Nottingham, at Maidstone, and various other places, these proofs of concert, of fyftem, and defign, were found to concur." Rumours falfe and unfounded were echoed and re-echoed, that thefe attempts had fucceeded in fome inftances, in order by this report to encourage the attempts in other places, with the hopes and example of this fuccefs. Indeed, ftronger proofs of a studied fyftem could not have been adduced to fatisfy the mind; though individual inftances of the attempt had been legally proved to have taken place, more complete evidence of the malignant and dangerous defign to feduce the military force of this country from its duty, could not have been adduced, in order to awaken the attention of Parliament, and to call forth the exercife of its remedial powers. "The circumstances recorded in thofe hand-bills are all of them equally falfe. The fame feamen who were worked upon by hand-bills, ftating the difaffection and mutiny of their comrades in a different part, were themfelves ftated to thofe comrades as having fet the fame example. A more dangerous fyltem could not offer itself; it is extenfive enough to be notorious, and malignant enough in its object to require the utmost jealoufy, power, and precaution of Parliament. Then, Sir, if we do require a proof, we have it by adverting to .he application of this fyftem in another quarter. Can we doubt of attempts having been made to feduce the foldiery, can we doubt the industry with which thofe attempts have been made, when we have the fatisfaction of seeing it in the loyalty and fidelity of the foldiery in repelling them?---Every proof we have of the loyalty and fidelity of the foldiers, is a proof of the induftry with which attempts have been made to corrupt them. With this notoriety as to the attempts upon one part of the fervice, can it be doubted whether the fame attempts have not been tried upon another. We can tell what most likely has been the cafe. When we have the melancholy experience of the mutiny which has exifted in the quarter to which I allude, and in which, of all others, it was to be leaft expected. know it is an offence not of native growth among our feamen. We know it has exifted, and has been attempted to be tranfplanted in every foil. If, Sir, we know that the minds of the feamen are loyal, then they must have been perverted. If we also know what were the inftruments ufed to pervert another part of the fervice, can there be a doubt what have been employed with respect to the navy? I fay the knowledge of the existence of fuch attempts as to the army, is fufficient to authorize the fuppofition of their existence with regard to the navy, at least; and the crime then unites all that malignity, all that heinousness 9S2 We heinoufnefs which can excite refentment, and all that danger and importance which can demand the application of Legislative remedies. "I inall not, in the prefent cafe, adopt a blind system of refentment for fuc an offence, but a certain degree of Legislative provifion. Of the propriety of the measure I fhall propose no one can doubt, unless he doubts that the ground of the penal laws is the heinoufnefs of the offence, the danger of it to the State, and the frequency of its commiffion. Sir, as to the queftion, whether the laws now in being are fufficient to prevent the offence; that they are not fufficient to deter perfons from comm tting it, is of itfelt fome prefumption that they are infufficient to prevent it; but this is not all, let us look to the whole penal laws, founded upon our ftatutes; and let me aik whether the ftatute laws have ever been confidered as a code of laws calculated to reach every offence, and to fix its punishment? Certainly not; and it would be vain to attempt to make them apply generally to offences of a particular defcription. In point of fact, the laws of this country have grown up from time to time, from the necefity of the occafion, from the character of particular offences, and offences against the State. To fay that there fhould be no law for the crime of feducing the foldiery and navy, is no more than to fay that there thould not be a law againft parricide, because there was a State where fuch law did not exift. There is, as far as I am informed, no provision in our Statute Laws for an offence of this kind, and I leave it to the Houfe to judge, whether we are to confider, as a common miidemeanor, an offence which in its rank and danger exceeds the ordinary fpecies of treafon. There is a proof how little Statute Laws apply to particular cafes. There was a time, just after the acceflion of the Houfe of Hanover, when an inticement to a foldier to defert was no more than a common misdemeanor; but will any man tell me that to incite to desertion, is to be compared with fuch an offence as this. An incitement not merely to defert, but to employ their arms against the country they were given them to guard and protect. Sure no one will tell me the common law against misdemeanors can be fufficient for an offence which I confider as the greatest outrage that can be offered against fociety. Then, Sir, under thefe circumftances, the only thing that actuates me in the propofition I fhall make, with refpect to the punishment of this offence, is, that it is not fo definite in its nature, as the crime of treafon; although I do conceive that those who endeavour to ftir up mutiny in his Majefty's fervice, are in point of moral guilt, the very worst traitors to fociety. I do not feel that I could propofe any punishment applicable to a misdemeanor, which would reach reach the guilt, I fhall therefore propofe a medium of punish- The Motion for leave to bring in the Bill was read by the Mr. Jolliffe agreed that the crime of feducing a foldier or fai- Mr. Brandling approved of the meafure, and he also recommended that rewards might be held out to fuch as were inftrumental in difcovering offenders of this defcription. Mr. Serjeant Alair." Sir, nothing but the most cogent fenfe of my duty could induce me on the prefent question to rife, for the purpose of stating to the Houfe my opinion. The calamities and difgraces which have characterised the two laft weeks of the hiftory of this country, have produced but one fentiment in this Houfe, and in the breaft of every man who regards the profperity of his country, or the fafety of his family. These proceedings have at once tarnished that which has