Imágenes de página
PDF
ePub
[ocr errors][ocr errors]

night, was not acceded to, and acknowledged that the objections of the right hon. gent. did not appear to him to be conclusive; at the same time he could not let that opportunity pass of expressing his entire satisfaction at the clause introduced by the learned and hon. gent. opposite (Mr. Manners Sutton). He meant that which added to the original Bill the discretionary power to be vested in courts martial, of sentencing either to corporeal punishment, or to that of confinement. He approved of this clause, because he thought that from the hour of its enactment the condition of the soldier became essentially improved. He thought that those who had suggested it, and those who had acted upon that suggestion, were entitled to the thanks of the army, for not only bettering its condition, but exalting its character. He was glad of it upon this ground, also, that he trusted, and confidently too, that it would lead ultimately to the total doing away of corporeal punishment; indeed, there was no obstacle to that desirable object, but those prejudices which must yield in time. When the ariny consisted but of 18,000 men, the old peace establishment, it might at that period be composed in no small degree of the idler and more dissolute of the lower orders, but now, when it was so increased as to comprehend a great portion of the peasantry of the country, the discipline that might have been fit for the refuse of streets, was by no means necessary to keep in controul men of a different order. He concluded by again expressing his most marked approbation of the clause.

HOUSE OF Lords.

Wednesday, March 13.

INSOLVENT DEBTORS' BILL] The House, having resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill respecting Insolvent Debtors,

He

[ocr errors]

Earl Stanhope rose to express his dissatisfaction with the provisions of the Bill, the principle of which he was, notwithstanding, anxious to support. To many of the different clauses of the Bill, he had strong objections. To the first clause in the Bill, that which went to the appointment of only one person to preside in the proposed court, he must particularly object. He should prefer the suggestion offered on a former occasion by a noble and learned lord, that three or four persons should be appointed instead of one; simply for this reason, that where three or four presided, justice was more impar tially and properly administered than where only one presided. Besides, it was well known that the time and attention of the Lord Chancellor were otherwise so much engrossed, that he could not; indeed, it was impossible for him to give the time and attention it required, to the transaction of the bankrupt business. should therefore imagine, that if three or more fit persons were appointed to the court proposed by this Bill, the business of bankrupts might be safely transferred to that court, and thus relieve the Lord Chancellor from that weight of multiplied business by which it was evident that the noble and learned lord must be encumbered. He had also to object to the clause which proposed an oath, in the first instance, to be taken by the debtor, instead of allowing him to give in a statement of his effects, which he might afterwards be called upon to confirm by oath. To take the oath in the first instance, when recollection might not serve him to state minutely and accurately the exact number of his creditors, the sums which were respectively due to them, &c. together with a detailed and correct account of his own estate and effects, would have the effect of making him liable to perjury, or at least to the suspicion of perjury. The form of the oath was, besides, too long, and might be wholly unintelligible to that class of Mr. Macleod said, that in case a guard-persons, Poor Debtors, by whom it was to house were the prison, he hoped the im- be taken. Here, moreover, was an unneprisonment would be solitary. cessary addition to the many oaths. Excise oaths, Custom-house oaths, &c. which but too much familiarised people with that sacred and awful declaration, on which

[ocr errors]

Mr. Macleod was by no means sure that the clause was so unexceptionable. He wished to know the full meaning of the word "imprisonment, was it confinement in the guard-house simply, or in a gaol, or did it mean in the black-hole merely?

Mr. M. Sutton thought it better to use the word imprisonment; without limiting the discretion of military regulations, there were barracks and garrisons enough in the country where there could be no difficulty of setting apart a room for that purpose.

Sir T. Turton approved of the clause. The Bill was then read a third time and passed.

was known to depend the life, the property, and the character of individuals. A schedule delivered in by the debtor of his effects, appeared to him to be the more simple and effectual mode, the correctness of which schedule he might be afterwards called upon to confirm on oath. The noble earl also objected to the clause which obliged the debtor to remain in gaol three months before he could avail himself of the provisions of the Bill. He thought it better to allow him immediately to give notice of the state of his affairs, as, in that case, the creditor would have the full advantage of a three months' notice, while the debtor would not be unnecessarily detained beyond that period. These suggestions he took the liberty of throwing out as expressive of his own opinion, though he would not take the sense of the House on the amendments which he intended to propose. The noble earl concluded with moving his first amendment, that "three, instead of one fit person,' be appointed to preside in the proposed

court.

