"the king's person is in danger-royalty is in danger-this is a war for the defence of royalty!" By these arts they deluded the people; even the calamities consequent on the war promote the views of the great families. Are the people reduced to misery? Are the lower classes of the middle rank shoved down to abject poverty?-the people are better prepared to submit to their usurpation. Is the king rendered unpopular? the people will more readily adopt their doctrine, that the king ought to be controlled by a confederacy of great families. Let gentlemen recollect what took place at the termination of the American war; the peers who had urged on the American war, availed themselves of the temporary unpopularity of their sovereign, to confederate with their late opponents, and establish their system. The chancellor of the exchequer would most certainly support him in this assertion: for, on what ground could he advise his sovereign to resist the repeated addresses of the House of Commons for his removal, if it was not on this, viz. that those addresses were procured by the ascendancy of the confederated great families in this House; were they certain that they might not see another coalition on the termination of this war? It had been said, that the present chancellor of the exchequer, by increasing the peerage, had diminished the power of the great families: he admitted that this was true to a certain degree; by holding out a peerage, or elevation to a higher rank in the peerage, to every man who could procure a nomination to a certain number of seats in parliament, he had multiplied the number of the usurping oligarchs, and by that means rendered it more easy for the crown to play one set of them against another; but the oppression of the people was increased by this policy. The number of their tyrants was multiplied. Two hundred seats in that House were already under the nomination of great peers; and if the system was not checked, the Commons would soon have but little influence in the nomination of members of that House, If he was asked, whom he meant to describe by the epithets great peers, great families, usurping oligarchs? he was ready to answer the question: he meant every peer who had usurped the nomination to a seat in that House. He knew it would be said that he was an enemy to nobility: he denied that this assertion was true; he wished to preserve this order of nobility,

squadrons of his confederates: thus right was often trampled down. But these were little grievances, compared to that which we now suffered, he meant the war. It was this system of great families which occasioned a perseverance in the war. The great usurping proprietors of boroughs were fearful, that, when peace was re-established, the people of England might inquire into the right of peers to nominate representatives of the commonalty; that they might calculate the calamitous effects of the war; that the people might co-operate with the crown, to prevent similar calamities from being again inflicted. They saw that in France the predominant sentiment of the people had been, not equality of rank, but equality of condition: In other words, to deprive certain of their fellow-subjects of power which they had usurped; for, though nobility was established by law in France, that inequality of condition which debases the people was of a late origin. Hence it arises, that the partisans of the system of great families proclaim that no peace is desirable, except it is accompanied with the re-establishment of the ancient regime of France. They see the people perishing from famine, the consequence of the war, and of their attempt to famish France: they see paper money Į about to be substituted in the place of gold. The examples of America and France both show us that the inevitable consequence of the complete substitution of paper in the place of gold, is the annihilation of funded property. They see the combination of all the other powers of Europe against us the consequence of their attempt to make every other state subservient to their views: they hear the suppliant entreaties of a suffering people: they mercilessly answer-" No peace with France, except the ancient régime be restored." It had been well remarked by an han. member (Mr. Jones) "that they ride on the popularity of their sovereign." The assertion is true; had they stated to the people," the re-establishment of noblesse in France is necessary for the preservation of our power," what would have been the answer of the people "what benefit do we derive from your power?" But they knew the people revered the personal virtues of their sovereign; that they loved his family; that they viewed the prerogatives of the crown as the best safeguard of the rights of the people; their language, therefore, was,

and this wish was an additional motive for calling on the House to check that pre-eminence of power which was assumed by some peers, and which degraded and debased the rest of the nobility: he recollected the instance of a noble duke, the representative of the most ancient family, and possessed of the largest fortune in this kingdom. He wished to have a peerage for his younger son; he could not obtain it; he bought six seats in that House, and his request was immediately complied with. The king had two sons and a nephew who were not peers. Why were they not honoured with the peerage? Was it because they were nominated to no seats in that House? He desired the House to consider what must be the condition of the younger branches of the royal family, if this system was allowed to be pursued? If they became the stocks of families, their appanages would consist of money payments from the exchequer. These appanages would not afford them the means of acquiring a perpetuity in the nomination to seats in that House. Would they be on a level with the peer who nominated to six seats in that House? The great families, by usurping the nomination to seats in that House, were acquiring an ascendancy in parliament, similar to that which the feudal barons had possessed in ancient times. If the people of England suffered this power to be firmly established, the prerogatives of the crown and the rights of the people would both be trampled. He said, that in that language in which the epithet " tyrant" had been first used, it had no reference to cruelty. It signified nothing more than the citizen of a free state, who had usurped a power not assigned him by the laws. Whence had it arisen that "tyrant" and" cruel" were considered as synonimous? It was from this, that the subject of a free state who had usurped powers not assigned him by the laws, was ever jealous that his fellow subjects would endeavour to deprive him of the power he had unlawfully assumed. Hence Bastiles with solitary cells; espionage; suspended Habeas Corpus; barracks filled with soldiers, separated by laws from intercourse with the people, with augmented pay, and with subsistence so distributed that they may not feel the pressure of famine in common with their fellow subjects. The people of England had a right to know, whether the powers of government were vested by

