In reference to a certain decrease in the number of prosecuted forgeries of late years, on which Sir Robert PEEL laid great stress, as proving in his estimation the efficacy of the existing laws, his Lordship says what it would severely task the Right Hon. Secretary's ingenuity to meet with an effective reply. Here are his words, to which we entreat the advocates of sanguinary punishment to give their earnest attention :'Although forgeries may have become less frequent of late ' years, in consequence of the resumption of cash payments, or 'from other causes, such recent diminution of that species of guilt cannot be reasonably attributed to the terror of a punish'ment which has subsisted and been in force for nearly a century— 'which, at present, in seven cases out of eight, is not inflicted-and ' which, when sternly and rigorously enforced, failed to produce any 'such diminution. We were therefore unwilling too hastily to 'infer the efficacy of severity from any recent or accidental dimi'nution of the offence; and we were confirmed in withholding our 'assent to such precipitate reasoning, by reflecting that forgeries ́ have often been, and still continue to be, more frequent in this country than they were before the punishment of death was 'annexed to that crime.'-(Third ground of dissent.)

6

6

The passages which we have quoted, and indeed the whole of the Protest,' display that power of reasoning, equally exact and comprehensive, which is truly characteristic of a mind adapted by nature and intelligence to the labours of enlightened legislation.* This Protest affords an addi

*The following is Lord HOLLAND's Protest against the passing of the Law of Forgeries Bill:-

'Dissentient-First,-Because the Bill, &c. (See text, p.62.) Second,-Because no proof has been adduced, and there is no ground for suspecting, that the crime of forgery has grown to 'be "enormous, frequent, and dangerous," which are the circum'stances required by Sir Matthew HALE to justify a lawgiver in annexing a punishment, and even death, "beyond the demerit of 'the offence itself, simply considered.'"'

'Third,-Because, Although, &c. (See text, p. 63.)

'Fourth,-Because sundry laws, inflicting capital punish'ments on a variety of crimes, have, during the last 70 years, been

tional proof that the arguments are all on the one side of this question, and the obstinate prejudices of a few individuals, backed by Government influence, on the other.

As to the final result of such a conflict, we have, as we frequently stated, no doubt whatever our only anxiety is, that the conquest which humanity and sound justice must eventually make over the cruel errors of a barbarous system, may be achieved with as little delay as possible; and that our statesmen may not continue to be distinguished for the

'abrogated in civilized states; and in no one instance does it

appear that the removal of the terror of DEATH has been followed 'by any increased frequency of the crime. The laws have generally 'been invigorated by such wholesome relaxation, and experience has confirmed the great axioms which speculative philosophers ' and practical moralists had long since inculcated-namely, that capital punishments rarely hinder the commission of a crime, but 'prevent its detection—and that the certainty of a sentence, com'paratively mild, extirpates wickedness more effectually than the 'dread of a punishment which the common feelings of mankind 'deem disproportionate to the offence, and therefore scruple to concur with the community in inflicting.

And, Fifth,-Because, if justice enjoins the necessity of proportioning the punishment to the moral turpitude of an offence, 'prudence no less requires that the compassion, likely to be produced by such punishment, should not exceed the indignation generally excited by the perpetration of the crime; and that the 'penalty should be regulated by the state of public opinion at the 'time, and in the country where such law is enacted, or allowed to 'continue; but, in this instance, the frequency of pardon, the numerous petitions of the people, and the vote of the Commons 'House of Parliament, sufficiently attest that the punishment by ' death of criminals convicted of forgery, is abhorrent to the spirit ' of the age, contrary to the judgment of the public, and revolting 'to the feelings of the community.

combined obstinacy and weakness which only concede the improvements which civilization demand, when they find themselves incapable of further resistance.-Morning Herald, Saturday, July 17, 1830.

