Page images
PDF
EPUB

penfion. He admitted, that fince the French revolution there had been great caufe for alarm: but the question was, if it were confiftent with the conftitution to grant an indemnity for the ufe of fpecial powers given them for eight years? By this bill noble lords were called on to deprive Englishmen of a great conftitutional privilege for everto ftigmatise those who had never been tried, and ruin their credit in every future part of their lives. He wifhed them to attend to the diftinction between their conduct who were obliged to adopt immediate measures for national fecurity, and those who had exercifed powers given them by parliament for eight years. In one cafe, the emergency was fuch that the innocent might be confounded with the guilty, and an indemnity not fairly refufed; but in the other, matters were wholly different, and no claim of indemnity exifted. His grace, after animadverting on the committee's report, and urging all the former objections, faid he was unfatisfied with the conclufions drawn from it. He dwelt on that part of the report, that thofe formerly imprisoned were now active in rebellion, while it was well known that fcarce any were in cuftody. Then how was there any juft charge against them? And if fo, part of the report (and that important) was falfified. However, he wifhed not to oppofe a limited duration of the bill; but, as perpetual, he felt it his duty to oppofe it most decidedly. He referred to the earl of Westmoreland's obfervations on the compaffion felt on his fide the houfe for thofe fufpected of treafon, while infenfible to their fate who had fallen for their country. He repelled the charge; arguing, that the noble lord must know nothing of their charafter, if he thought fuch fenti

ments theirs. They had indeed refifted the bad fyftem and confequences of the late administration, and endeavoured by all means to arreft them in a ruinous career; but he difclaimed unequivocally all fuch fentiments as had been imputed to them. He and his friends felt as much for those who had fallen in the war as thofe noble lords who talked so much of their feelings-deploring that fatal conteft whence fo many ills had flowed.

Lord Thurlow spoke decidedly against the bill. It was contrary to the grand and fundamental principle of law, which was to fupport innocence againft oppreffion. From this principle he was ready to concur in pafling fevere laws against confpirators; but as guilt fhould be diftinguished from innocence, the latter fhould be protected from arbitrary imprisonment. Were the criminal laws here duly adminiftered, they were enough to controul all attempts against the state; and why fhould a man be imprifoned for eight years, praying for trial, and be refufed it? A noble earl had faid, that perfons fufpected of treafon deferved no compaffion; but he himself must pity thofe lingering in a prifon for a series of years, anxiously foliciting a trial; nor could he think them guilty till proved fo. He faw no ftriking refemblance of this bill to the former; they being paffed "flagrante bello." His lordthip quoted a part of the preamble, from which he concluded that the bill had affumed a wrong name, and, instead of a bill, of indemnity, was a bill to fupprefs actions and fuits against informers. Two other clauses were inconfiftent with each other. The first gave the defendant double cofts, recoverable in the ufual way. In the latter, thefe cofts were to be recovered in

a fum

a fummary way under a judge's order. This was prepofterous; and he thought the drawer of the claufe did it in a paffion. However, he was willing to agree to it for a certain period; but a perpetual bill of indemnity was monstrous, and fubverfive of the liberties of English

men.

The earl of Rofflin defended the bill from the attack of the laft learned lord. He faid it was the fame that was to be found in the ftatute book, both i.. form and expreon. if they were not the best words, they were fuch as had been often used before, and perfectly intelligible in our courts. He named feveral acts of indemnity in the reigns of Richard II. Edward VI Charles I. Wiliam and Mary, and George I.; adding, that when extraordinary circumstances happened, fuch as in 1792, and thence to the prefent day, indemnity bills had ufually paffed. Without fuch an act, a government would be debarred from acting with vigour and effect on emergency, efpecially when the acts to fave the country were illegal. He had been a member of the late adminiftiation, not fhrinking from refponfibility; if guilt was imputable to them, it was fo to him. But he felt no fear for having done his duty always; and the rest of his majesty's minifters had done theirs, he could testify. If he had fallen fhort of meriting thanks, they were entitled to the country's gratitude, which they had faved from that ruin and anarchy overwhelming almoft every ftate in Europe. He obferved, that in fuch perilous times, it was nearly impoffible for minifters to avoid falling into fome error, by apprehending perfons on fufpicion, and erroneoutly detaining innocent individuals. Such were certainly entitled to fome recompenfe. Mi

