the statute, or to have new penalties added, they would still fall into
the same difficulties as in the act.

1. That innocent men would suffer, seeing many tradesmen may take a
piece of counterfeit money in tale with other money, and really and
_bona fide_ not know it, and so may offer it again as innocently as they
at first took it ignorantly; and to bring such into trouble for every
false shilling which they might offer to pay away without knowing it,
would be to make the law be merely vexatious and tormenting to those
against whom it was not intended, and at the same time not to meddle
with the subtle crafty offender whom it was intended to punish, and who
is really guilty.

2. Such an act would be difficultly executed, because it would still be
difficult to know who did knowingly utter false money, and who did not;
which is the difficulty, indeed, in the present law--so that, upon the
whole, such a law would no way answer the end, nor effectually discover
the offender, much less suppress the practice. But I am not upon
projects and schemes--it is not the business of this undertaking.

But a general act, obliging all tradesmen to suppress counterfeit money,
by refusing to put it off again, after they knew it to be counterfeit,
and a general consent of tradesmen to do so; this would be the best way
to put a stop to the practice, the morality of which is so justly called
in question, and the ill consequences of which to trade are so very well
known; nor will any thing but a universal consent of tradesmen, in the
honest suppressing of counterfeit money, ever bring it to pass. In the
meantime, as to the dishonesty of the practice, however popular it is
grown at this time, I think it is out of question; it can have nothing
but custom to plead for it, which is so far from an argument, that I