[The Forgery Bill, as altered by the Lords, was returned to the Commons immediately before the prorogation of parliament—a period when it is extremely easy for the Minister to obtain a majority, because a large proportion of independent members are then absent from their places. Sír Robert PEEL consequently succeeded in restoring his Bill to its original state.-Notwithstanding this re-enactment of the law of forgery, with all the capital provisions which the House of Commons had, in the first instance, thrown out of the Bill, PUBLIC OPINION was so far respected, that (although one deliberate attempt was made,-see extracts from the Morning Herald, Aug. 26, 1831,) no execution ever took place under it. The law itself continued upon the Statute-book only two years, when, as the writer of the foregoing articles confidently predicted, it ceased to exist. In the session of 1832, (by the 2d and 3d of Will. IV. cap. 123,) the legislature abolished the punishment of death for forgery, with two exceptions, viz. wills, and powersof-attorney relating to the public funds;-exceptions not justified upon any principle, but which make it appear as if parliament anxiously caught up and preserved some fragments of those tablets of vindictive legislation, which public opinion had shattered to pieces.-ED.]

Penal Code of FRANCE-M. de TRACY's motion for the Abolition of the Punishment of Death.

The reception which the proposition of M. De TRACY, for abolishing the punishment of death, met with in the Chamber of Deputies, proves, beyond all dispute, that the present race of French legislators are not deficient in feelings of humanity.

In supporting that proposition, the venerable LAFAYETTE said,

'I shall ask for the abolition of death until I have the infalli'bility of human judgment demonstrated to me. The punishment ' of death has always inspired me with feelings of horror since the ' execrable use made of it during the former Revolution.'

In our own House of Commons the Minister perpetuates the punishment of death for forging a one-pound promissory note, not because that punishment is proportionate to the moral guilt of the offender, but because-hear it, humane legislators of France!—because it is, in his opinion, the most effective punishment. When morality is left out of the penal code, the question of inflicting death for the most venial, as well as the most heinous, legal or political offences, becomes a mere question of expediency.

DANTON, MARAT, and ROBESPIERRE, at whose crimes the Home Secretary, no doubt, would shudder, thought it expedient that all who resisted their political supremacy, should suffer the same punishment which certain Directors of the Bank of England thought it expedient should be inflicted on those who counterfeited their one-pound notes!

In the one case, morality, and a regard for human life, were dispensed with for the sake of ambition—in the other, for the sake of Mammon. Hecatombs of human victims have been offered up on the altars of both!

It will be seen, from our French news to-day, that the King of the FRENCH has been addressed on the subject of M. de TRACY's motion by the Advocate LUCAS, at the head of a deputation from St. Brieux, who expressed a hope that the country would owe him the boon of the abolition of the punishment of death, to whom France owed the extinction of civil war. The King replied, that he desired the abolition, from a conviction which he had entertained throughout his life; and added- I shall do my utmost to realize your wish, which is also mine.'-A press of matter prevents us

proceeding further with this subject at present; but we shall take an early opportunity to return to it.*-Morning Herald, Monday, August 23, 1830.

Debate in the French Chamber of Deputies-A large Majority decide upon an Address to THE KING, supplicating him to prepare a law for the ABOLITION of the punishment of death. CHAMBER OF DEPUTIES-Friday, October 8, 1830.

(PRESIDENCY OF M. LAFITTE.)

The Order of the day was the discussion of the proposition of M. de TRACY, for the abolition of the punishment of death.

M. de TRACY wished no one to entertain the idea that his proposition was merely the declaration of a principle-of a theory. The proposition he should make to the Chamber was conceived in these terms: I have the honour to propose to the Chamber to declare by a law that the punishment of death is abolished in France.' This proposition is really a law. In this respect the Commission may, and ought to, consider my proposition as a proposition of law. It ought to propose the adoption, rejection, or modification of it. The speaker announced that he would consider

* PARIS.-On the 17th the King of the French (LOUIS PHILIP) received a deputation from St. Brieux, capital of the Cotes du Nord.

M. Charles LUCAS, Advocate in the Royal Court of Paris, one of the deputation, addressed the King in a speech, of which the following is the conclusion:

'Permit me, Sire, to express a personal wish-namely, that we owe the abolition of the penalty of death to the reign to which we are already indebted for the abolition of civil war.'

The King said, in his answer, that he had not forgotten the brave battalions of the Cotes du Nord, with which he had fought at Gemappe; and that if there still remained in the department some of those old defenders of the country, he begged the deputation to tell them that he remembered them with affection.

'I am happy,' added the King, at the abolition of civil war ' in your country; and, as for the abolition of the penalty of DEATH, 'I am led to desire it, from a conviction which I have entertained "throughout my life, and I shall do my utmost to realize your 'wish, which is also mine.'