the laws in a King, a House of Lords, and a House of Commons, elected by corporations of the commonalty; or in a King, a House of Lords, and a House of Commons, nominated by great peers? They had a right to have this question answered, and he trusted no man would propose to the House to shrink from the decision. If the law had vested the government in King, Lords, and Commons, elected by bodies of the commonalty, it became the wisdom of that House to prevent powers of government from being unlawfully as sumed. If, on the contrary, the law had vested the government in a King, a House of Lords, and a House of Commons, any indefinite number of which might be named by peers, it was the duty of parliament to declare the law. The people would then know to whom they owed obedience. The great peers seeing their rights recognized, would lay aside their jealousy, and cease to villify and calumniate the people, as restless, discontented, disloyal Jacobins. He therefore moved the House to resolve, "That it is a high crime and misdemeanor for any lord of parliament, or lord lieutenant of any county, to concern themselves in elections of members to serve for the Commons in parliament."

Mr. Pitt said, that the House and the country could be little interested in the fabulous story of Briareus. Thinking that what more urgently and materially concerned it should be attended to, he would move, that the other orders of the day be now read.

Mr. Jolliffe agreed, that the interference of any peer in the election of a member of that House, was a misdemeanor: but the hon. gentleman had made out no case to entitle his motion to discussion.

The question being put, the House proceeded to the other orders of the day.

Debate in the Commons on the Army and Navy Seduction Bill.] Dec. 18. The House having gone into a committee on the bill to continue the act for the punishment of attempts to seduce the Sea and Land Forces,

Mr. Abbot said, that when he considered the vast number of temporary laws now in existence, amounting to no fewer than 150; when he considered the importance of the present measure in regard to its permanent policy; and, above all, when he considered the happy consequences which had resulted from it, he was in

clined to move that it should be made perpetual; but when he recollected that the Irish legislature had fixed the period for the duration of a similar act till 1807, he wished the British legislature to give the present act the same degree of permanency. He should therefore move, that the blank be filled up with " August 1, 1807."

Mr. Hobhouse said, that when this act was first proposed, in consequence of an alarming mutiny on board the fleet, he was of opinion that the existing laws, if strictly carried into effect, were perfectly adequate to the repression of the crime. He had then reminded the House that, by the common law, he who was found guilty of seducing a soldier or sailor from his allegiance, was liable to suffer six years imprisonment, and to stand twice in the pillory; and had implored them not to have recourse to greater severity, until they were satisfied, by fair experiment, of the inefficacy of that punishment. The House in general viewed the subject in a different light from himself, and enacted that, for a time to be limited, the offence should be considered as felony without benefit of clergy. As the act, however, had passed only from year to year, he had made no opposition to it; but he could not consent that the period of its duration should be extended to seven years. Was it justifiable to continue this law for so long a term, especially as the causes which first gave rise to it were now acknowledged to be removed? His hon. friend had stated the number of temporary statutes as a ground for the present motion; but surely he must be aware that, by the same mode of argument, it might be contended that the suspension of the Habeas Corpus act should be rendered perpetual. To avoid the trouble of sessional renewals, the House had better make a general enact ment, that every severe law made upon the spur of the occasion should be continued for ever, although the necessity which called it into existence for a time, had entirely vanished. It was a judicious and constitutional mode of proceeding in parliament to assign a temporary duration to measures of temporary expediency, because it was thus furnished with frequent occasions of reviewing the policy of its own acts. Upon this principle, he hoped the House would keep the power in its own hands, of passing or repealing this law at the end of every session. Our ancestors were not easily induced to make

