navy.

But for manning the navy in time of war, the impressment of seamen has been recognized by the com- Impressmon law and by many statutes.1 The hardships ment for the and cruelties of the system were notorious.2 No violation of natural liberty could be more gross Free men were forced into a painful and dangerous service, not only against their will, but often by fraud and violence. Entrapped in taverns, or torn from their homes by armed pressgangs, in the dead of night, they were hurried on board ship, to die of wounds or pestilence. Impressment was restricted by law to seamen, who, being most needed for the fleet, chiefly suffered from the violence of the press-gangs. They were taken on the coast, or seized on board merchantships, like criminals: ships at sea were rifled of their crews, and left without sufficient hands to take them safely into port. Nay, we even find soldiers employed to assist the pressgangs villages invested by a regular force: sentries standing with fixed bayonets; and churches surrounded, during divine service, to seize seamen for the fleet.3

The lawless press-gangs were no respecters of persons. In vain did apprentices and landsmen claim ex- Press-gangs. emption. They were skulking sailors in disguise, or would make good seamen at the first scent of salt-water; and were carried off to the sea ports. Press-gangs were the terror of citizens and apprentices in London, of laborers in villages, and of artisans in the remotest inland towns. Their approach was dreaded like the invasion of a foreign enemy. To escape their swoop, men forsook their trades and families and fled, or armed themselves for resistance. Their deeds have been recounted in history, in fiction, and in song. Outrages were of course deplored; but the navy was the pride of England, and every one agreed that it must

1 Sir M. Foster's Rep., 154; Stat. 2 Rich. II. c. 4; 2 & 3 Phil., and Mary c. 16, &c.; 5 & 6 Will. IV. c. 24; Barrington on the Statutes, 334; Blackstone, i. 425 (Kerr); Stephen's Comm., ii. 576; Parl. Hist., vi. 518.

2 Parl. Hist., xv. 544, xix. 81, &c.

8 Dec. 2d, 1755, Parl. Hist., xv. 549.

be recruited. In vain were other means suggested for manning the fleet, — higher wages, limited service, and increased pensions. Such schemes were doubtful expedients: the navy could not be hazarded: press-gangs must still go forth and execute the rough commission, or England would be lost. And so impressment prospered.1

So constant were the draughts of seamen for the American war, that in 1779 the customary exemptions from impressment were withdrawn. Men following

Retrospective Act, 1779.

callings under the protection of various statutes were suddenly kidnapped, by the authority of Parliament, and sent to the fleet; and this invasion of their rights was effected in the ruffianly spirit of the press-gang. A bill proposed late at night, in a thin house, and without notice, avowedly in order to surprise its victims, was made retrospective in its operation. Even before it was proposed to Parliament, orders had been given for a vigorous impressment, without any regard to the existing law. Every illegal act was to be made lawful; and men who had been seized in violation of statutes, were deprived of the protection of Enlistment a writ of habeas corpus. Early in the next exhausting war, the state, unable to spare its rogues and vagabonds for the army, allowed them to be impressed, with smugglers and others of doubtful means and industry, for the service of the fleet. The select body of electors were exempt; but all other men out of work were lawful prize. Their service was without limit: they might be slaves for life.

Act, 1795.

Throughout the war, these sacrifices of liberty were ex1 See debate on Mr. Luttrell's motion, March 11th, 1777; Parl. Hist., xix. 81. On the 22d Nov., 1770, Lord Chatham said: "I am myself clearly convinced, and I believe every man who knows anything of the English navy will acknowledge, that, without impressing, it is impossible to equip a respectable fleet within the time in which such armaments are usually wanted." - Parl. Hist., xvi. 1101.

2 June 23d, 1779. Speech of the attorney-general Wedderburn; Parl. Hist., xx. 962; 29 Geo. III. c. 75.

3 35 Geo. III. c. 34.

peace.

acted for the public safety. But when the land was once more blessed with peace, it was asked if they Enlistment would be endured again. The evils of impress- since the ment were repeatedly discussed in Parliament, and schemes of voluntary enlistment proposed by Mr. Hume1 and others.2 Ministers and Parliament were no less alive to the dangerous principles on which recruiting for the navy had hitherto been conducted; and devised new expedients more consistent with the national defences of a free country. Higher wages, larger bounties, shorter periods of service, and a reserve volunteer force,3 — such have been the means by which the navy has been at once strengthened and popularized. During the Russian war great fleets were manned for the Baltic and the Mediterranean by volunteers. Impressment, not yet formally renounced by law, has been condemned by the general sentiment of the country; and we may hope that modern statesmanship has, at length, provided for the efficiency of the fleet, by measures consistent with the liberty of the subject.

Laws.

