rose, in pursuance of his notice, to move for leave to bring in a Bill to render more effectual the act of the 37th of the King, ch. 123, for more effectually preventing the administering or taking of unlawful Oaths. In performing the painful task which had devolved upon him at this most momentous crisis, of increasing the penalties already attached to the commission of the offences which the Bill he had mentioned was meant to prevent, it could scarcely be necessary to call the attention of the House to the disturbances which had lately taken place in different parts of the country—disturbances which had been characterised by the utmost atrocity, and during which the destruction of private property had been enormous. These outrages were sufficiently notorious to require comment. In the course of those lawless proceedings, however, a system of organization and plan had been pursued, which required the utmost energy of the legislature to destroy. He alluded to the formation of associations, who bound themselves by solemn oaths, to the performance of the most rash and daring undertakings. Throughout the counties of York, Lancaster and Nottingham, it had been discovered that a great variety of those unlawful oaths had been administered, and that the system had prevailed to a very alarming extent. He held in his hand the copy of one of these oaths, which was found in the pocket of a man who was killed in a wanton attack on the house of a most respectable individual, a Mr. Burton, which sufficiently proved the necessity of adopting some immediate remedy to prevent the contagion from spreading more widely. It was to the following effect:—"I A. B. voluntarily make oath that I will never reveal, to any individual in any place under the canopy of heaven, the names of any of the persons composing the Secret Committee; and that neither by word nor by deed, I will divulge their complexion, form, appearance, or any thing else which may lead to a discovery of their persons, under penalty of being put out of the world by the first brother who shall meet me after I have committed any such act, and after death of being remembered with abhorrence and detestation; and, finally, that I will punish by death any traitor or traitors who shall be guilty of such conduct; and, should he fly to the verge of the nation, that I will pursue him with unceasing vengeance." Such was the complexion of the oaths which there was reason to apprehend had been administered in various parts of the kingdom, and what was doubly unfortunate, since the dangerous practice had existed, there had been more attempts at murder, more acts of assassination than had ever before been known in the history of the empire. Under these circumstances it became incumbent on the legislature to adopt some measure more severe, some punishment more awful than that which was inflicted for such offences by the statute now in existence. The safety of the loyal part of the inhabitants of the country imperiously called for such a measure, and he had no doubt parliament would agree with his Majesty's government in the expediency of applying an instantaneous remedy to prevent the further progress of practices, the horrors likely to arise from the continuation of which, it would be impossible to estimate. He had therefore to propose, that the taking or administering of an oath binding the party to the commission of an illegal offence, should be deemed a capital felony without benefit of clergy. He had it in contemplation however to insert a provision, that any person who should have taken such unlawful oath, and should come forward before a charge was made against him of such unlawful act, confess his guilt before a magistrate, and take the oath of allegiance, should be exempted from the penalties of the act. The right hon. gentleman then moved for leave to bring in a Bill to amend the act of the 37th of the King, ch. 123, according to these suggestions.

said, he did not rise to oppose the motion of the right hon. gentleman at present, but to offer a few observations on the proposition which had just been submitted to the House. He thought the legislature ought not to enact capital punishments, without the most mature consideration, and could by no means agree in the expediency of the measure about to be introduced by the right hon. the Secretary of State. It was a vital principle of the English law to distinguish between the intention to commit a crime, and the actual commission of that crime. In no one instance, except in cases of high treason, was the fact of conspiracy to commit an offence considered as culpable as the crime itself. But in the present instance, it was proposed to make the conspiring to commit a murder an offence to meet with equal punishment as the murder itself. This was a principle so directly opposite to British jurisprudence, that he could by no means give it his sanction. By the law, as it at present stood, persons administering unlawful oaths were liable to seven years' transportation, which he considered a punishment in all respects sufficient for the offence. If the crime of administering or taking the oath was to be pronounced capital, the argument upon the part of the offender naturally would be, that he might as well commit the offence he had sworn to do as not, for the punishment in either cases would be the same. With respect to the proposal that the offender should not be punished if he confessed his guilt and consented to swear himself back into allegiance, he thought the public would have very little security that such a person would continue a good subject. For the total inefficiency of all political oaths, the hon. gentleman referred to a letter of Mr. Speaker Onslow, as printed in Coxe's Memoirs of sir Robert Walpole.

