Then alluding to the speech of Lord Mulgrave (who, repudiating the flimsy veil of the bill being merely a commercial regulation, boldly avowed that it was an exercise of our right to resort to whatever mode of warfare was adopted against us) Lord Grenville, I say, observed, that such a doctrine did not a little surprise him. “_If_,” said he, “_we are at war with the Red Indians, are we to scalp our enemies because the Indians scalp our men? When Lyons was attacked by Robespierre he directed his cannon more especially against the hospital of that city than against any other part, the destruction of it gave delight to his sanguinary inhuman disposition. In adopting the present measure we endeavour to assimilate ourselves to that monster of inhumanity, for what else is the bill but a cannon directed against the hospitals on the continent._” [Sidenote: Hansard’s Debates.] But all this, says Mr. Perceval the younger, is but “declamatory invective, the answered and refuted fallacies of a minister’s opponents in debate.” And yet Mr. Perceval, who thus assumes that all the opposition speeches were fallacies, does very complacently quote lord Bathurst’s speech in defence of the measure, and thus, in a most compendious manner, decides the question. Bellarmin says yes! exclaimed an obscure Scotch preacher to his congregation, Bellarmin says yes! but I say no! and Bellarmin being thus confuted, we’ll proceed. Even so Mr. Perceval. But I am not to be confuted so concisely as Bellarmin. Lord Erskine, after hearing lord Bathurst’s explanation, maintained that “_the bill was contrary to the dictates of religion and the principles of humanity_,” and this, he said, he felt so strongly, that he was “resolved _to embody his opinion in the shape of a protest that it might go down in a record to posterity_.” It is also a fact not to be disregarded in this case, that the bishops, who were constant in voting for all other ministerial measures, wisely and religiously abstained from attending the discussions of this bill. Lord Erskine was as good as his word, eleven other lords joined him, and their protests contained the following deliberate and solemn testimony against the bill. “Because _the Jesuit’s bark, the exportation of which is prohibited by this bill_, has been found, by long experience, to be a specific for many dangerous diseases which war has a tendency to spread and exasperate; _and because to employ as an engine of war the privation of the only remedy for some of the greatest sufferings which war is capable of inflicting, is manifestly repugnant to the principles of the Christian religion, contrary to humanity, and not to be justified by any practice of civilised nations_.