the seating of Mr. Tierney, by means of a minority of votes, and praying relief." The second Norwich case, in 1787, was quoted upon this occasion, and it actually did appear, from that precedent, that the disqualification did not extend to a new election; but it was evident, that the late decision was in strict conformity to the spirit of the act for the preventing of undue influence, and accordingly nothing was obtained by this application.

Mr. Tierney now became not only a constant attendant on the house, but a frequent debater, on all the great and important objects brought forward for the consideration of the commons. In the spring of 1797, when all payments in money at the Bank of England were suspended by order of council, and Mr. Chancellor Pitt moved for a bill to enable that corporate body to issue twenty-shilling notes, Mr. Fox opposed the whole of the plans lately adopted, "as a general breach of faith," while Mr. Tierney, at the same time, considered this particular measure, "as affording an opportunity for the most pernicious species of jobbing and speculation." A few days after, in order to probe the subject to the quick, the latter moved for "an account of all the outstanding advances from the directors of the bank to the government, with the interest of the same, since the order of council was issued on the 25th of February last, for the restriction of payment in specie.”

This was accordingly obtained; but when he moved "for an account of the encrease or decrease of bills discounted by the bank in the week ending Saturday

the

the 4th of March," assigning as a reason, that the discounts had encreased to an alarming amount, Mr. Pitt objected, under pretence that it would tend to divulge the private transactions of the company; notwithstanding it was urged in reply, "if the bank really possessed that solidity of resource, and if the conduct of the directors was guided by that prudence for which they got credit, the greater publicity that was given either to the state or management of their affairs the better."

On the debate about the eighteen millions, commonly called the loyalty loan, when Mr. Pitt, after stating that the discount had risen to fourteen and even fifteen per cent. proposed to bestow on each person five pounds in the hundred, in consequence of the depreciation of stock, although "he allowed they had no claim of right," he was opposed by several commoners, and particularly the member for Southwark. He contended "that the proposition of the chancellor of the exchequer was nothing less than ripping up an act of parliament, by an attempt to do what he thought justice, when he himself allowed, that from the lapse of time and circumstances which had intervened, justice was rendered impossible. Add to this, that the proposition was made at the end of a session which he must not call extravagant, for that house never did any thing extravagant; but at the end of a session in which burdens had been imposed upon the people to an amount beyond all precedent; a proposition by which they were called upon to vote 70,000l. a year, which at fourteen years pur

chase,

chase, was one million sterling of the people's money. He asked, if the house had not as much confidence in the right honourable gentleman, as the right ho nourable gentleman contended the country had in the house, and whether they would give their sanction to a measure so shameful in its nature, and so injurious in its effects? If relief was to be given, why was not a petition presented by the sufferers, stating their loss, and praying for indemnification ?

"But when this mutiny arose among the loyalists, they, like other mutineers, appointed delegates, and for five months had conferences almost every week with the chancellor of the exchequer. What wonder was it then that the right honourable gentleman ask. ed, with an air of triumph, what part of the nation had lost their confidence in him? Certainly not the city of London. And what was the reason of the city of London's remaining firm in their allegiance to administration? because they had a negociation pending with him, upon the result of which depended one million of money! Was there any man at all acquainted with the city of London who did not know that a consideration of this magnitude would procure its support to any administration? And, where was the surprise, when this bonus was promised, that the mutiny did not shew itself in such a way as to endanger his situation? When the loan had been subscribed for, the subscribers were praised for loyalty. It unfortunately came out, however, that loyalty was a commodity of such a kind that in this country it would not keep for two months.

1804-1805.

E

"If

"If the worst enemies to England had projected a measure essentially to injure her interests, they could not have been more successful than the right honourable gentleman in bringing forward the present proposition. It proved that we were engaged in a war in which those who offered their lives and fortunes in its support were not serious in one word they said; and the most extravagant railer against the government and constitution of the country could not take better ground than upon the vote of this night."

Mr. Tierney also, in the course of the same session, objected to the measure for preventing and punishing the seduction of his Majesty's sea and land forces. He observed upon this occasion, "That he had thought it his duty to oppose the leave for bringing in the bill, and having in that opposition stood alone, he felt himself called upon to say a few words. The cordial support he had given to the address to his Majesty would prevent the possibility of any improper construction being put upon his motives for what he had done; but, having cheerfully joined in an abhorrence of all violent and disorderly conduct which might endanger the peace and happiness of the kingdom, he could not at the same time but recollect that, as a member of parliament, he was bound to see that, under pretence of repressing violent measures, no unjustifiable means should be adopted. When Mr. Pitt opened his bill, he proposed to punish criminally any person committing any act tending to excite mutiny, and this bill he did not state to be for any limited time. A bill of such a pature he had thought

thought it his duty to reject. If it was meant only to punish persons convicted of conspiring to stir up the army against their commanders, the head of those commanders being the King, he thought the laws of high-treason at present existing rendered the bill unnecessary; if it was meant to punish capitally men who, in the opinion of a jury, had said or done something to excite mutiny, he thought the bill ought to be opposed. Under such a provision a man might incur the severest penalty for a speculative or a loose conversation. By the amendments now proposed to be made the crime was clearly defined, so much so, that no one could be convicted unless he was proved to have maliciously and advisedly conspired to excite mutiny. He still thought the present laws reached that offence; but as the uncertainty of the crime was removed, and the bill was only to continue for a few months, however unnecessary he might look upon the bill to be, he would give it no further opposition. To this he was particularly led by many gentlemen whom he believed to act from motives unconnected with party, and who appeared to attach much importance to the idea of an unanimous vote on the occasion." He accordingly concluded a speech of great moderation by candidly observing, " that having had his chief difficulties removed, he should therefore wave any remaining objections."

In the course of the summer of 1797 the price ofbutcher's meat experienced an alarming rise, and Mr. Tierney, who was now considered as a man of business, brought up the report of the committee of which