tified copy of the roll of freehold ers of every county in Scotland, as last made up, laid before this House in July 1820, that the total number of persons having a right to vote in all those counties together, did not exceed 2,889. 2. "That, by the same return, it appears that the greatest number of persons having a right to vote in any one county did not exceed 240, viz. for the county of Fife; and that the smallest number did not exceed nine, viz. for the county of Cromarty. 3. "That it further appears from the same return, that the same persons have a right to vote in several counties, and consequently that the total number of voters for all the counties in Scotland is considerably less than 2,889. 4.That it further appears to this House, that the right of voting for a Scotch county depends, not on the possession of the dominium utile of a real landed estate in that county, but on holding the superiority over such estate, which superiority may be, and frequently is, disjoined from the property, insomuch, that of all the persons qualified to vote for a Scotch county, there may not be one who is possessed of a single acre of land within the county, while the whole of the Iand may belong to, and be the property of persons who have not a single vote for the representative. 5. "That this House will, early in the next session of parliament, take into its most serious consideration, the state of representation of counties in Scotland, with a view to effect some extension of the number of votes, and to establish some connexion between VOL. LXIII. the right of voting and the landed property of that country." The debate was expected to have been a very important one, but the attendance was so very scanty, when lord A. Hamilton rose to make his speech, that he declined entering into any wide' discussion, and after a short introduction read his resolutions. The House divided on the last of them, when there were 41 Ayes and 57 Noes; leaving a majority of 16 against it. Just about the time when the state of the Scotch county representation was brought into notice, the attention of the House was much occupied by a question of privilege. Immediately after the termination of the proceedings against the queen in November 1820, a Sunday, newspaper, under the name of The John Bull, had made its appearance, and rose all at once into a circulation of unexampled extent. Its declared object was, to attack the partisans of the Queen, and to hold up them and her to public scorn. This object it had pursued with great steadiness, great boldness, and great clever. ness, but with very little regard to delicacy, and not always with much respect for truth. The clamour on every side was loud; the Opposition papers trembled to see the weapons of private scandal, which had long been almost exclusively their own, in the hands of their adversaries; and patriots and demagogues shrunk from the idea, that their private misfortunes or vices were to be held up to the general gaze. Even they, whose battles The John Bull fought, did not like to acknowledge an ally, who carried on war in so ruthless a manner, [E] A object of which was, to ascertain the author of the obnoxious paragraph. Not having obtained the wished for discovery from Weaver, Mr. Bennett moved, that three persons of the names of Arrowsmith, Shackle, and Cooper, who appeared from Weaver's evidence to be concerned in the management or preparation of the paper, should be ordered to attend at the bar forthwith. The order was made, and on the 10th of May, Messrs. Shackle, Arrowsmith, and Cooper, were examined at the bar. variety of questions were put by different members to ascertain in whom the proprietorship and control of that publication rested. Shackle and Arrowsmith admitted, that they had been once proprietors of the paper; but they alleged that they had ceased to be so in the month of February, and that the whole property was now in Weaver, though it was clear that no consideration had been given, and that they still acted as proprietors. Mr. Cooper, in his examination, avowed himself the editor of the paper, and the author of the paragraph in question After this avowal, Mr. Bennett moved, that the attorneygeneral should be ordered to prosecute Messrs, Shackle, Arrowsmith, Weaver, and Cooper, for a malicious libel, reflecting on the hon. H. G. Bennett, a member of the House. This motion was objected to by the marquis of Londonderry, sir F. Burdett, Mr. Brougham, Mr. C. Wynn, and others, as unjust, after the House had, by its inquisitorial powers, possessed itself of a great portion of the defendant's case. The marquis of Londonderry, for the purpose of affording time for the and applied the scalping-knife and House to give cool, deliberate consideration to the subject, proposed, that the debate on the question should be adjourned till next day. This amendment, after some discussion, was adopted, and an order for the attendance of the parties was made out. On the following day, Mr. Bennett having withdrawn his motion for a prosecution by the attorney-general, Mr. Baring moved, that Mr. Cooper, the editor, and Weaver, the printer of the paper in question, should be committed to Newgate. To this motion an amendment was proposed by lord Nugent: namely, that Mr. Cooper, having acknowledged himself the author of the paragraph, should be called to the bar, and reprimanded by the Speaker: The marquis of Lon donderry, however, suggested, that this was too lenient a course, as the party ought, at least, to be committed to the custody of the serjeant at arms. Subsequently, both the marquis of Londonderry and lord Nugent withdrew their amendments, and the House decided that Mr. Cooper should be sent to Newgate, by a majority of 109 to 23. A discussion then took place on the subject of the prevarication of the other witnesses; but nothing was done with respect to them. Weaver was also ordered to be committed to Newgate, on a division of 34 to 27. It ought to be added, that the general belief was, that Cooper avowed himself the author of what he did not write, in order to screen the real offender. CHAP. III. Improvement of the Criminal Code-Sir J. Mackintosh's Bill for the Mitigation of the Punishment of Forgery; the Solicitor-General opposes it; the Second and Third Readings of it carried in the Commons; it is lost there-Bills for taking away Capital Punishment from Stealing in Dwelling-Houses, and on Navigable Rivers, rejected in the Lords-Bill for allowing Prisoners accused of Felony to be Defended by Counsel-Mr. Kennedy's Bill for Removing Defects in the Constitution of Scotch Juries-Irish Law of Treason-Result of the Inquiry into the State of English Courts of Justice-Consti tutional Association: origin of it: Mr. Brougham attacks it: Mr. Whitbread's Motion on it-The Conduct of Judge Best-Sir F Burdett's Motion for Inquiry into the Events of the 16th August, 1820, at Manchester-The Conduct of the Bishop of Peterborough Stinued his endeavours for the IR James Mackintosh conamelioration of the criminal code. He brought forward three bills for taking away capital punishment from many cases of forgery, from stealing in dwelling-houses, and from stealing on navigable rivers. None of them passed. The first excited much discussion,and,indeed, it wanted but little of having received the sanction of the Commons. The debate on the principle of the measure occured on the 23rd of May, on the motion for going into a committee upon the bill; and the solicitor-general took the lead in the opposition to it. The object of the bill, said the learned gentleman, was, to take away for the first offence the punishment of death from all cases of forgery, save that of forgery of the notes of the Bank of England. The forgery of wills, therefore, a crime easily committed, and which were to property-the forgery of mar- perience of its necessity. On 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 ifthe 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 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 punishment 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 question came ultimately to this"Has the hon. and learned gentle. man, 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 convic. tion, 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 |