had no idea of waiting for a future stage of the Bill to give it his opposition. Conceiving it to be a measure highly objectionable, as well as inconsistent with the principles of the constitution, he should oppose its introduction altogether. In his opinion, nothing was more dangerous than to attempt to legislate in the present awful aspect of our affairs, by an increased severity of our criminal laws. No man lamented more sincerely the dreadful nature of the insurrection which had been stated by the right hon. the Secretary of State than himself; but in what degree the distresses in which the discontent originated were attributable to the present government, was a question which he did not mean then to introduce. He could not withhold the observation, however, as he had it constantly before him, that although he believed great part of the distresses of the kingdom could not be avoided by any human, foresight, yet that those distresses were aggravated and increased by the commercial and political policy adopted by the present ministers of the crown. By an alteration in that policy, which in his estimation was destructive of the very existence of the country, he had no doubt that much benefit would be derived, although he did not mean to say a complete cure would be effected. Any new enactment of a capital felony was contrary to English jurisprudence, and contrary to the maxims which had at all times been countenanced by that House, and from which he conceived the House would be extremely reluctant to depart. Of all the objections to the proposed measure, none, in his opinion, was more cogent than that of its making no distinction between the contemplation and the commission of the offence. This was one of the instances in which the present as well as former governments had endeavoured to get rid of their difficulties by applying to the legislature for new laws, careless of what the result of those laws might be. He would ask why they did not try the effect of the laws passed in 1797? Why did they not let a special commission go down and try the offenders by existing laws? If that was ineffectual, they might then apply with better reason for a new Bill; but until they had made the experiment, he trusted the House would agree with him in opposing the Bill altogether.

was happy to find that some of the proceedings of his Majesty's government had met with the approbation of the hon. gentleman who had just sat down. For he had to assure him, that it had already been determined that no time should be lost in dispatching a special commission to try those offenders, who had been discovered. In viewing the enormities which had already been committed in those parts of the country which had been most conspicuous in the late disturbances, he conceived he should not be performing his duty to the loyal part of the community, if he did not use his endeavours to protect their lives by a new law from the attacks of those who set all former laws at defiance. What did the hon. and learned gentleman mean by trying the experiment of the law of 1797? Was the House to go on to try the experiment from week to week, and from month to month, to see how much property would be demolished, or how many persons would be assassinated? If the hon. and learned gent. had the information which his Majesty's government were daily receiving from all parts of the country, of increasing alarm and danger, he would in- deed see that any delay for the trial of experiments would be at the expence of the lives of his Majesty's peaceable subjects, who had no protection for their property, or from being shot on the highway—and yet the House was to be told that they should wait the event of a special commission, till a jury was summoned, and, in effect, till the punishment of transportation was tried; and if that was found inefficacious, they must wait till next sessions for a new Bill to relieve the country from the most horrid outrages. If the hon. and learned gentleman was in the neighbourhood of those disturbances, if he was called upon to defend himself or his neighbours from the attacks of these ruffians, he would not be inclined to propose any such delay. With respect to the arguments which had been used against making the punishment for the conspiracy equal to that for the offence, he would ask, could it be called a bare conspiracy where a number of persons went from place to place administering by compulsion, oaths, which bound the individuals taking them to the commission of the most atrocious offences, than which he could not conceive in malice or human depravity, a more dangerous or pernicious practice? In fact, it was scarce short of high treason; the only difference being, that in one instance the treason was against the sovereign himself, and in the other against the state. The hon. gentleman had stated that the government was not justified in resorting to any new enactment of capital punishments. Did he mean to assert then that whatever might be the difficulties into which the country might be plunged, the ministers of the crown were not justified in resorting to those measures of salvation which they might deem essential to the preservation of the people? Could any doctrine be more futile, or more at variance with the feelings of the nation at large? The hon. and learned gentleman had said that this was one of the frequent attempts of government to provide for an extremity by an immediate enactment: he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) might with much greater truth assert, that the present was only one of the frequent attempts made by gentlemen opposite to defeat the measures of government, the objects of which were the security and salvation of the state. The hon. and learned gentleman had also said, and justly said, that a great part of the calamities were attributable to circumstances over which no government could have controul; but when he proceeded to state that ministers were the cause of those mischiefs, he hoped and trusted he spoke conscientiously, but that such language at the present momentous and awful crisis would be attended with most mischievous effects, he had every reason to apprehend. That the assertions were unfounded he was perfectly confident. In those districts where riot and confusion had been most predominant, it had been discovered that those who were most instrumental to the disturbances were not in want of work; and from what he heard from all quarters he had every reason to believe the leaders of the rioters were actuated by any other motive than distress to their lawless proceedings. The hon. and learned gentleman had then proceeded to state that the effect of the Bill would be to induce those who had already taken the oath, to pursue their course of iniquity, regardless of the consequences, as by their anticipation of the crime they were equally as guilty and as liable to punishment as if they had completed it. If the principle of the Bill really went to this extent, it would certainly be highly objectionable, but the House would recollect that it was not to have a retrospective effect, and that a clause of indemnity was inserted, by which persons having taken the oath of allegiance would be relieved from the effects of the act. It had been said, that this sanguinary law would have no effect whatever. In answer to this, he could only cite an instance, in which a measure somewhat similar had been attended with the greatest advantage. He alluded to the act passed to prevent the seduction of soldiers from their allegiance. In that case only one individual had been taken up, which was two days after the passing of the act, he was capitally convicted, but was not executed in consequence of its being supposed that he was not aware of the provisions of the act. The effect of this example was, however, to put a complete stop to the commission of the offence; an effect which he had every reason to anticipate upon the present occasion. He hoped, under all the circumstances of the case, the House would have no objection to the introduction of the Bill, which he conceived was no more than the loyal part of his Majesty's subjects had a right to expect of the hands of government.