Lord Redesdale was not very tenacious of the provisions of the Bill, as they now stood, so as the suggested Amendments did not trench on the principle, or depart from the precedent, on which the Bill was framed and founded. He could see no necessity, at least no immediate necessity, for the appointment of three, instead of one fit person to preside in the court. If one person should be found competent to the task it imposed, why appoint three or four, especially at a time when economy was so necessary, and so frequently inculcated; for it could not be expected that a person, qualified for the discharge of such important functions, should bestow his time and labour on the discharge of such functions, without an adequate remuneration? That remuneration must be extended to three instead of one, if three instead of one were to be employed; and thus the burden on the public would be unnecessarily trebled. As to the objection of proposing an oath in the first instance, he could see no foundation for it. In framing the present Bill, he had constantly in his eye the provisions of former Insolvent Acts, in all of which a similar oath was prescribed. Indeed, without some guard and sanction of that nature, he was at a loss to see how too wide a door might not be opened to the fraudulent instead of the unfortunate debtor, or how the justice that was due to the honest creditor could

[ocr errors]

be fairly and uniformly maintained. The oath, besides, could not make any man liable to perjury, unless where the oath was deliberately and corruptly taken with evident intention to defraud. For these reasons, he thought the clauses of the Bill justified by the motives and the precedents on which they rested; as far, however, as he could alter them consistently with the views he had taken of their propriety, he would willingly alter them on the better suggestions of any noble lord. He had himself many Amendments to propose in the Bill, and would therefore be the more prepared to listen to the Amendments proposed by other noble lords.

Earl Stanhope complained that he had been misrepresented by the noble and learned lord, and that to many of his objections no answer whatsoever had been given. He would still insist that it was absurd in the first instance to propose an oath, for though it might not have the effect of making the debtor perjure himself, it would lead him to forswear himself, which, in his opinion, was making light of the most serious and solemn obligation by which it was possible for man to bind himself.

Lord Holland agreed that there was much weight in many of his noble friend's observations, but they could not induce him to endanger the passing of the Bill. He was so wedded to the principle of it, that he would overlook many imperfections in it, rather than not have something of what it aimed at. If absolute perfection could not be immediately attained in such matters, what was less objectionable should in the mean time be adopted, until they might gradually arrive at that perfection which every noble lord must feel to be so desirable. He should not therefore oppose the Bill, hoping however that the noble and learned lord who brought it in, would exert his abilities to render it as unobjectionable as possible.

The Lord Chancellor supported the arguments of lord Redesdale. He thought the proposing of an oath in the first instance the only practical mode of proceeding under all the circumstances of the case. How else could any thing like cor rect statements be expected to be given in by debtors, who, in the different and dis tant prisons of the country, could not be examined as to fair or unfair statements of the amount of their effects in the chief towns of their respective counties? Ought it not moreover to be a national considera

tion with their lordships that no facilities should be afforded to the prejudice of the honest creditor?

Lord Holland complained of the expression "the honest creditor," as if it insinuated that those who felt for the unfortunate debtor had lost sight of the claims of the honest creditor.

The Lord Chancellor disclaimed any intention of imputing such motives to any noble lord; and observed, that as the noble and learned lord who brought in the Bill had many amendments to propose, whether it might not be better to allow that noble and learned lord now to propose his amendments, than to have the Bill, as amended by him, printed, and afterwards to re-commit it as thus amended, for the further consideration of their lordships.

After some further observations, the suggestion of the Lord Chancellor was adopted. The House resumed. The Bill, as amended, was ordered to be printed, and to be re-committed on a future day. The House next resolved itself into a Committee on the Arrest Bill, when a similar mode of proceeding in it was adopted.

HOUSE OF COMMONS.

Wednesday, March 13. INFORMATIONS EX OFFICIO FOR LIBEL.] Lord Folkestone said, that as the time was arrived when the notices should come on, and the members most particularly concerned in his intended motion upon the subject of Ex Officio Informations, were not in their places, he should move that the House do now adjourn, at the same time giving notice that he would bring forward thesame motion on Thursday, (to-morrow.) Mr. Bankes was of opinion that a considerable degree of inconvenience would result from agreeing to the motion of adjournment, as there was some public business standing for this day, which ought not to be impeded in its progress through

the House.

Lord Folkestone said, that the ground upon which he made the motion was the nature of the new arrangement. He had given regular notice that on this day he should bring the subject of Ex Officio Informations by the Attorney and Solicitors General under the consideration of the House. This was the day when, according to the new arrangement, notices took place of orders, and yet though it was now five o'clock, the gentlemen were not

come down, and several notices were gone through.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer said, he was sure that the House would not agree to an adjournment in the present instance, as he had himself given notice of a motion upon Exchequer Bills. If the noble lord thought proper, he might postpone his motion to a future day.

