stated in the newspapers of that morning. He hoped to God the fact was mis-stated, and that the whole relation had no foundation in truth. It had, however, made a very strong impression on his mind, and he conceived it of a nature sufficiently interesting to merit the attention of that House, because if it should turn out to be true, he thought it would be incumbent on that House to take some measure in consequence of it. The relation he alluded to, was that of the unhappy and horrid murder of a poor wretch, condemned to stand in the pillory the preceding day. The account stated that two men had been doomed to this punishment; that one of them being short of stature, and remarkably short-necked, could not reach the hole made for the admission of the head, in the aukward and ugly instrument used in this mode of punishment; that the officers of justice, nevertheless, forced his head through the hole, and the poor wretch hung rather than walked as the pillory turned round; that previous to his being put in, he had deprecated the vengeance of the mob, and begged that mercy, which from their exasperation at his crime, and their want of considering the consequences of their cruelty, they seemed very little to bestow. That he soon grew black in the face, and the blood forced itself out of his nostrils, his eyes, and his ears. That the mob, nevertheless, attacked him and his fellow-criminal with great fury. That the officers seeing his situation, opened the pillory, and the poor wretch fell down dead on the stand of the instrument. The other man, he understood, was likewise so maimed and hurt by what had been thrown at him, that he now lay without hope of recovery.

Having stated this to the House, Mr. Burke proceeded to remark, that the Punishment of the Pillory had always struck him as a punishment of shame rather than of personal severity. In the present instance it had been rendered an instrument of death, and that of the worst kind, a death of torment. The crime for which the poor wretches had been condemned, was such as could scarcely be mentioned, much less defended or extenuated - the

commission of sodomitical practices. A crime of all others the most detestable, because it tended to vitiate the morals of the whole community, and to defeat the first and chief end of society. The crime was however of all other crimes a crime of the most equivocal nature, and the most difficult to prove. When criminals convicted of

sodomitical practices were sentenced to the pillory, they were adjudged that punishment with a view to expose them to public reproach and contempt, not to popular fury, assault, and cruelty. To condemn to the pillory with any such ideas, would be to make it a capital punishment, and as much more severe than execution at Tyburn, as to die in torment was more dreadful than momentary death, almost without sensation of pain. He submitted it, therefore, to the consideration of the House, whether, if the facts turned out as they were stated in the newspapers, and as he had reported them to the House on newspaper authority, it would not be right to abolish the punishment of the pillory, since it was liable to such violent perversion, as to be rendered not the instrument of reproach and shame, but of death and murder. If no man would take the matter in hand, he would bring in a bill for this purpose; he saw, however, a learned gentleman in the House, from whose high character and distinguished place, it was fair to infer that the matter would be much better lodged in his hands, and would be more properly conducted than it could be by him. He hoped that learned gentleman would take it up, and that the House, if the facts should turn out to be true, as he had mentioned, would direct the learned gentleman to proceed against those to whose neglect, or cruelty, the murder was ascribable.

The attorney-general, Mr. Wedderburn, complimented Mr. Burke on his having stated the matter to the House with those striking features of humanity which characterized his conduct on every occasion; he said, most certainly a tale of so extraordinary a nature merited the attention of that House in general, and his attention in particular. He should do the honourable gentleman the justice to pay immediate regard to

what he had said, and though he had the utmost respect for the House, and should on every occasion most readily pay obedience to its commands, it did not strike his mind that their interference was necessary on the present occasion. If the facts were as the honourable gentleman had stated them to be, the matter immediately called for legal enquiry, in order to lead to a conviction and punishment of those who were guilty, and had been accessary to the murder. The judges who sentenced the men to the pillory were clearly innocent of the guilt of their deaths, because, undoubtedly, they had done no more in condemning them to that punishment than they were obliged to do by the laws now in being, and could have no idea that they were sentencing the criminals to a punishment that would affect their lives. There were two descriptions of persons who were the objects of punishment in the present case, those who by neglect of duty had suffered the criminal to be murdered, and such of the mob as were most immediately concerned in the murder, if they could be come at. It was unquestionably proper that offenders, guilty of such an atrocious crime, should be convinced that what they had done was within the reach of the laws of the country, and that no men, however they might be misled by ill-judged indignation, would be suffered to commit such enormities with impunity. In doing this, however, proper care must be taken that in endeavouring to answer the ends of justice, injustice was not committed. It certainly was necessary for the officers appointed to put the sentence of the law in execution upon criminals, to do their duty with a certain degree of spirit. He should therefore first institute an enquiry in order to substantiate the facts, and then proceed regularly upon them. With regard to an alteration of the law as it stood, the honourable gentleman would give him leave to pause upon it a little, and before he took any step for that purpose to consult those more conversant with the nature of criminal punishments than he was himself.