been confidered at all times as the glory and fafeguard of the British Empire. No man can be so far a ftranger, no man can so far have but his eyes to thofe public and notorious facts, that evidence the calamities we have witneffed, to have been produced by a preconcerted plan formed by perfons inimical to Government. That fuch a crifis as the prefent calls for temporary measures of extraordinary punishment no one can doubt, and I cannot enough praise the principle which has produced the caution of the meafure propofed by the Right Honourable Gentleman. No man than myself is more averle to fixing extreme penalties to crimes, and therefore I must give every degree of approbation to the fentiments which characterised the Right Honourable Gentle man man in introducing the fubject. Feeling, as I do, that the extenfion of the penal laws fhould be avoided as much as poffible; feeling that crimes are much better repreffed by mild, than by fanguinary punishments, I cannot, without great reluctance, rife to exprefs my opinion that the punishment proposed, and the defcription of the offence, are fo extremely inadequate to the nature of the crime, that I cannot but confider the one as infufficient to prevent the other. "The Houfe will perceive I do not rife to oppofe the Bill, but merely the title of it. I think the title fhould be for the more effectual preventing and punishing of attempts to excite Mutiny and Sedition,' and if fuch is termed the offence, to inflict fuch punishment as the law applies in capital cafes. Sir, I cannot give my vote for the measure proposed by the Right Honourable Gentleman. I have two reafons for objećtieg to it; the first is, the defcription of the offence terming it a misdemeanor. Sir, with respect to a misdemeanor, however aggravated it may be, I do not conceive that any punishment that can be inficted by Act of Parliament for a mifdemeanor, can be adequate to this offence. I do not ufe this as an argument for making this offence high treafon; but the principal reafon which induces me to give this offence the defcription it merits, is that which induces me not to give it a defeription fo inadequate to it. The defcription of the offence as a misdemeanor will be the means of producing delay in bringing offenders to justice. Every lawyer knows that if it is ranked among misdemeanors, it is in the power of the offenders to delay the trial of the indictment. If cafes fhould occur when diftinct proof of this offence could be brought home to individuals, what would this Houfe think if the trials could be put off till the occafion was over, but that this would be the cafe if it is termed a misdemeanor is evident. This, Sir, is my firft objection; the next I will ftate to the Houfe; and, however I am of opinion that the punishment of death is already inflicted by the laws of this country in too many cafes, and however I may think in many inftances, it ought to be abolished, yet, Sir, I do not think any punishment than that of death is fufficient for the guilt of that man who, at a period when we are convulfed at home, involved in a war abroad, exhausted by the means neceflary for profecuting the war---no punishment, I fay, fhort of death, is fufficient atonement for the guilt of that man, who, finding the country in fuch a ftate, endeavours to convert its ftrength to its ruin. God forbid that human laws fhould be extended beyond the offence; but the extent of human laws must be dictated by the enormity and malignity of the crime. I am, therefore of opinion, that the punishment of death is the only mea fure fure that can be adopted for moft fpeedily and effectually preventing the commiffion of this offence, and therefore I thought it right, in the prefent ftage of the Bill, to ftate my objections. I would propofe, that the defcription of the offence thould be felony, in which cafe it would be the most easy and expeditious with refpect to the trial; and if there fhould be any degree of doubt of the guilt of any perfon, the laws applicable to felony would apply. Sir, nothing but the impreffion in my mind of the emergency of affairs fhould have induced me to recommend the punishment of death for this offence; however, I think it right to express this fentiment, that whatever the punishment may be which the Houfe may think proper to adopt, it should be only temporary, it fhould not be carried beyond the emergency of the cafe. How far in a time of more coolnefs and deliberation it may be proper to adopt regulations for permanent provifions is a different queftion, and perhaps under fuch circumftances, the provitions of the Chancellor of the Exchequer might be more adequate than they appear to be at prefent. I truft at this important crifis the Houfe will not forget the duty it owes itself and the public. At a moment when all its energy is called forth, the adopting the meafure propofed would be avoiding one evil by falling into another. Without referring again to what might be a proper measure at a period of coolness and deliberation hereafter, I thall only add, that at prefent I wish for the adoption of meafures of much greater feverity, but to limit their duration. The Chancellor of the Exchequer agreed with the Honourable Gentleman, that if the Houfe fhould adopt his measure, it fhould be only temporary. Feeling as ftrongly as that Gentleman, the extraordinary preffure of the circumftances, he had merely brought forward a measure, which, in his opinion, was adequate to the end propofed, fubject to the approbation of the House; and, therefore, whether the Bill was in its altered ftate, to be one of those extraordinary measures recommended by the Honourable Gentleman, or the one propofed by himself, would be determined by the Houfe. The cafe never had before existed, and as one Statute Law was not a fyftem of general authority, but a remedy applied to evils as they have exifted, it was open to the Houfe to apply whatever remedy was deemed moft likely to produce the defired effect. As to the meafure proposed, he would not give any decided opinion upon it, but he doubted whether the increafe of punishment was likely to be attended with the fuccefs the Honourable Gentleman feemed to expect. He admitted that the name of the Law would carry with it more terror, but whether the execution of it would be more effective he doubted. It was difficult to attach fuch a penalty, unlefs a more |