The National Register.
London, England, 1818-12-13 00:00:00

SUNDAY, DECEMBER 13, 1818.

innocent holder of it. But a few words upon the sub-
ject of the public, whom it is said the Bank means to
protect by thole prosecutions. Who is the public ?
This will soon be seen from the following statement :
A forges a 11. note, and puts it off to B, who is igno-
rant of its origin ; B to C, C to b, and so on through
the rest of the alphabet. It is evident that, wherever
this forgery is detected, the loss can but fall upon one
man ; thsk therefore, only one man at the most can
be protected in this instance; end that the Bank will
not protect bun ifs the only possible or sensible way,

holder, not neglecting proper means to detect sad pu-
nish the fabricator. The public would take no harm if
the note should circulate for ever: it would pus as the
representative of twenty shillings as long as the Bank
stood; it is (nineteen times out of twenty) only When
taken to the Bank itself, that protectiose to the holder
fails. It is then only that loss is sustained, and not
by the public, but by one man. We again my, there
is but one sufferer; and that dal one sullerer, upon
every principle of human justice and Bridal jurispru-
dence, should be the prosecotor. This, we apprehend,
is the only instance wherein the person aggrieved is net,
either us his own none, or in that of the King, the
identical party also who has recourse to the law. Mae
Bank pays she note, let the Bank prosecute the offence :
it has been damnified, let it obtain redress. But we
again say, that it is most absurd that the Bank, which
is the only party that can sustain no loos, should be
the ouly party which steps forward to indict punish-
ment. •
Than is another inconsistency, also, in the present
system, which was detected ow the lane talk We
have shown that the Bank, kr blimOse kifsw*Pwitse.
and being under no obligation Motiraerrebenemeenn
sustain so loss, end thit welt lass lint be sniteliell kr
some individual, foolishly and by way of auggsration
called the public yet, when the inspector of use Bank
was required by the jury on Williams's trial is deans
how he knew a isged from s real note, the queelien
was resisted on the principle that "it would Ina to
" great inconvenience if the Batik were obliged to de-
" clue the private marks by which it could determine
"on the genuineness of its notes." By this doctrine,
then, it follows that individuals, who are alone inte-
rested in the genuineness of notes, are kept in igno-
rance of the marks by which the true can be distin-
guished from the false ; and the Bank, who are not
oblige to pay the false ones, retain to themselves the
exclusive faculty of discerning them.
We have made these remarks in no hostility to that
eminent corporate body, the Bank of England. It acts,
we believe, and are ready to allow, with as much lenity
as the absurdity of the existing system will permit, and
will peebably be benefited by any rational change.—
As to the dictum, or general theorem upon which the
laws against forgery are founded, that we are a eons-
Inertial 'countrv, and therefore forgers ought to be .
hanged ; the fallacy of this theorem has knlf been
shown and proved. Holland was once as commercial a
country as England, and yet never executed for forgery.
The Quakers of Englund are a highly commercial body,
and yet are they, as such, most grievously adverse to
inflicting capital punishment on all forgeries; and are
now exerting themselves warmly for the repeal of laws
so sanguinary.

On Thursday lust, the Sd instant, the As Court
of St. Omer imulionned to five years' forced labour in
chains. to branding, and public exposure, Alexander
Sinclair (otherwise Nfulgmve), for utterin4 forged Bst;k
of England Sote• in the neighbourhood of St. ()mer.
Dunkirk, and ( lasi'. The prisoner represented himself
to be a British naval officer, connected with the Dock-
%%int of Chatham, an►l was accompanied by a botch
►vo►uan, wham he represented to be his wife.