nifters claimed not indemnity for the felves, but fuch was neceffary for other perfons - magiftrates, inftruments of the policeaflifting in apprehending, commit. ting, and detaining the perfons apprehended, &c. Lord Rawdon was miftaken in his two cafes. The first was a commitment under the alien act, and concerned not treafon. The other of lord Cloncurry was attended with lenient circumftances. Upon giving his word that he would furrender when restored to health, he was suffered to go home; and his noble father, ftruck with the kindness of minifters, had written to him (lord Rofflin), expreffing his warmest gratitude. As to the quotation from Tacitus, relative to the reign of Tiberius, the application of the paffage was mifunderstood. Tacitus was not fpeaking of spies and informers in the fenfe pretended: by delatores he meant public accufers. This office was often abused, and accufations brought maliciously and falfely against the enemies of thofe who patronifed them, or whom they hated. Abstract and plaufible argument, though pleafing to the ear, was impracticable here where penal statutes had swelled our ftatute books. Spies and informers were abfolutely neceffary, and especially in thefe times. His lordship, after other arguments in fupport of the bill, and in answer to objections, concluded with refolving to vote for it as a measure of common juftice.

On the question for reading it a fecond time, the houfe dividedContents Proxies Non-contents Proxies

40 14-54

ΙΟ

7-17

[blocks in formation]

CHAP. VIII.

Bill for the Relief of the Poor.-Debates on that Subject.-Bill for preventing the Forgery of Bank-Notes.-State of the Clergy with respect to Refidence on their Livings.-Bill for their Relief.-Debates on that Subjcct—in the House of Commons-in the House of Lords.—Plan for a Military College. Debates on that Subject.

THE

HE other tranfactions of parliament were of but little importance; but a few of them we thall briefly notice. The diftreffes of the lower claffes of houfe-keepers, in confequence of the fcarcity of provifions, and the preffure of taxes, had extended to fuch an alarming excefs, that humane minds became interested in procuring for them fome further relief than the laws in being had provided. To the honour of the British ariftocracy, lord William Ruffell was the first to introduce a bill to this effect; and, on the 25th of February, he rose to bring forward a motion he had promifed on the preceding day. He faid, that the neceffity of a measure to release a certain clafs of perfons from the poor's rates was very well known. To procure that relief was his ob-1 ject. Should the house agree to his motion, his wifh was for the bill to be read a first time; and on the fecond reading its merits might be difcufied; and, if nothing inconfiflent with found policy and juftice fhould appear in it, then it might be committed, and undergo what modifications fhould feem neceflary. The object of the bill was to inveft magiftrates with the power of relieving fuch perfons from paying the rates as fhould appear deferving of fuch exception; but, in order to guard againft the abuse of that difcretionary power, fuch relief fhould be confined to those who paid under a

certain rent, not over 51. or thereabouts, and that they should makeaffidavit of their incapacity to pay the poor's rates to obtain relief. He concluded with moving to bring in the bill accordingly.

Sir Charles Bunbury feconded the motion.

Mr. Rofe faid, he should be very forry to object to any measure for the relief of the poor, but was afraid that the bill propofed would be attended with difficulties that overbalanced its advantages. would inflict a great burden on the magiftrates, and would hold out an invitation to the poor to come forward with their affidavits.

It

Mr. Joliffe wifhed the bill to be printed, that the house might examine its merits.

Mr. Perceval objected to the bill as it was prefented. He thought it would be better for the noble lord to attend the committee for examining the high price of provifions, and to ftate his plan. At all events the houfe fhould wait the events of their enquiries before they confented to the measure.

Mr. Manning, Mr. Shaw Lefevre, Mr. Buxton, colonel Elford, and Mr. Ellifon, opposed the bill, as an innovation upon the poorlaws, invefting magiftrates with a power to interfere with the overfeers of the poor, who already exempted thofe houfe-keepers from poor's-rates who feemed unable to pay. pay. They feared, that if certain houfe-keepers were relieved from

the

the poor's rates, other claffes would be additionally burdened, and demand a fimilar exemption.

Mr. Hobhoufe, Mr. Taylor, and Mr. Robfon, defended the meafure; and faid that it was effentially neceffary to carry it through parliament with all convenient expedition.

Lord William Ruffel denied an affertion of Mr. Lefevre, that magiftrates had at prefent the power of exempting poor houfe-keepers from the poor's rates. He faid, that they could not now refufe a warrant of distress, if the overfeer peremptorily demanded it. He had no objection to refer the fubject to the committee mentioned, if they would make their report fpeedily-for the bill ought to pafs before Eafter, as then the overfeers made up their accounts.

The fpeaker fuggefted to the noble lord the propriety of having the propofed inftruction to the committee more definite than the motion before the house, that they might more clearly comprehend the fubject.

