being pinched during twelve months.  If the bill had passed, if the gentry and yeomanry of the kingdom had found that it was possible for them to obtain a welcome remission of taxation by imposing on a Shylock or an Overreach, by a retrospective law, a fine not heavier than his misconduct might, in a moral view, seem to have deserved, it is impossible to believe that they would not soon have recurred to so simple and agreeable a resource.  In every age it is easy to find rich men who have done bad things for which the law has provided no punishment or an inadequate punishment.  The estates of such men would soon have been considered as a fund applicable to the public service.  As often as it was necessary to vote an extraordinary supply to the Crown, the Committee of Ways and Means would have looked about for some unpopular capitalist to plunder.  Appetite would have grown with indulgence.  Accusations would have been eagerly welcomed.  Rumours and suspicions would have been received as proofs.  The wealth of the great goldsmiths of the Royal Exchange would have become as insecure as that of a Jew under the Plantagenets, as that of a Christian under a Turkish Pasha.  Rich men would have tried to invest their acquisitions in some form in which they could lie closely hidden and could be speedily removed.  In no long time it would have been found that of all financial resources the least productive is robbery, and that the public had really paid far more dearly for Duncombe’s hundreds of thousands than if it had borrowed them at fifty per cent.

These considerations had more weight with the Lords than with the Commons.  Indeed one of the principal uses of the Upper House is to defend the vested rights of property in cases in which those rights are unpopular, and are attacked on grounds which to shortsighted politicians seem valid.  An assembly composed of men almost all of whom have inherited opulence, and who are not under the necessity of paying court to constituent bodies, will not easily be hurried by passion or seduced by sophistry into robbery.  As soon as the bill for punishing Duncombe had been read at the table of the Peers, it became clear that there would be a sharp contest.  Three great Tory noblemen, Rochester, Nottingham and Leeds, headed the opposition; and they were joined by some who did not ordinarily act with them.  At an early stage of the proceedings a new and perplexing question was raised.  How did it appear that the facts set forth in the preamble were true, that Duncombe had committed the frauds for which it was proposed to punish him in so extraordinary a manner?  In the House of Commons, he had been taken by surprise; he had made admissions of which he had not foreseen the consequences; and he had then been so much disconcerted by the severe manner in which he had been interrogated that he had at length avowed everything.  But he had now had time to prepare himself; he had been furnished with advice by counsel; and, when he was placed at