any permanent alterations in the old law of the land. Their wise and salutary caution gentlemen would do well to imitate, and not suffer themselves, through an excessive but laudable indignation against a crime of a most atrocious nature, to be hurried into the adoption of so great a change in the penal code. The transition from seven years to an unlimited period was easy. As all alarm had subsided, the House ought to be contented with the prolongation of the present law for its short and accustomed period. In the united parliament, we should have the advantage arising from the accessionary counsel of the Irish members, and then it would be seen whether the state of the country made it more adviseable to square the law of England to that of Ireland, or to adopt the contrary principle. Was it not better at all times to use moderation, when moderation was compatible with security, than to reduce every thing to one com. mon standard of severity ?-His hon. and learned friend was extremely conversant in the laws of his country. He was at this time most usefully employed in studying the difference between the English and Irish code. His researches on this head, like all his other labours, had a tendency highly advantageous to the nation; but he would submit to him, whether, in this, as well as in a former instance, he had not shown a greater leaning towards measures of severity than was customary to the feelings of his nature. Upon a former occasion, the law of treason was the subject under consideration. On the event of the death of the present cardinal of York, the sole remaining branch of the house of Stuart, the posthumous rigour of forfeiture would, by the 7th of Anne and the 17th of Geo. 2nd, have ceased in Great Britain, but not in Ireland. His hon. friend had, in a former session, brought in a bill to produce uniformity in the laws of both countries, not by abolishing in Ireland, upon the decease of the cardinal, this unjust and unnatural part of the punishment of treason, but by perpetuating it also in England. The present proceeding was of the same nature. Irish severity, not English lenity, was to be made the standard of uniformity. No member could entertain a greater abhorrence than himself of the crime of debauching the loyalty of our army and navy, and thus tainting the national defence, or be more desirous of adopting every wise and necessary measure of pre

vention or of punishment; but no sufficient grounds had been advanced for departing from the original policy of renewing this act from session to session.

Mr. Abbot denied that the present was a measure of temporary policy; and as to the objection of his hon. friend, that it had been resorted to upon the spur of the occasion, the committee, the country owed its most valued laws to temporary occurrences. The argument, that we should wait till the meeting of the united parliament, was one which might apply to any case rather than to the present. It was but the other day that the Irish parliament had fixed the duration of the act until the 1st of August 1807, and it was not to be supposed that, in the short interval between the time when that reso lution was passed and the commencement of the next session, their opinion upon the subject would be at all altered.

Mr. Tierney reprobated the bringing forward such a measure unexpectedly at the heel of a session, which would go to impose a grievous burthen on the people of England; for such he would maintain it to be, unless it was the hon. member's object to cut off all communication between the army and the people. Since the mutiny on board the fleet, which gave rise to this bill, had subsided, not a single instance was proved to exist that could justify the continuance of the bill. What was the nature of the evidence for conviction which could in most cases be had? Why, mere alehouse conversation, and this most vague and uncertain, for which the life of an innocent man might be taken away upon the testimony of the most abandoned profligate. When this bill was brought forward, no man gave it the least resistance, under the idea that it was to continue but for six weeks longer; but what was the return for the forbear ance of gentlemen on this occasion? Why, an attempt to carry the bill into a seven years continuance, without offering the slightest proof of necessity. Parliament, therefore, should not relinquish the wise exercise of its control. As to the argument for continuing this measure, that the parliament of Ireland had done so, it was the strongest reason with him for the most strenuous resistance. Every law from Ireland of late smelled of blood. Did the hon. member recollect the consequences of those sanguinary laws, of late years passed in the parliament of Ireland? Did he so soon forget that the Irish par

liament, which passed those laws, was obliged to abandon its post; and that, in endeavouring to reconcile the people of that country to the measure of union, the principal boon held out to them was a riddance of that parliament which had so tyrannically trampled upon their necks? If such were the consequences of persevering in coercive measures in that country, he sincerely deprecated their wanton and unnecessary continuance in this.

Mr. Yorke contended for the necessity of continuing the bill for the time proposed; for what was the nature of the crime against which this measure was directed?-nothing short of high treason. Would it, therefore, be contended, that a law directed to the prevention of such a crime was a measure of mere temporary policy? The hon. gentleman had censured the conduct of the parliament of Ireland for the measures which they had adopted in the critical state of that country; but, in his mind, the parliament of Ireland on that occasion, sitting as they were in the midst of a desperate rebellion, acted with spirit and wisdom; and most of its members followed up as yeomen in the field, the laws they had, with so much spirit and wisdom, adopted in the senate; and they thereby saved their country.

Lord Hawkesbury said, he would appeal to the House, whether such a crime should not meet with the severest punishment. The best laws had been made on the spur of the occasion. By enacting the punishment of death for the crime of seduction, more lives would be eventually saved than lost. He approved of this bill on the ground of mercy, considering that the prevention of a crime was better than the punishment of it.

Mr. Pierrepont said, it was owing, per haps, to the enactment of that law, that the House now existed. However it might be reprobated, he should never be ashamed to give his sanction to a measure to which was owing the preservation of the country. It ought to be in force as long as we wished the safety of the country to continue; and if his opinion could have any weight, he should propose that, in the place of 1807, the year 1870 should be inserted.

Mr. Tierney said, that to render such a law perpetual, was he thought a very bad return for the general loyalty of the people, and was a libel upon the charac ter of both the army and navy.

The Solicitor General said, that the ob