sition 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 honorable 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, 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 shewed 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 coun try. 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 king. dom. 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 shewed 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, 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 shewn 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 pu nishing and preventing adultery. Mr. SHERIDAN." 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 favorable 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 shewn 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 favor, 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 marriages, the increase of population, and, undoubtedly, the increase in wealth of the country. The fair inference to be drawn from this comparison will then be, that the crime has diminished. But, says an honorable gentleman, it is not proper that the crime should exist at all; true: but what I demand from those who argue in favor of the present bill is, to shew me that what they propose to remove has not operated as a check upon the commission of the crime. This substituted law of honor, which induces the man to marry the woman he has seduced, has been strongly inveighed against; but I desire those who so inveigh against it, to shew me whether it has not been one of the causes of the crime having diminished. Will the removal of this law decrease it? Sir, what I complain of most is, that what is now proposed is all matter of experiment, and that such a proposition, when the crime has been proved to be diminishing, is, to say no more of it, extremely desperate. The honorable gentleman opposite me think it an evil that men should set up this law of honor, and he prefers open and avowed vice. Sir, I should think strangely of the morality and honor of that man who, having seduced a married woman, should afterwards scoff at her credulity, leave her to |