observed, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had made two attempts that might well have been spared; the one was to combine and mix up the gentlemen who opposed this Bill with the supporters of the disgraceful disturbances that convulsed the empire—the other to persuade the nation that those who resisted this Bill, did so because it was a measure calculated to support the law and constitution of the realm. Upon this unfounded assertion, certain members, particularly an hon. gentleman and a noble lord, set up a cheer, as if the mere statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer was only necessary to convince them, that nothing more was necessary to induce the opposition to open their mouths but to bring forward a measure beneficial to the country. What was the true ground on which the resistance was founded? Because it was thought that the Bill would be highly injurious in its effects. If it were likely that this measure would prevent murder, assassination, or riot, it would be cheerfully supported, or if it were not, such members as objected would well deserve punishment, besides the disagreeable cries that gentlemen on the other side seemed to vie with each other in uttering. The great objection to the proposition was, that it mixed up two offences, one the taking of an oath, (comparatively slight) the other the actual perpetration of a murder! Was there no law existing to prevent the former? Had it been tried? If not, why was it not resorted to and enforced by a special commission? The Bill of 1797 inflicted not a very slight punishment, and it was brought in by a minister full as bold, and perhaps a little more able, than the right hon. gentleman, at a period, too, of much more threatening danger than the present. "But," said the Chancellor of the Exchequer, "you must not delay an instant," and what was his conduct? Instead of enforcing a law already existing, the vigour of which could be called forth in an instant, he suggested a new Bill, which would take weeks in debating and passing through its various stages in both Houses of Parliament—nothing could exceed the disparity between the law against the seduction of soldiers, and that now proposed, and he maintained that no man, not even the Chancellor of the Exchequer, could tell against whom this law was to be carried into execution. It was true it mentioned a brotherhood, but government was wholly ignorant of whom it was composed. As an act now existed, in his opinion, competent to the prevention of the crime complained of, he resisted this Bill.

expressed his surprise at finding, on entering the House, the hon. and learned gentleman (Mr. Horner) who he believed was so anxious to proceed in the investigation of the causes of the present distresses of the country, contributing to extend a debate, which was inconsistent with the usages of the House in that stage of a Bill, and thereby defeating his own object. He did not mean to say that the introduction of a new capital punishment did not deserve discussion, but on an awful and interesting occasion like this, when the peace and tranquillity, nay, the very existence of the country was at stake, he could not help deprecating an opposition which seemed wholly founded upon party prejudices.

spoke to order, conceiving himself improperly accused of being influenced by party spirit, in his opposition to this measure.

did not believe that he had gone beyond the usual rules of debate: his unfeigned respect for the hon. and learned gentleman increased his surprize, that he should think fit to give the Bill his opposition in this early stage. The very next order of the day was an enquiry into what it was contended was the cause of the commercial distresses, but gentlemen in their anxiety could not restrain themselves until it were concluded, but introduced topics with censurable warmth, which had little or no relation to the subject of debate, and which had only the effect of fomenting the disturbances they complained of. They held out to the lawless rabble that murdered without mercy, and burned without reason, a sort of salvo for their consciences, by telling them that the conduct of government had given cause for their proceedings. He was unwilling to inflict capital punishments excepting in extreme cases, but here it was imperatively demanded. Learned jurists, in former times, had expressed fears lest bad laws should be passed without opposition and remark; had they lived in the present day they would have changed their opinion, and even have added, that not even good laws could be passed without resistance. He strenuously insisted, that the danger was threatening and extensive. That the criminals were resolute, and required a strong arm to suppress them, was evident from the fact that in the attack upon Mr. Burton's manufactory, although eight were killed and many wounded, yet on the succeeding day, the premises were burned to the ground. If the government, knowing these facts, had omitted a single day in bringing forward, a measure to counteract them, it would have been worthy of the indignation and contempt of the country.

admitted that his hon. and learned friend (Mr. Horner) had no just ground for speaking to order; since the remark that party-spirit had dictated this opposition was a trite observation which usually proceeded from the most zealous partizans. Whether considering the situation and conduct of the hon. and learned gentleman who made the accusation, it were at all decent, was another question. That hon. gent had entered the House pledged to the support of a certain set of measures—

rose to order, and the Speaker determined in his favour.