Here the conversation dropped.

BILL FOR SHORTENING THE DURATION OF PARLIAMENTS.

May 8.

THIS day Mr. Alderman Sawbridge moved, “That leave be given to bring in a bill for shortening the Duration of Parliaments." Upon this occasion,

Mr. BURKE rose and said:

It is always to be lamented when men are driven to search into the foundations of the commonwealth.

It is

*The above Speech was found amongst Mr. Burke's papers without date. The following short report of the speech, taken from the Political Magazine for May 1780, settles the point:

"Mr. Burke, in a most able, ingenious, and elaborate speech, argued against the motion, shewing by the clearest argument, that if it were carried, and triennial parliaments were introduced, the influence of the crown would be most fatally increased; if annual parliaments were the sort agreed upon, he asserted that there would be no contest, and consequently, that in fact there would be no election. He declared, the question relative to the shortening the duration, could not be said to have originated in the wishes of the people, for it had never yet been properly before them; if it had, and they had fairly discussed it, in every point of view, he did not doubt but they would have seen the danger of it, and determined wisely against it; qui cautè deliberant, facile pronunciant. He said, however unpopular his speech might render him, it was his duty as an honest man, to deliver his sentiments on so great a subject, that his constituents might fairly know, what sort of a person it was, who offered himself as a candidate for their votes at the next election. He then proceeded to a most ample investigation of the whole subject, exhibiting with all that power of pencil which he possesses, and with all that glow of colouring, which no man can more beautifully display, that the consequence of shortening the duration of parliament, would tend to increase corruption, to ruin individuals, and to extend the influence of the crown. He reprobated the attempt of trying a triennial parliament, as dangerous in the extreme. If the experiment failed, we could not go back to septennial parliaments, without destroying the weight and importance which the interference of the people at large ought always

certainly necessary to resort to the theory of your government, whenever you propose any alteration in the frame of it, whether that alteration means the revival of some former antiquated and forsaken constitution of state, or the introduction of some new improvement in the commonwealth. The object of our deliberation is, to promote the good purposes, for which elections have been instituted, and to prevent their inconveniencies. If we thought frequent elections attended with no inconvenience, or with but a trifling inconvenience, the strong overruling principle of the constitution would sweep us like a torrent towards them. But your remedy is to be suited to your diseaseyour present disease, and to your whole disease. That man thinks much too highly, and therefore he thinks weakly and delusively of any contrivance of human wisdom, who believes that it can make any sort of approach to perfection. There is not, there never was, a principle of government under heaven, that does not, in the very pursuit of the good it proposes, naturally and inevitably lead into some inconvenience, which makes it absolutely necessary to counterwork and weaken the application of that first principle itself; and to abandon something of the extent of the advantage you proposed by it, in order to prevent also the inconveniences which have arisen from the instrument of all the good you had in view.

To govern according to the sense and agreeably to the interests of the people is a great and glorious object of government. This object cannot be obtained but through the medium of popular election; and popular election is

to carry with it. He gave a detail of the triennial parliaments in the reign of William the Third, and shewed, that though they were little better than biennial parliaments, there was more corruption in them than any our history recorded to have sat. He instanced the case of the East India Company's bribery of the members, mentioning the Speaker's being obliged to put the question on his own expulsion, and the affair of Sir Christopher Musgrave."