Here Mr. Burke read an act of queen Anne, containing provisions similar to those before the House. This he said, he had read for the purpose of showing that our ancestors had entered into an enumeration of the specific things that constituted the offences, not as overt acts, but as acts treasonable in themselves, following exactly that of king William, all of which went on the principle, that it was not safe for the subject to have the construction of overt acts left to the caprice of judges; and the last statute, namely, that of queen Anne, was not only prospective, but retrospective; as it declared those who had been abroad before it, and returned without licence, traitors-and, prospective, as it declared those who transported, or went on board a ship with intent to transport themselves to France, guilty of high treason. So that this was not the first attempt to make an intent high treason. That statute had an energy and a harshness in it far greater than the present, although it was made in the very session that the queen received an account of the glorious victory of Blenheim, although the Houses of Parliament were full of whigs, and although there was not a single division in the Commons on it, from the 12th of January to the 8th of March, the time it was going through the House. Nay, it was carried triumphantly through, though the Commons were as wise and virtuous then as at any time.

Here Mr. Burke quoted a sentence from the Lex Julia Majestatis, in order to show that all nations agreed in the principle, that he who aided the enemy was guilty of high treason. But gentlemen had asked, was a bare intent to commit an act sufficient ground for punishment? To this he would answer, Yes! the law pronounced it. Not, indeed, that intent which lay concealed in the bosom, but that which was conceived with a resolution to execute it; not the cogitation, but the

As to the word "agree," to which so many objections had been made, Mr. Burke answered with great force of argument, that an agreement implied an intention of two people; it was, in fact, a contract-not a nudum pactum, but such as a man might recover on at law. As to the argument of the right hon. gentleman (Mr. Fox), from the statute of frauds and perjuries, that a sum above ten pounds cannot be recovered under a verbal agree-› ment, that right hon. gentleman, he said, was acquainted with the laws well enough to know, that the criminal law punished an offence on a sum far below that on which a civil action could be maintained; for instance, if a man put a twopenny stamp upon paper, it was felony. In short, the smallest pecuniary frauds were by the law highly criminal and for this. plain reason, that if, in criminal cases, a loose was given in small matters, it would be impossible to know where the mischief would end: so that from criminal and, civil law it was impossible to argue à mi-, nore ad majorum or vice versa. When gentlemen objected to the provisions of the: bill on the score of possible perjury, they. should reflect, that it was the condition of human law and human nature to be ruled by the oaths of men in trials for their life and property, there being no other means to be resorted to. That objection, therefore, was at an end: so that the bill. introduced no new matter, no anomaly whatsoever; and if it differed from the statute of Anne in any thing, it was in being infinitely more lenient.

"The next matter for the consideration, of the House was, whether there were any new occasions that demanded this measure? And if there were, whether they: came within the meaning of the words, aiding and comforting? For the laws, he said, were bending to occasions while they followed principles, as the rays of, light acting under a general law are refracted by a particular modification of glass through which they would, under the same laws, otherwise pass in a direct line. What was the particular occa

of France, he observed, and with infinite regret observed, was left out. It was, indeed, he said, hiatus valde deflendus : but as it had been abandoned, he would make no farther remarks on it.

sion that governed the present case? France had endeavoured under the specious pretext of an enlarged benevolence, to sow the seeds of enmity among nations, and destroy all local attachments, calling them narrow and illiberal-thereby to dissever the people from their governors. Let any one read the proceedings of that mother of mischief, the Revolution Society, and be convinced. In consequence of this, he said, the House was called upon to give every fair advantage and every parental advice to the country, and preserve that moral relation, the destruction of which was the great aim of its enemies.

As to the injury commerce might be supposed to receive, he would say a few words. England was a commercial nation-so was every other, as far as it could. But if, by commercial nation, it was implied that commerce was her ultimate, her only end, he would deny it; her commerce was a subservient instrument to her greater interests, her security, her honour and her religion. If the commercial spirit tended to break those, he insisted that it should be lowered. Gentlemen had said, that if we refused to supply the French, Holland would; and elucidated their argument by an old observation, that if the devil was carrying a Dutchman to hell, he would contract with him to supply the coals. To this he could only say, that our supplying the French would be exactly a parallel case, and full as despicable; and he would answer for the patriotic spirit of the British merchants, that they would willingly dispense with the profits of that trade for the benefit of their country. As to the insuring of our enemy's ships, he objected to it, chiefly on account of the moral effect it must have on the minds of the people. In a state of warfare, it must be the wish of every good mind to disarm the enemy rather by despoiling than killing them, as well from motives of humanity as personal interest. When, therefore, a prize was taken, and an English insurer was to pay the loss, exclusive of the increased litigation, it either gave the captor the pain to deplore the loss of a fellow subject, or rendered him callous to the consideration and feelings he should have on such an account, and inspired an habitual delight in the plunder of his fellow citizens, and an indifference to the welfare of his country, perhaps worse. The clause for preventing British subjcts purchasing in the funds

On the whole, conceiving, as he did, that it was the duty of the House to concentrate and fortify the country-conceiving that it was their duty to keep their subjects at home, and prevent an adulterous communication with the French-and conceiving that a man was as likely to be a better husband for having two wives, as a better subject for having two countries

he would give the bill his most hearty concurrence. And when the House considered that France could only be enabled to carry on war out of resources drawn from the bowels of Great Britain, it could not but approve of a measure which only went to prevent Englishmen from fighting against their own country, and making contracts to its ruin. "Let us not," said Mr. Burke, "turn our every thing, the love of our country, our honour, our virtue, our religion, and our security, to traffic-and estimate them by the scale of pecuniary or commercial reckoning. The nation that goes to that calculation destroys itself."

