ject of the measure was to prevent the force levied for the defence of the people from being converted to their destruction. A law which had this for its object, ought, in his opinion, to be made perpetual. The bill was not directed against the people of England, but against individuals who were the enemies of the nation; against persons who might more properly be said to belong to the people of France than to the people of England: neither did it go to throw any reflection upon the character of the army and navy. It was not more necessary to the security of the present army and navy of Great Britain, than to the army and navy at any future time. The motion was agreed to. Debate in the Lords on the Army and Navy Seduction Bill.] Dec. 23. On the order of the day for going into a committee on this bill, Lord Holland said:-This bill, my lords, professes to have for its immediate object the prevention of the Seduction of the land and sea forces from their allegiance and duty. That such a crime is one Hurtful to the state, and one therefore that it is our interest and our duty to prevent, I am not disposed to deny. I deny not the dangerous tendency of such a crime; I deny not the propriety of preventing it, if possible, and of punishing it where committed and proved, with as much severity as the security of the state and the good of the community will permit. But, of all the fallacies in human judgment, there is none I believe more pernicious than that which, holding up solely the desirableness of the object, induces us to overlook the expediency of the means, the mischiefs likely to accompany the attempt, and, above all, the pernicious consequences resulting from the failure of our endeavours. If this illusion, equally fatal to the individual and to the state, is to be guarded against in the consideration of every thing within the scope of human prudence, there is perhaps nothing in which it is more necessary to guard against it, than in the enactment of penal laws, arising from the predominance which passion has over reason: it becomes itself the source of a neglect of those true and wise maxims, that the certainty of detection, and not the severity of punishment, is the best preventive of crimes; and that the probability of detection, so far from being in proportion to the de[VOL. XXXV.] gree of punishment annexed, generally decreases in the same ratio that the other is extended. To this fatal illusion is also to be ascribed that attempt of merely and solely proportioning the punishment to our indignation at the moral guilt and dangerous tendency of the crime, without examining the difficulty of defining and ascertaining the crime, and the danger and cruelty of not doing so; without considering the incalculable mischiefs which a law that renders innocence liable to punishment, or facilitates the impunity of crimes, cannot fail of producing; an error which gives to the penal codes, even of countries whose civilization leads us to hope for better things, the character of passion rather than prudence, and the appearance of having revenge instead of security for their object.-My lords, if these observations ever applied to a bill, they apply to that now before you. The erime it proposes to punish is, and in its nature must be, indefinitely described: the punishment it proposes is excessive; and the particular process to which we are subjecting the accused, is one that, above all, is the least adapted to an of fence of a nature so indefinite, and which, through circumstances and accidents, is likely to be so different in its degrees of criminality. To seduce men to disobedience and mutiny, to seduce them to become a part of mutinous assemblies, may be done by the mere utterance of words: the mere utterance of words is, then, by this bill to be punished with death, and, by the strangest perversion of common sense, common language, and common law, to be deemed felony without benefit of clergy.-My lords, the original bill was passed in a moment of danger and of alarm, at a moment when the legislature thought it necessary to impress persons in an actual state of mutiny, and those who, by such proceedings, might be agitated with various and uncertain feelings and apprehensions, with a conviction of their firmness and determination. They thought it necessary to do something, and to do that something immediately. I do not wish to quarrel with their motives, or with the result of them. I think it fair to consider such laws, as they then passed, not as the result of their deliberative, cool, and calm wisdom, but as a species of parliamentary declaration of their firmness, and their intentions, in which they show a disposition to rely on the panic produced by a new law for a short time, [3 D] ever consist in the utterance of words? Where did the overt act of felony consist of an action which admitted of any question but a matter of fact? It is surely for this reason, that, though legal advice is allowed, the privilege of counsel to plead in his defence is denied to a prisoner accused of felony. But shall an act so liable to misinterpretation as an imprudent expression, or any thing that can go to constitute this most indefinite crime, be refused that privilege? On what criminal prosecution then, is the privilege of being heard by counsel to be granted, if not in that which may turn on the meaning of words, and the tendency of expressions, and even signs? Shall a crime which, by no reasoning whatever, can be proved the least analogous to any other species of felony, receive that denomination, in order to be subject to the same severities and hardships, which, if just and proper in all other cases, cannot in any fairness of argument be proved to be applicable to this? Surely this is at once harsh, dangerous, and unjust. But then it will be said perhaps: "Well! this may all be very true in theory; but do you really believe that one innocent man will suffer, or that one act of tyranny will be exercised under this law?" To which I will frankly reply, I do not-at least for the present.