Mr. Abercrombie thought, that no member should omit an opportunity of exposing the inconvenience resulting from the late arrangement introduced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It was generally understood that Wednesday was not a day of business, and the absence of the Attorney and Solicitors-General had placed the noble lord in an extraordinary situation, for he must now postpone his motion until after the orders of the day were disposed of, or bring it on in the absence of those gentlemen who were principally interested in the discussion.

Lord Folkestone agreed to withdraw the motion of adjournment, and said, that in the course of the evening he would name a day for the motion he had noticed for this night. The noble lord afterwards gave notice, that it was his intention to persist in his motion to-morrow.

The Attorney General said, he was sorry that in courtesy to him the motion of the noble lord had been postponed; he was unavoidably detained to that moment, and it was the first time that such a thing had happened to him.

FUNDED EXCHEQUER BILLS.] The House having resolved itself into a Committeeo Supply,

The Chancellor of the Exchequer said, that it was not his intention to enter into any lengthened discussion at the present moment; if it should be thought necessary that such discussion should take place, an opportunity would occur in some future stage. He should now state the sum to be funded in Exchequer Bills, the day in which tenders should be received, and the amount to be paid in stock. He was desirous of trying this year, whether the funding in the five per cents. might not be carried to a greater extent that it was last year. The amount was then 8,000,000, which he should change in the present year to 12,000,000. He should propose that all bills issued from the 1st day of April 1810, to the 16th day of March, 1811, and carried to the Exchequer between the 21st and 27th of this month,

1

cases it was scarcely possible for the Judge Advocate to do his duty. His object, therefore, was to propose that every warrant constituting a Court Martial, where there was no private prosecutor, should also appoint a prosecutor, distinct from the Judge Advocate.

should be entitled, for every 100l. sterling, to 1031. 14s. 7d. out of the 5 per cents. At the period of the last loan the 5 per cents. were in the morning of that day at 97, since then there was no great change. This day they were 97. Calculating the sum at 1011.7s. 4d. and the interest at 7s. the person would have a bonus of 14s. This he trusted would be considered sufficient encouragement. He concluded with moving two Resolutions, the first providing, That every person who brought bills issued from the 1st of April 1810, the 16th of March 1811, and carried the same to the Exchequer between the 21st and 27th of this month, should be entitled to receive for every 100l. 103. 14s. 7d. the interesting the period of bringing offences before commencing in January last, to be paid out of the consolidated fund. The second

Resolution provided that the issue of Exchequer Bills should not exceed 12 millions.

After a few words from Mr. Baring, the House resumed, and the Report was or dered to be received to-morrow.

HOUSE OF LORDS.

Friday, March 15.

MUTINY BILL.] On the order of the day being read,

The Duke of Norfolk asked if there was any alteration in the Bill since last year?

The Earl of Liverpool stated, that the only material alteration was giving a discretionary power to Courts Martial, either to inflict corporal punishment, or to sentence to imprisonment.-The House then resolved itself into a Committee on the

Bill.

The Earl of Radnor suggested an alteration in a part of the Articles of War, which, however, he did not mean to press at the present moment. By one of the Articles, the Judge Advocate (in cases where there was no private prosecutor) was directed to prosecute at Courts Martial in the name of his Majesty. The Judge Advocate was also the adviser of the court. It happened in one instance within his knowledge, that there was an argument on a point at a Court Martial, between the Judge Advocate, who was the prosecutor, and the counsel for the prisoner, and the court being about to deliberate upon the point, strangers were ordered to withdraw, and the counsel for the prisoner was, of course, obliged to retire, whilst the Judge Advocate remained. He thought in such

The Earl of Liverpool observed, that the practice generally was to appoint a pro-secutor, if there was no private prosecutor, and that at all events the Judge Advocate had no right to vote at the court. He would, however, make inquiry, and consider the noble earl's suggestion.

The Earl of Radnor then suggested the expediency of altering the clause respect

Courts Martial. At present it stood that no Court Martial could be held respecting any offence which appeared to have been committed more than three years before. This time, he thought, was, in some instances, too long, and in others too short. He proposed to reduce it to a year, with respect to Courts Martial summoned by subordinate authorities; that it should be three years with reference to Courts Martial directed by his Majesty, giving a larger period, extending to five years, in distant parts.

The Earl of Liverpool promised to make inquiry, and to consider the suggestion by the next stage of the Bill.

