of France had demolished all that was excellent in human institutions, the freedom of Englishmen should do the same mischief; for in all those cases it was the same. He could not forget the English constitution. The people of England were not slaves broke loose from their chains, not rushing from despotism into anarchy and disorder. Of the votes of the commons he always had a respectful and due opinion; but with respect to committees selected from the minister's friends, he could not but observe, that with prejudices on their minds, and a bias from their connections, it was hardly possible that a just decision could be obtained; and such ever struck him on the perusal of the reports of those select committees. He had also the same dislike to another report (in the lords), in which were depicted pikes and such things as frightfully fill the imagination with dread and horror. The learned gentleman (the attorney general) seemed little disposed to pay any attention to the verdict of a jury. This jury had negatived the report of a select committee, and he preferred that verdict to the reports. The opinion of the judge (late chief justice Eyre) said on that occasion, that this mighty conspiracy turned out to be a conspiracy perfectly insignificant, a conspiracy without men, money, leaders, and even destitute of designs in their schemes; their rendezvous a back-garret ; their arms a few muskets, and their exchequer about £10 158. Such was its formidable appearance, and so inactive, that the learned judge said they even wanted zeal in the undertaking. He then called the attention of the house to the situation of those who were imprisoned under the act. And here he would ask, whether the attorney general, who was versed in law and history, had ever read or heard of sham-plots and conspiracies? and if he had, was it not possible for them to return again? These were the instruments by which ministers were enabled to carry on the war, to exercise a corrupt influence, and, by alarming the landed and moneyed interests with risings of the people, to govern the country with a system of terror. Let no gentleman then ask, what motives can influence such measures, when it is to such measures ministers owe all their power. And is it not surprising to hear gentlemen talk of liberty of speech remaining (in allusion to Mr. Wilberforce), when fifty persons cannot meet to talk together? Whatever may be said in favour of our remaining liberties, he would maintain that the act of habeas

corpus was the chief. A gentleman more remarkable for the pith and vigour of his expressions than for the neatness of them, said, that "the breath of the nostrils of administration lay in Mr. Pitt's tongue;" and he would say, that however the muscle or sinew lay in other parts, the heart's blood of the constitution lay in the act of habeas corpus. For if ministers can commit, without any other process than their own suspicion, this foul principle may be pushed to the most dangerous extent; and if a man is once considered as a leading man in society of any kind, he may be exposed to attack and arrest from suspicion alone. An hon. gentleman (Mr. Sturges) has given a precedent from the reign of King William, by no means applicable to the present period, and which, adopted as such, must fall with a double edge. He was astonished to hear no difference made between the times. The majority of the nation at that period were jacobites. Is there a man that will not confess the jacobins are a contemptible minority? The jacobites were composed of the nobility, the landed interest, and were formidable in their principles and opposition to King William, and many of them suffered on the scaffold. The act made at the time of the conspiracy on the life of the then monarch, was a specific act to confine those whose moral guilt was ascertained; but this act shuts up every man upon vague suspicion. The whole of the arguments of administration rest upon the existence of jacobin principles in France, and so long the act now proposed is to be continued. The absurdity of this was equally astonishing and alarming; it was a satisfaction to him that it was not his. Mr. Sheridan then noticed the argument of Mr. Canning on a former night, respecting the conduct of the nation in the case of King James II. He here observed, that the hon. gentleman did not reason correctly; for he assumed a fact, where he (Mr. Sheridan) only put a supposition. The repeal of this act was impracticable in either case of sedition or tranquillity. In the former it would be urged, that it was necessary to restore peace, and in the latter case it will be always, as now demanded, "would you remove the means by which the country has so much benefited?" Mr. Sheridan then reviewed the state of Ireland under Lord Fitzwilliam, and said, that the outrages, cruelties, and atrocities, were not occasioned by French principles, but by the rooted hatred of the people to British councils. The effects of

