In the present case, my lords, I can discover no impropriety in mentioning it; for I suppose that noble lord did not intend to restrain it to the most rigorous sense; he did not mean, that there is the same necessity of reading this bill to-morrow for the success of the war, as of extinguishing a fire for the preservation of a town; but that the reasons for despatch absolutely overbalanced all the pleas that could be offered for delays.

This necessity, my lords, I am not ashamed to assert after him; nor can I think it consistent with common prudence, in the present situation of our affairs, to defer the third reading beyond to-morrow; for the supplies which this bill must produce, are to be employed in attempts of the utmost importance, and which cannot fail without the ruin of a great part of mankind, and an irreparable injury to this nation.

I cannot, therefore, but confess my surprise at the vehemence with which this bill is opposed; vehemence so turbulent and fierce, that some lords have been transported beyond that decency which it is our duty and our interest to preserve in our deliberations; nor have restrained themselves from expressions, which, upon reflection, I believe they will not think defensible; from among which I cannot but particularize the horrid and opprobrious term of murder.

The reverend prelates, who have spoken against the bill, may be easily believed to be as zealous for virtue as those who have indulged themselves in this violence of language; yet they have never charged those who defend the measures now proposed with the guilt of murder, but have decently delivered their own opinions, without, reproaching those who differ from them.

For my part, my lords, as I cannot think the motion for farther delay, seasonable or proper, or necessary to the discovery of truth, or consistent with the welfare of the nation, it is my resolution to vote against it.

The duke of BEDFORD spoke next, in substance as follows:—­My lords, the ardour with which the noble lord appears to resent the indignity offered to the bill, shows only that he himself approves it, but not that it deserves the approbation of the house.

I think it of use, notwithstanding the plausible pleas of decency or politeness, that every thing should in this house be called by its right name, that we may not dispute for one thing, and vote for another; and since the bill will certainly destroy multitudes, if it promotes the sale of distilled spirits, and it has been proved that it will promote it, I know not by what appellation to denominate its effects, if that be denied me, which has been already used.

[The speaker then put the question in form, “Is it your lordships’ pleasure, that the third reading of the bill be put off for five days?” It was resolved in the negative by 52 to 29.

It was then ordered, that the bill should be read the third time on the day following, and that the lords should be summoned to attend.