: so that the offence which had a punishment affixed to it, had been just as often committed, as that the perpetration of which was not visited by any penalty. The solicitor-general had laid considerable stress on the forgery of marriage-registers, and had said, "Surely you would not take away the punishment of death from that offence." He (Dr. Lushington) could not, however, find any instance of that offence, either before or since it had been made punishable with death. He could not, therefore, see any reason for making it a capital felony, except our extra. ordinary anxiety for the multiplication of capital punishments. The punishment of death did not, it was evident, produce that salutary terror,which some individuals supposed. It might produce a good effect to a certain degree; but the question was, whether that good was not overbalanced

by the perjury committed by juries, who acquitted prisoners of capital charges, rather than subject them to the severity of the law. Those who were favourable to an alteration in the system balanced these two points, and decided that the greatest portion of good would be derived from an alteration of the existing system. Mr. Nolan opposed the measure on the very narrow, but very strong principle, that the bill itself, admitted death to be the proper punishment of forgery, in one case for the first offence, and in all other cases, for the second offence. Lord Londonderry (lord Castlereagh had now by the decease of his father succeeded to that title) spoke on the same side, declaring that he could not yet make up his mind to so great a change in the law, but that he had not come to a final and permanent determination against it. The attorney-general followed on the same side, and Mr. Wilberforce and sir James Macintosh on the other. The House then divided, and it was carried by a majority of 44, that the bill should go into a committee; the Ayes being 118, and the Noes 74.

On the 25th of May, the report of the Forgery Punishment Mitigation Bill was received, and agreed to by the House. Sir James Macintosh said, that giving way to the opinion of others, he should move to omit from its provisions forgeries of wills, of marriage-registers and licences, and of transfers of stock, and to leave the law, inflicting the punishment of death for those offences, as it stood at present. He afterwards consented to except also country bank notes.

The third reading of the bill was

fixed for the 4th of June, when petitions against it were presented from the bankers of the metropolis, and also from the bankers of Bristol. In the debate, sir James Macintosh was not a little perplexed to defend both his bill and the exceptions which he had admitted into it. The forgery of paper of the Bank of England was, he said, an offence of more mischievous consequence than other forgeries, and was therefore excepted from the general principles of the bill. The exception was made, not for the protection of the Bank, because the Bank did not pay the forged notes, but for the protection of the public, into whose hands they came. This kind of paper passed through all hands; it was taken by the ignorant and inconsiderate; it was received in moments of haste and inadvertence; and by persons who had neither leisure nor knowledge to detect the forgery. No private forgery was under similar circumstances. Private negotiable securities came into the hands of individuals, who were accustomed to examine signatures, and who, therefore, could more easily discover the forgery. The reasoning which he had applied to notes of the Bank of England, applied likewise to country bank notes; and, therefore, he had extended the provision to the latter, as part of the circulating medium of the nation. Further than this, he could not go in his concessions; but he did not think, that, in going so far, he was introducing any arbitrary distinctions.

It is clear that sir James Macintosh here abandoned the great principle of those who co-operated with him on this occasion; name

ly, that capital punishment was not so sure a means of repressing crime, as other modes that might be devised. The whole question was, How will unprincipled men be most effectually deterred from forgery? It was admitted, that in certain cases where the good of society requires the most vigilant suppression of the offence, death must be inflicted: the fear of death was therefore allowed to be the best security against the crime.

After a keen debate, in which the attorney-general and Mr. Denman participated, the House divided. The Ayes were, 109; the Noes, 102; which gave a majority of 7 for the bill. After the division, Mr. Brougham stated, that, as lord Londonderry had thought proper to make the bill, even in this last stage, a subject of division and debate, he felt himself called on to say, that he agreed with his learned friend, and only regretted with him some of the exceptions which had been intro duced into the bill. He should heartily rejoice to find the bill receive the final sanction of that House; and he hoped it would elsewhere meet with the respectful attention, to which a bill that had undergone such ample consideration was entitled.

On the question being put, "that this bill do pass,"

The Marquis of Londonderry rose and signified his intention of opposing it.

Sir James Macintosh objected most strongly 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 was taken upon the question, that "the bill do now pass."

The numbers were

For the bill, 114; against it, 120; majority against it, 6.

The bill was thus lost.

The bills taking away capital punishment from the offences of stealing in dwelling-houses and on navigable rivers, passed the Commons, but in consequence of the opposition of the lord chancellor, were lost in the House of Peers.

Mr. Martin, of Galway, attempted another improvement of our criminal code, by introducing a bill for allowing the benefit of counsel to persons accused of felony. The second reading of the bill was moved on the 30th of March. The solicitor-general opposed it, alleging, that it would operate to the injury of the very individuals, whom it was meant to serve. He contended, that the judges were not only, in point of law, counsel for a prisoner, but that they were so substantially, entirely, and often astutely. If the bill passed, the prisoner would lose this advantage; for it would then become the duty of the judge to detect the sophistry and expose the fallacy of the arguments which might be used by counsel in his behalf. Besides, as the law now stood, counsel for a prosecution, knowing that the prisoner's counsel could not speak