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

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 hon. gentleman, "it is not proper that the crime should exist at all;" true: but what I demand from those who argue in favour of the present bill is, to show me that what they propose to remove has not operated as a check upon the commission of the crime. This substituted law of honour, 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 show 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 hon. gentleman opposite me thinks it an evil that men should set up this law of honour, and he prefers open and avowed vice. Sir, I should think strangely of the morality and honour of that man who, having seduced a married woman, should afterwards scoff at her credulity, leave her to shame and sorrow, send her out an exile and a wanderer, and abandon her to all the horrors of mockery and insult. I should say to him who prefers that kind of morality, that he ought indeed to have a great stock of religion in his heart, to reconcile such principles and practice to his conscience. I should say that such conduct was a grosser violation of all moral feeling than the very act of adultery itself. The hon. gentleman has urged, with great truth, the obligations the country is under to certain illustrious personages, for the example of domestic virtues which they have uniformly afforded. Is it not true too, I would ask, that the women of this country were never more correct in their conduct than at present? Is there any man, I would also ask, who, when it is attempted to be contended that the days of Charles II. were purity to these, does not know that assertion to be an untruth? If that be the case, is it no slight thing to throw out this unmannerly and unmanly slander upon the morality of the country? Is it nothing to hold forth, that the example which the illustrious personages upon the throne have for so long a period afforded, has produced no good effect; and that, instead of having been

attended with any beneficial consequences, we are forced, after a period of forty years, to make a law to stop the progress of adultery? The hon. gentleman has described a husband treating his wife ill, and has added, "that if a seducer had not intervened, the wife, by her gentleness, her meekness, and her virtues, might at last have reclaimed the husband." Sir, that there would be frequent examples of this forbearance and perseverance on the part of the wife, I am not yet prepared to admit. But the hon. gentleman says, "ought not the seducer to be punished? Yet he cannot be, if this ill usage is proved against the husband." Sir, I will not answer, whether the seducer ought to be punished, because I contend that he cannot be under this bill. A learned gentleman has talked of exemplary damages being given. I do not pretend to be much of a lawyer; but, in my opinion, talking of exemplary damages in civil actions, is talking exemplary nonsense. Who told juries that they were to be the custodes morum?—I will not surmise who pressed this into the minds of juries, but he who states this doctrine is responsible for the effect it produces. Sir, I know it will be said that these objectionable parts may be removed in a committee-and this is what I complain of, that these bills come to us in a shape so little resembling that in which they are to pass, that, like the crafty tyrant, in Shakspeare, they may say

to us

Judge not by what I am, but what I shall become !" Sir, a judge may think it proper to tell a jury, that £20,000— that a whole fortune-is not sufficient to repair the injury a husband has sustained. A jury, however, may think otherwise; and only give £2,000. The same man may afterwards, by the present bill, come under an indictment before the same judge, who may deem it to be his duty to make up for this supposed deficiency on the part of the juries; and this is one of the evils which this bill may tend to produce. A learned friend of mine, who has argued in favour of the measure, has talked of the harmonious whole-but what is the fact? Is there not this anomaly? The seducer is only to be prosecuted by one individual; and who is this individual? the husband, who, in other parts of the bill, may be supposed to be in collusion. How many years of solitary confinement the seducer is to be punished with we are not told; but, on his trial for the misdemeanour,