such councils were predicted by Earl Fitzwilliam; all that rebellion which burst out in the small space of twenty-four hours, like characters written in lemon juice on a sheet of white paper, and held to the fire, as described by the secretary at war. I might be permitted to ask-" Heh, Mr. Secretary at War, where did you come by those amorous mysteries? for they belong not to your office, though you are accustomed to read dispatches in cypher." He showed and proved before that the discontents in Ireland were not the offspring of French principles, but resentments strongly engraved on the hearts of the Irish against this country. He then deprecated the minister from such means of outrage to the loyalty of the nation, whose security was not less lodged in the hearts than in the arms of its volunteer corps. The country was no less upon its guard in its mind than it was in fact, and had little at any time to dread from a few contemptible ruffians in a cellar, against the security or laws of the country. This power in the hands of ministers was absurd; yet, he was sorry to see it existing, as he would wish to guard against the effects it might produce. He regretted to read the reign of even Titus, and was sorry almost not to see that reign a tissue of crimes; that despotism might be discredited wherever it did exist. He then entered on the abuse of the power lodged in the hands of ministers, evidenced in the case of Colonel Despard, and the infamous conduct of Aris, the keeper of the prison. Another abuse of power was under the alien bill; this bill, said to be for political purposes, was perverted into an instrument of family protection, as persons who had paid their addresses to the daughters of gentlemen were on that account taken up under this bill, and sent out of the kingdom. He was ready to acquit the noble duke (Portland) at the head of that office, of being capable, from his character or temper, of such a proceeding; but such, under him, was one of the abuses made of it. He had to mention another abuse, which, though difficult to relate without ridicule, yet showed the spirit of this power in the hands of ministers. A man of the name of Patterson, who had a shop at Manchester, kept a tilted cart, over which he subscribed the names of Pitt and Patterson. The man, who was known to have no partner in his trade, was asked what he meant by the name of Pitt on his cart, as he had no share in his business? “Ah," replied he, " if he has no share in the business, he has a large

share in the profit of it." On this he was taken up, committed to Cold-bath-fields prison, but some time after liberated, with a strict order not to go within thirty miles of Manchester. Ridiculous as this appeared, it proved serious to the man, and was the ruin of his business! On all the circumstances no new case had been made out why this act should be continued, but many have shown that it should be repealed. Gentlemen should at least defer the farther consideration for a few days, until in decency they could make out some means that would appear plausible, and give, at least, a formal pretext for their proceedings. Ayes 98; noes 12.

JUNE 10.

BILL FOR PUNISHING AND PREVENTING ADULTERY.

The master of the rolls moved the order of the day for the house going into a committee on an engrossed bill from the lords, for punishing and preventing adultery.

MR. SHERIDAN said, there is no man I am persuaded, sir, in this house, who is not ready to agree with me that this is a subject which deserves to be gravely and maturely considered. I am aware, too, that when professions are held out, that great alterations may be made in a committee upon a bill; it is not the most favourable time to rise in opposition to that bill before it goes into such committee, because it may be said to those who so oppose it, that the very points to which they object may be those which it is intended in the commitment to alter and amend. Sir, I shall very much regret if another opportunity shall be afforded for going into the discussion of such a bill as the present; but if there should be, I shall certainly state my objections to every part of it more at large than I shall think it necessary to do at present. The question now before us is, whether we shall go into a committee? To this proposition it is wished that the house should be induced to accede, by the hope that the alterations which may be made may render the bill more acceptable and more moderate. Now, sir, I take upon me to assert, that no gentleman who has spoken upon the subject has held out any grounds at all to make us believe that such can be the result. We have heard from some, that the law is not to be as it is; from others we have heard sketches of

clauses; from others we have heard general outlines and opinions; but all who have spoken have shown that the bill cannot pass in its present shape. Sir, that the laws with respect to adultery ought not to remain as they are, may be true. But what I contend is this, that it has not been proved that any great or general review of the subject can proceed from such a bill as this. That, upon maturer consideration with the reverend prelates, something better may not be produced, I am not prepared to deny. But there appears to me to have been an evident improvidence, a shameful negligence, on the part of the authors of this measure. It seems as if it had been produced in scorn and contempt, and in defiance of all knowledge and experience. It ill became the authors of it to pass by that first and greatest authority, of whose assistance they ought to have availed themselves. But the bill comes to us in another way. I know that it is not parliamentary to allude to what passes in another house; but I shall contend that the bill which comes to us by unanimous vote, or by a large majority in its favour, would come with a greater weight than one passed by a very small majority. Recollecting then all these things, we cannot, I contend, be accused of impropriety or presumption in saying we will pause where we are, and oppose going into a bill which appears to us so utterly incorrigible. But there are one or two points upon which I wish to make some observations. When any measure is proposed to a legislative assembly, there are three questions which a prudent legislator will ask himself. First, whether the measure is necessary? Second, whether it is likely to be efficacious? And third, whether it is likely to produce greater evils than those which it is meant to remedy? I will pass by the two last, and proceed to the first. Is the present measure necessary? What! will you extend the penal code, and not prove first that the crime which you propose to punish has increased? Mischievous, indeed, must be the consequence. But, sir, in point of fact, and in fairness of reasoning, the crime in the present case so far from having increased, has been proved to have diminished. The learned gentleman opposite me, in going over a period of thirty years, tells us that in the first ten there were forty-four divorces; in the second ten twenty-three; and in the third ten fifty-two. But to form a right judgment, we must compare the increased number of