-I think the real effect of the bill will be absolutely null-it will be a dead letter in your statute-book, after an experiment is made of its efficacy and operation; but I do not, on that account, think it either reasonable or desirable to pass it. Inefficacy in laws, especially in penal laws, is no trivial defect. It is a contagious disorder, and no ineffectual law is entered on our statute-book, without infecting more or less the whole code. It diminishes the dread of all law; it impairs the veneration for those who make and those who execute them; and when laws fail in their object, they are often as fatal to the happiness of a community, as their most sanguine admirers expected them to be beneficial: in case of success, they aggravate, by an unsuccessful attack, the evil they were formed to contend with, and produce unforeseen mischiefs, which spread in a manner and to an extent not very easy to be accounted for. Nor is this the only objection to an inefficacious and severe law; the severity does indeed render it ineffectual in common times, and vagueness in the nature of the crime adds to that operation. A jury, and the sensation occasioned by their re solution on an urgent and temporary state of affairs. I do not censure them for want of accurate investigation of the true principles of penal laws at that moment, though I certainly cannot pay them the compliment of pretending to have found, in this offspring of momentary passions, those traces of deliberative wisdom which would alone justify its becoming a permanent law; for, in laws of this nature, an error of judgment is attended with more fatal consequences, perhaps, than in any other branch of legislation whatever, unless it be in those which regard the regulation of provisions. For these reasons, and in the very peculiar circumstances of this session, I must indeed lament that ministers should bring forward a bill to continue, for so long a period, so severe a punishment for so indefinite a crime, and that at a time when it cannot receive the deliberation which is due to laws of this kind, and which, from the original occasion of it, it never has been the good fortune of this bill to receive. The | vagueness with which this crime is described, must, if the law were ever executed, render it liable to abuse, and an instrument for the oppression of innocence; it must also render it liable to evasion, and enable, in some instances, the criminal to escape with impunity. It is clear that the same indefinite description of crime which may subject innocent words or actions, without the degree of criminality intended to be punished by the bill, to a construction into a greater degree of guilt than they really possess, must also give opportunities to real guilt, in many instances, to explain itself away, and elude the justice of the country. But when I see no necessity for this law, when I reflect that, if there is any insufficiency in checking the offence against which it is directed, that insufficiency must exist, not in want of severity, but in the difficulty of detection and conviction; and when applying to this matter the common, uniform, and invariable principle of the increase of punishment, increasing that difficulty of detection and conviction, I cannot but earnestly entreat your lordships not to alter, for any considerable period, the laws which our ancestors deemed, fully sufficient for the security and subordination of the army and navy. But, of all things, why are we to declare it felony, to any description of which it bears no analogy? Where did felony my defer your decisions on so important a measure; or, if you must keep it in force for the present, to continue it at least for such a time only as will call upon you shortly to examine, with serious attention, and with sufficient leisure, its real principles, tendency, and provisions. Lord Grenville said, the question then before the House was not, whether there were or were not in our penal code too many capital punishments (perhaps he, for one, might be inclined to think there were), but whether the bill ought to pass? There were but two points which the House had to consider; first, whether this was an offence that ought to be punished with death? and secondly, whether such a punishment was likely to operate as a prevention of the crime? With respect to the first point, he did not conceive that a doubt could exist upon the subject: in fact, this offence was nearly allied to the greatest crime that could be committed against society, namely, treason; and so far was it from being of a temporary nature, that it was a measure at all times necessary for the security of the state. With respect to its effects, they were to be seen in the discontinuance of the attempts it was intended to prevent. As its necessity was obvious, he did not think any objection could be founded upon the period of the session at which it was brought in. and I am sure I am far from lamenting it, above any other tribunal in the world, is biassed, in cases where life and death are depending, to the side of mercy. They hesitate in pronouncing a man guilty of a crime, the nature and description of which is not clear and definite. Such is and must be the effect of such laws, on the common decisions of juries; but juries, lords, are men, and as men are liable to passions. When, therefore, periods of civil hatred and animosity unfortunately occur, these laws become the instruments of tyranny and oppression in the triumphant factions; the indefinite description of the crime, and the extreme severity of the punishment, facilitate the gratification of revenge, in the construction of