Here Mr. Burke drew an animated picture of a contractor dealing with the French, and put into his mouth the following expressions: "Should our sovereign, impelled by parental feelings for his people, hazard his august person, and take the field against you, behold, here is powder of the first quality, and here are bullets that shall do his business. I do not cheat you; believe me, they are good. Or should his children, stimulated by an hereditary thirst for glory, take the field, their avarice shall defeat their courage; those bullets and this bayonet shall go to their hearts, and Great Britain and her commerce be the gainer." He then turned to the subscription set or foot for a provision for the widows of men killed in battle, pronounced a warm eulogium on the subscribers, and said, "But then comes Mr. Contractor, and tells them, if I don't supply, you have no occasion to subscribe-and while they find charity, his avarice finds objects for it." Mr. Burke declared, that all he desired was, that England would be true to herself, and not carry on an adulterous intercourse with the prostitute outcasts of mankind.

The question being put that the bill do pass, the House divided:

the committee, the report was this day brought up and agreed to. After counsel had been heard against the bill,

Earl Stanhope said, he approved of the great features of the bill, but as he meant to propose some amendments, he thought the best way would be to recommit it.

Lord Thurlow was of opinion, that unless imprisonment for debt was unnecessary for the support of credit, it ought to exist; if it was necessary for that purpose, it ought to be a real imprisonment, and they being allowed to be at large within the rules, as was the present practice, was extremely improper. Imprisonment, for debt was either intended for coercing payment to the creditor, or as the punishment of fraud; and he could see no principle, either of justice or expediency, for allowing a debtor, who might appear to have acted fairly with respect to one or two debts, which alone were the subject of investigation, to procure a liberation and discharge from all his other debts, as to which his conduct might have been very different. His lordship said, that although he did not see any consistent principle operating throughout the bill, in its present shape, which could meet his mind upon the subject, yet he did not say that it might not be so modelled as to besome a beneficial measure. In this view he approved of the recommitment.

The Lord Chancellor said, he must oppose the recommitment, unless it was intended, in the committee, to make a great and essential change in the bill. He had formerly given his opinion, which he still retained, that the insolvent clauses were unjust in principle and, impracticable in execution; they struck at the whole system of the law of England with respect to debtor and creditor-an attempt which, in his opinion, was highly dangerous, and which did not appear to be justified by any necessity sufficiently urgent. But even in that system (as in many others which were generally good), he was ready to admit that there might be particular inconveniences and individual hardships, to which perhaps some remedy might be safely applied. The security of the creditor, as connected with general credit, was the interest of the debtor no less than of the creditor; but every false expense, every delay, every uncertainty in the recovery of debts, ought to be avoided. In his present view of the case, he was rather inclined to the limiting arrests on mesne process to sums above 20. He thought

also that the shortening, abridging, and cutting off expense from proceedings on mesne process was another very attainable object; and a proper regulation as to the treatment of debtors in gaol, he should consider also as very important matter. But he was for proceeding even as to these with great timidity, and only for a short time by way of experiment. Though he approved of several regulations of the bill, he did not feel that he could sufficiently digest them, so as to reconcile his mind to agree to them this session; and he would therefore propose that the bill, when gone through in the committee, should lie over till next session, and that it should be referred to the judges, that they might bring in a bill framed upon their ideas. The noble lord would still be entitled to much credit, and they would receive great assistance from his labours and suggestions.

Lord Rawdon reprobated the proposition of the learned ford and said, that nothing would be more disagreeable to him than to recommit the bill for the purpose he had mentioned, if there was no serious intention to go through with it, but only to allow it to sleep over till next session. Their lordships might talk of putting off this bill to another session, as if it were to another week but to those whom it was meant to relieve, the delay was a serious matter indeed; to recommit it, for the purpose of putting it off for another session, was totally unbecoming the dignity of the House, and he must complain loudly that this opposition had not been made sooner, instead of giving that apparent countenance to the measure, which it had receiv ed in its progress.

The question for the recommitment of the bill was put and carried. A motion was then made by lord Thurlow, that the bill should be recommitted on that day two months; to which lord Stanhope moved, as an amendment, to leave out the words "two months," for the purpose of inserting "monday next." The House divided on the question, that the words "two months" stand part of the motion. Contents, 10; Not-contents, 5: Majority against the bill, 5.

Debate in the Lords on the Abolition of the Slave Trade.] April 11. The Earl of Abingdon rose and said :-Your lordships will not suppose that I am about to enter into the wide and extensive field of argument which the question for the Abolition