Lord William Ruffel acquiefced. Mr. Baker maintained, that magiftrates had already the power of granting the relief defired, and therefore moved the previous queftion; which being put, a divifion was called for-Ayes 3-Noes 49. -Majority 46.

The motion being put, was carried without a divifion.

Lord William Ruffel then prefented his bill for the relief of the poor in certain cafes; which was read, and ordered to be read a fecond time on Friday. On the motion of Mr. Lefevre, the bill was ordered to be printed.

On Thursday, March 5th, lord William Ruffell having moved the fecond reading of the bill,

Mr. Joliffe oppofed it.

Mr. Rofe wished the bill to go to a committee. He thought there were many who paid the poor's rates that could not pay the additional rate, which must be impofed if the bill fhould be paled.

Mr. Curwen opposed the bill. The folicitor-general conceived the whole of the bill to be useless. He faid, he was anxious for the relief of the poor, but that the principle of the bill was carried into effect already, as far as was poffible. But he affirmed that no good would be derived to the poor from paffing the bill.

Mr. W. Elford explained.

Mr. Wilberforce thought, that the bill ought to go to a committee, were it only to prove whether the principle of the bill was then generally carried into practice.

Sir Charles Bunbury wifhed to know whether an overfeer muft obey an order of a magiftrate to relieve a pauper who had a cottage and an acre of land.

The folicitor-general thought that an overfeer was unconditionally bound to obey the order of a magif

trate.

Sir C. Bunbury faid, he knew many cafes wherein relief had been refused.

Sir R. Buxton opposed the bill as dangerous.

Mr. Horne Tooke faid, that one honourable and learned gentleman had affirmed that the exifting law already provided many of the regulations intended by this bill; and another, that there were no provifions till the law fhould be made. Whoever was right, his opinion was, that fuch a bill would tend to cut up the laws, by creating a new clafs of paupers, thofe not paying towards alms, and thofe taking alms, leaving the burden of paro

chial duties on the higher ranks; it would alfo disfranchise the lower order of houfekeepers. He had been present at elections where their votes were refused who had been relieved from the parish

rates.

Lord William Ruffell faid, if the honourable gentleman had read all the bill he would find the diffranchisement provided againft.

Mr. Tooke thanked the noble lord for his correction, but faid that he must purfue another argument against the prefent measure. The bill appeared to him to be one of those which were daily multiplying in the house, and which ferved to prevent the falvation of the country by the reduction of the national debt. He had fpoken to this effect on a former day, affirming that two thirds of the national debt had been taken off by increafing the price of provifions. Since then the quartern loaf had rifen to 1s. 10d. He faid, that when the price fhould become 2s. then three fourths of the national debt would be taken off. That the nation did not pay in money, but in quartern loaves-for money was only the fign of what it reprefented; and when a man was paid for the intereft of his 100. only thirty instead of one hundred and twenty loaves, then three-fourths of the national debt were pofitively paid off. It would therefore be well to confider, whether by attempting to lower the price of provisions they were not preventing the falvation of the country. Inttead of creating a new clafs of paupers, the right way would be to give the poor an adequate price for their labour, proportionate to the dearnefs of provifions.

The house then divided-Ayes 55-Noes 29.

The bill (after fome dispute) was committed.

Monday, March 9th, lord William Ruffell moved for a committee of the whole houfe on the poor houfholder's relief bill.

Mr. Tierney faid he had a petition from the parish of St. George the Martyr, in Southwark, against it; which being brought and read, he faid that he was only inftructed to move that it might lie on the table, as the oppofition of the petitioners would depend on the manner in which the blanks were filled up.

The folicitor-general obferved that he would not oppose that the bill fhould go to a committee; as he trufted, that when it came out its impracticability would only be rendered more apparent.

Mr. Johnfon oppofed the bill going to a committee. He thought thofe houfekeepers who could not discharge their affeffments might be relieved as the law now ftood. He faid that perfons who knew that the poor's rate could be enforced, and could only plead exemption as a favour, would then think exemption a legal right, and intentionally withhold payment. A great burden would be thrown on the higher claffes, in his opinion, double of that which they now fuftained. He thought that the difcution of the bill ought not to go on, as it only tended to excite hopes which could not be realifed.

Mr. Curwen thought the prefent laws fufficient for the purpofe of the bill. He yet wifhed it to go to a committee, to find how it might be modelled to gratify the laudable views of the noble lord who propofed it.

Lord William Ruffell faid, that the merits of the motion did not feem

« PreviousContinue »