innocent words, and the sacrifice of obnoxious persons. It is then found, that the cruelty which seemed, through the indifference and moderation of better times, to be extinct, can revive from its torpor, and pos. sess a venom with which, even at the moment of its birth, no man imagined it to be impregnated. These laws in good times are null, in bad times they are bloody; and these laws, made on the spur of the occasion, are generally to be attributed to the want of deliberation, to the want of a serious attention to the fundamental principles on which all punishments ought to be established. It is said, good laws have been made on the spur of the occasion. I believe there may have been some, perhaps many; but of penal laws, I believe, very few. I felt almost disposed to say none. But this I know, that almost all bad, wicked, and cruel penal laws have been made on that pretence, and hurried on with a precipitation utterly incompatible with prudence, moderation, or justice. Of all laws, they are those which should be most scrupulously cut down and squared to the rule of uniform and invariable principles. They are those where a deviation from principle leads to the most pernicious consequences, and tends to the defeat of their own ob ject with the most certainty. It is not proper, it is not dignified, it is not wise, it is not just, to pass such laws, without deliberation and inquiry. Why, then, at this period of the session, are we called upon to continue, without any urgent necessity, so severe a punishment for so indefinite a crime? Surely, my lords, it would be more consistent with that sober sense and deliberative wisdom which were the characteristics of your ancestors, to The bill was then committed. Debate in the Lords on the Alien Bill.] Dec. 23. On the order of the day for going into a committee on the Alien bill, Lord Holland said, that he had not a seat in that House when the bill was first passed into a law; but if he had at that time had a vote upon the question, he most certainly should have opposed such great and oppressive power being lodged in the hands of ministers; for it gave them such powers, as no set of men ought ever to be trusted with. But, he objected to it on the ground of its inapplicability to the existing circumstances of the country. From the measure he conceived neither credit nor advantage could accrue to the country. The principle upon which the bill was originally adopted by parliament was merely political. It originated in an alarm caused by an influx of foreigners into the country, who being suspected of political sentiments inimical to the constitution of this country, it was apprehended that they would enter into machi nations to subvert that government which they disliked. He would not go into a minute examination how far the fair principles of the Bill had been carried into effect; but he wished to ask, whether it had not been used to serve private and even family purposes? He asked them, whether its operation had been confined to the fair spirit and meaning of the legislature, to guard only against political evils? Had they not converted it to such purposes against some unfortunate foreigners, as was used to be done by lettres de cachet under the old government of France? He objected to that part of the bill which enabled ministers to send any person out of the country, on the ground that it might be the means of great cruelty and oppression, especially as many unfortunate emigrants had no country to which they could return. Persecution, and even death, awaited them at home, and no other nation would receive them. There was also another part of the bill to which he equally objected; it was that which enabled ministers to confine any foreigner whom they were pleased to suspect of mal-practices. By this part, they had the same power of the persons of foreigners as they had over our own country men by the suspension of the Habeas Corpus act, and he did not know of any principle of justice or policy by which they could confine a foreigner in this country, who had done nothing to which the laws attached criminality: if he had done any thing of that sort, the law was strong enough to punish him. By the provisions of the bill many persons were also subjected to be sent out of the country, who, in sound policy, ought to be considered as domesticated, and as naturalized persons, who had long resided here, who were married to English women, and had children born under the allegiance of our state. These were as much exposed as any others; this he considered as an additional grievance. This also he considered as much aggravated, seeing that all these persons were liable to suspicion, not merely from ministers, but were subjected to malignant information, and exposed to all the bad passions of men. He did not mean to accuse ministers of acting from personal motives against any who might have become victims of this bill, and been unwarrantably banished these kingdoms; but he asked, had the informations against them been sufficiently examined into; or had the motives of their accusers been sufficiently sifted? There had been a third secretary of state created; and though the business of that office was trifling in its nature, compared with the other departments, yet it found sufficient employ under this bill. When he considered the grounds upon which the bill was originally introduced, and examined the evils it pretended to guard against, he could not but consider the measure as unnecessary. When he saw the manner in which it had been executed, and considered the extensive and oppressive powers with which it armed government, he must oppose its further progress, Lord Grenville said, that the noble lord had entirely mistaken the history, policy, and tendency of the measure. The noble lord supposed it to be directed against the people of France