The Earl of Rosslyn thought the period of a year would be in many cases too short, as evidence could not probably be obtained, particularly respecting matters of account, within the time.

Their

Earl Stanhope rose to propose a separate clause to the Bill, of the justice, policy, and propriety of which, he was confident that every noble lord must be sensible. The clause which he should have the honour of moving would go to rescue a very numerous class of men from the most despotic tyranny, the most desperate oppression which was ever attempted to be exercised over human beings. lordships must be aware of certain circumstances which, from their recent occurrence, it was unnecessary for him to state, which made the adoption of the clause he had in view, not only expedient, but absolutely necessary. Their lordships must bear in mind, that nearly the half of the British navy and army was composed of dissenters from the established church, that those dissenters amounted in number to four or five millions of persons, if not more; and that the House must be sensi

[ocr errors][ocr errors]

have it introduced in the Bill. Previous to the letter to which the noble earl had alluded, and as far back as 1802, the strictest orders had been issued by the authority of the illustrious person, then Commander in Chief of the Forces, that no compulsion of the nature condemned by the noble earl, should in any case he resorted to, and such, since that period, had been the uniform practice in the army. To insert a clause, therefore, of the nature of that proposed by the noble earl, would be to call in doubt the sincerity with which such orders had been issued, and give countenance to an insinuation that such orders had not been duly attended to. Than such an insinuation, nothing could be more unfounded. Government had, ever since the issuing of these orders, been vigilantly observant of their due and uniform execution, and the circumstances, at least one of them, alluded to by the noble earl, had no reference to the present case, and was not occasioned by a wish or attempt to enjoin any particular place or mode of worship, but was the punishment usually inflicted upon a man who, on the march from the parade, should be found out of the ranks. Such was the case and

ble of the serious consequences that might ensue from any severe and unjust measure that should affect so large a class of the community. He would not now repeat the expressions and distinctions made use of in discussions of this topic by the Noble Secretary of State. It was his wish and intention to keep clear of every thing irritating and exasperating. It should, in his humble opinion, also be the wish and study of ministers to abstain from all measures of an irritating and exasperating nature, and it was with a view to afford them an opportunity of manifesting such a disposition that he should move the clause he had prepared. Could their lordships perceive any thing more cruelly tyrannical, more insultingly oppressive, than that a large class of men, the Roman Catholics, for instance, or any other description of dissenters, should be compelled to adopt a mode of worship of which they did not approve, or be prevented from pursuing that which their conscience represented to them as the best; yet such practices had prevailed. And here he could not but refer to that admirable letter of lord Harrington on this subject, which shewed that noble earl to be as honest as he was an honourable man; and which so justly disCountenanced such a practice. What would their lordships, who'were Protestants, say, feel, and think, of a regulation, The Marquis of Lansdowne acknowby which they were compelled to go to ledged such to be the disposition and the mass, and join in a worship which they practice of government both here and in were taught to consider as idolatrous? If Ireland, but still he did not see the fairness their thoughts and feelings would justly of the noble Secretary's argument, that, by be indignant at the idea of such a compul- admitting the proposed clause, that disposi sion, must they not confess that the minds tion would be called into doubt. Such he of the Catholics, under similar circum- could not conceive to be the nature of a stances, would, with equal justice, revolt legislative declaration such as that proat the idea of such an attempt at oppres-posed by his noble friend, On the consion? They would no doubt recollect, that trary, the object of such declarations was the essence of justice was to do as we not to give rise to, but to remove doubts, wished to be dealt by, and they would act if any such happened to exist. He felt on the principle of that fair recollection. how very important was the point now He did not see upon what just grounds any under discussion. Their lordships would noble lord could object to his clause; but not forget that the part of the United objected to, he should take the Kingdom to which it chiefly, referred had sense of the Committee upon it. The long been most productive for the recruitnoble Earl concluded with moving a clause ing service, and promised to be still more, to the following effect:-That no Roman and the demands for that service were Catholic or other dissenter, be compelled more likely to increase than diminish. Of to attend a mode of worship of which he what importance, therefore, was it that no did not approve, or to be prevented or impediment or discouragement should hindered from following that of which he exist in a part of the United Kingdom so resourceful, in this respect, to the success of our military means. If any doubt should exist in so delicate a point as that of conscience as to modes of faith and wors (2B)

the punishment referred to by the noble earl; and it must be obvious to their lordships that it was not in point,

[graphic]
[graphic]
[graphic]

if it were

did approve.

The Earl of Liverpool did not see the necessity of the clause, or the propriety of the mode in which the noble earl would

(VOL. XIX.)

« AnteriorContinuar »