§ Mr. Lushington brought up the report of the Bill, "to revive and make perpetual an act of the 37th of his majesty, for the better prevention and punishment of attempts to seduce persons serving in his majesty's forces by sea or land from their duty and allegiance to his majesty, or to incite them to mutiny or disobedience."
Sir F. Burdettobserved, that the measures that had been introduced by ministers were hurried through the House in such a manner, that it was scarcely possible to distinguish one from another, in its passage. He should therefore shortly say, that he was adverse to all the bills.
§ Mr. Calcraftwas in favour only of the bill for preventing the seduction of the military, and the bill for extending to the Prince Regent the provisions of the law for the security of his majesty's person.
Sir F. Burdettalso thought it proper that the same protection should be extended to the person of the Prince Regent as to that of the King, but objected to the innovations which were made.
Lord Folkestonethought that the least that could be said of the bill was, that it was unnecessary. All knew, that if any attempts had been made to seduce the soldiery, they had failed. The present mea-would throw a slur upon them; for it would make it appear, that they were so liable 781 to be seduced, that it was necessary that a little flirting with them should be made punishable by law. He approved of the measure which applied to the safety of the Prince Regent: but with respect to the others, he lamented that we should think and act so differently from our ancestors.
Lord Ossulstoninstanced the case of a person who had been committed upon a charge of attacking the Regent on his return from opening parliament, although no proof was exhibited of his having thrown the stone, and this person was subsequently exonerated from any participation in such attack by the evidence of all the witnesses examined. The law did not require to be drawn tighter. He was afraid there were already too many temptations to prefer accusations of this and other descriptions.
Sir G. Heathcotethought that the bill before the House was calculated to impress on the public the idea that we ought to have a large body of forces in time of peace. He objected to large standing armies as unconstitutional, and wished that more confidence were placed in the civil power. It did not appear to him that any serious disturbance was to be apprehended for he was perfectly certain that every man in the country who had any thing to lose, was attached to his majesty's government. Of the four bills, the only one which he could support was that for the better protection of the person of the Prince Regent.
§ The Report was agreed to.