in particular; and that consideration alone ought to furnish the noble lord with an answer to a considerable part of his argument. With respect to the people of France, it was right to afford that protection to them which this country had done in so eminent a degree during their distress. But without this bill, it would have been impossible to have done so; since, without it, there would have been no power of discriminating be tween the unfortunate and the evil-disposed. But it was not merely from the people of France that we had to apprehend danger. Europe was divided in its political opinions, and was as much agitated as it had ever been formerly upon its religious sentiments; and it became us to guard against the factious of all nations, But without such a measure as the present, we should not have been enabled to have done so. With respect to the manner in which the bill had been executed, he had no idea of the facts to which the noble lord pointed. But this much he would say, that the noble person in whose department the execution of this bill lay, was of such unimpeached integrity, that it never could be supposed that he would connive at any undue extension of power. With respect to the term fixed for the limitation of the bill, he thought the House of Commons had acted with wise and sound policy. They had fixed upon the natural term, without giving any opinion of what would be then proper to be done. The noble lord had urged the oppressive power created by this bill; but Englishmen would never think it any invasion of their liberties, that foreigners should be deprived of the power of mak ing attacks upon their constitution and happiness. Upon these grounds it would also meet the support of the House. The bill then went through the committee. Proceedings in the Commons relative to the High Price of Provisions.] Nov. 12. The House having resolved itself into a committee of the whole House, to consider of encouraging the Importation of Corn, and other grain, meal, and flour, Mr. Ryder moved the following Resolutions, which, after a short debate were agreed to: 1. "That the average price at which foreign corn shall be sold weekly in London, should be ascertained and published in The London Gazette. 2. "That there be given on every quarter of wheat, weighing 424 lbs. which shall be imported into the port of London, or into any of the principal ports of each district of Great Britain, before the 1st of October 1801, a bounty equal to the sum by which the said average price in London, published in the Gazette, in the third week after the importation of such wheat, shall be less than 100s. per quarter. 3. That there be given on every quarter of barley, weighing 352 lbs. which shall be imported into the port of London, or into any of the principal ports of each district of Great Britain, before the 1st of October 1801, a bounty equal to the sum by which the said average price in London, published in the Gazette in the third week after the importation of such barley, shall be less than 45s. per quarter. 4. "That there be given on every quarter of rye, weighing 408 lbs. which shall be imported into the port of London, or into any of the principal ports of each district of Great Britain, before the 1st of October 1801, a bounty equal to the sum by which the said average price in London, published in the Gazette in the third week after the importation of such rye, shall be less than 65s. per quarter. 5. "That there be given on every quarter of oats, weighing 280 lbs. which shall be imported into the port of London, or into any of the principal ports of each district of Great Britain, before the 1st of October 1801, a bounty equal to the sum by which the average price in London, published in the Gazette in the third week after the importation of such oats, shall be less than 30s. per quarter. 6. "That there be given on every barrel of superfine wheaten flour, of 196lbs. weight, which shall be imported into such ports before the 1st of October 1801, and sold by public sale by auction, within two months after importation, a bounty equal to the sum by which the actual price of each barrel of such flour so sold shall be less than 70s. 7. "That there be given on every barrel of fine wheaten flour, of 196 lbs. weight, which shall be imported into such ports before the 1st of October 1801, and sold by public sale by auction, within two months after importation, a bounty equal to the sum by which the actual price of each barrel of such flour so sold shall be less than 68s. 8. "That there be given on every cwt. of rice which shall be imported into such ports in any ship which shall have cleared out from any port in the East Indies before the 1st of September 1801, and which shall be sold by public sale, a bounty equal to the sum by which the actual price of each cwt. of such rice so sold shall be less than 32s. 9. That there be given on every cwt. of rice, from America, which shall be imported into such ports, before the 1st of October 1801, and sold by public sale by auction, within two months after importation, a bounty equal to the sum by which the actual price of each cwt. of such rice so sold shall be less than 35s.” On the motion of Mr. Pitt, a committee was appointed to consider of the present high price of provisions. First Report from the Commons' Committee on the High Price of Provisions.] Nov. 24. Mr. Ryder presented the fol lowing Report: FIRST REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE APPOINT- The Committee appointed to consider of the Have, in proceeding to the consideration of the important and extensive subject referred attention, in the first instance, to such meato them, thought it their duty to direct their sures as might be proposed for alleviating, as speedily as possible, the present pressure; without entering, at this moment, into a de |