continued, that reflecting on all those circumstances, all he meant to say was, that he thought the accuser must be deemed to be quite as much embued with party spirit as the accused. He, however, was sorry that the acuteness of the hon. and learned member's feelings had induced him to take offence: he (Mr. W.) would not have followed the example had it not been previously set: nor was the hon. and learned member a pattern of that coolness, which he had recommended. He (Mr. W.) insisted that it was perfectly true, that if the measures of government had not created they had augmented the distresses of the inhabitants of the manufacturing counties, and it was now proposed to punish them for crimes of which they had in a manner promoted the commission. The censure so liberally bestowed upon the introduction of extraneous topics, if carried to its full extent, would put a stop to all freedom of discussion, or close the doors upon the public. Either its effect would be such, or the remark would be only idle nonsense. The solidity of the honourable member's judgment, and the facility with which he was carried away by his feelings, would not be less questionable, when it was recollected that he had declared on a former occasion, he would have convicted a man for the murder of another left on a desert island, who was now alive and enjoying prosperity. He did not deny that the motives on the one side of the House were good, and he claimed equal credit for the other, which maintained that the Bill would augment instead of diminishing the evil. If it were necessary that no time should be lost, why was not the Bill introduced long ago? One great objection to it in his mind was, that it resorted to the ultimum supplicium for a comparatively slight offence, unless ministers intended to proceed to re-enact the statutes of Henry 8, which directed that for particular crimes the offenders should be boiled. This conduct certainly would not be without support, and that of modern date, and from high authority, since the Chancellor for Ireland in the year 1798, justified the infliction of torture. The good that would result from this Bill might be easily ascertained, from observing the very beneficial effects produced by the Nottingham Bill. How many criminals had been either discovered or punished under it? Another principal reason which induced him to resist the progress of this Bill, was, that no distinction was made between the crime of taking an unlawful oath, and the assassination of a man: he should therefore vote against this Bill, not from party spirit, but on public grounds.

spoke in support of the motion.

contended against it, insisting that a committee to enquire into the facts ought first to have been appointed. If the country were generally disturbed, it was to be presumed that some cause existed, to which the riots were to be attributed.

argued, that the riots ought first to be subdued, and the cause which gave rise to them afterwards examined. Riots might exist without any just or sufficient cause for them.

in explanation observed, that what he had said was, that he believed there never was a general insurrection of the people without cause.

contended against the in troduction of the Orders in Council into every debate. They were made a sort of standing dish: they had already been served up for dinner, and he supposed the House would be again treated with them for supper. He expressed himself in favour of the Bill.

begged to be informed, if any attempt had ever been made to carry the Act of the 37th of the King into effect? If not, the trial of that law should first be made.

, although he was generally averse to any extension of the penal code, or aggravation of the punishments provided therein, was of opinion that the system recently pursued of destroying machinery, was in itself so mischievous, and bore so strongly the appearance of proceeding from the instigation of the enemy's emissaries, that he could not withhold his assent from the motion of the right hon. the Secretary of State. In ordinary cases he would be glad to try if existing laws were sufficient to stop an evil. But, good God! when men were thus associated by thousands to murder those who differed from them, was it a time to be sitting there, debating upon systems? Was it a time to hesitate when parliament saw diabolical designs carried into execution, which could not from their nature proceed from an ignorant multitude, but must be planned by higher talents, whether foreign or domestic he could not say, but which unless they burnt the standing corn before harvest, were better calculated than any others which could be adopted to bring misery and starvation upon the people? He lamented that stronger measures had not already been resorted to; and he hoped that if the present Bill failed in remedying the evil, martial law would be proclaimed. It was idle to talk of scales of punishment, when the laws themselves were contemned and set at defiance.

Leave was then given to bring in the Bill.

intimated, that in consequence of the advanced state of the session, and various other important considerations, it was not his intention to submit any measure relative to the renewal of the East India Company's Charter, during the present session.

observed, that it must be obvious to the House, that the lateness of the hour was such, as to make it impossible to do justice to that important subject of which he had given notice. He had acquiesced in the suggestion of his right hon. friend last night, and agreed that a motion of a right hon. gentleman, which appeared to be rather of more immediate importance, should take precedence. So much discussion had taken place on that question, as well as upon that raised in the recent examination, that the time had passed beyond that limit which could possibly afford the means of a full consideration of a motion, the object of which was to make extensive alterations in the system of popular representation in that House. He wished that an early day should be named, when other business might be excluded, and would readily assent to any which might appear to be the most open.

said, that an hon. friend of his who had given notice of a motion for Friday, had informed him that he could not bring it on on that day, without material inconvenience to himself. He suggested, therefore, that no objection would probably exist to fixing that day; which was finally agreed to, on the understanding that it should take precedence.

The House then resumed the examination of witnesses on the Orders in Council.