The personal liberty of British subjects has further suffered from rigors and abuses of the law. The su- Revenue pervision necessary for the collection of taxes, and especially of the excise, has been frequently observed upon, as a restraint upon the natural freedom of the subject. The visits of revenue officers throughout the processes of manufacture, the summary procedure by which penalties are enforced, and the encouragement given to informers, have

1 June 10th, 1824; Hans. Deb., 2d Ser., xi. 1171; June 9th, 1825; Ibid., xiii. 1097.

2 Mr. Buckingham, Aug. 15th, 1833; March 4th, 1834; Hans. Deb., 3d Ser, xx. 691; xxi. 1061; Earl of Durham, March 3d, 1834; Ibid., xxi. 992; Capt. Harris, May 23d, 1850; Ibid., cxi. 279.

8 5 & 6 Will. IV. c. 24; Hans. Deb., 3d Ser., xxvi. 1120; xcii. 10, 729; 16 & 17 Vict. c. 69; 17 & 18 Vict. c. 18.

4 The able commission on manning the navy, in 1859, reported "the evidence of the witnesses, with scarcely an exception, shows that the system of naval impressment, as practised in former wars, could not now be successfully enforced." — p. xi.

been among the most popular arguments against duties of excise.1 The repeal of many of these duties, under an improved fiscal policy, has contributed as well to the liberties of the people, as to their material welfare.

But restraints and vexations were not the worst incidents of

Crown debtors.

the revenue laws. An onerous and complicated system of taxation involved numerous breaches of the law. Many were punished with fines, which, if not paid, were followed by imprisonment. It was right that the law should be vindicated; but while other offences escaped with limited terms of imprisonment, the luckless debtors of the crown, if too poor to pay their fees and costs, might suffer imprisonment for life. Even when the legislature at length took pity upon other debtors, this class of prisoners were excepted from its merciful care. But they have since shared in the milder policy of our laws; and have received ample indulgence from the Treasury and the Court of Exchequer.

Vindictive exercise of privileges by

another en

While Parliament continued to wield its power of commitment capriciously and vindictively, not in vindication of its own just authority, but for the punishParliament, ment of libels, and other offences cognizable by the croachment law, it was scarcely less dangerous than those upon liberty. arbitrary acts of prerogative which the law had already condemned, as repugnant to liberty. Its abuses, however, survived but for a few years after the accession of George III.5

1 Adam Smith, speaking of "the frequent visits and odious examination of the tax-gatherers," says: "Dealers have no respite from the continual visits and examination of the excise officers." - Book V. c. 2. — Blackstone says: "The rigor, and arbitrary proceedings of excise laws, seem hardly compatible with the temper of a free nation.". Comm., i. 308 (Kerr's ed.).

2 Hans. Deb., 2d Ser., viii. 808.

8 53 Geo. III. c. 102, § 51.

47 Geo. IV. c. 57, § 74; 1 & 2 Vict. c. 110, §§ 103, 104.

5 Supra, Chap. VII.; and see Townsend's Mem. of the House of Ccm

mons, passim.

contempt

But another power, of like character, continued to impose -and still occasionally permits the most cruel Commitrestraints upon personal liberty. A court of equity ments for can only enforce obedience to its authority by imprisonment. If obedience be refused, commitment for contempt must follow. The authority of the court would otherwise be defied, and its jurisdiction rendered nugatory. But out of this necessary judicial process grew up gross abuses and oppression. Ordinary offences are purged by certain terms of imprisonment; men suffer punishment and are free again. And, on this principle, persons committed for disrespect or other contempt to the court itself were released after a reasonable time, upon their apology and submission. But no such mercy was shown to those who failed to obey the decrees of the court in any suit. Their imprisonment was indefinite, if not perpetual. Their contempt was only to be purged by obedience, perhaps wholly beyond their power. For such prisoners, there was no relief but death. Some persisted in their contempt from obstinacy, sullenness, and litigious hate; but many suffered for no offence but ignorance and poverty. Humble suitors, dragged into court by richer litigants, were sometimes too poor to obtain professional advice, or even to procure copies of the bills filed against them. Lord Eldon himself, to his honor be it said, had charitably assisted such men to put in answers in his own court.2 Others, again, unable to pay money and costs decreed against them, suffered imprisonment for life. This latter class, however, at length became entitled to relief as insolvent debtors. But the complaints of other wretched men, to whom the law brought no relief, were often heard. In 1817, Mr. Bennet, in presenting a petition from one of these prisoners, thus stated his own experience:

1 Hans. Deb., 2d Ser., viii. 808.

2 Ibid., xiv. 1178.

8

8 49 Geo. III. c. 6. 53 Geo. III. c. 102, § 47; Hans. Deb., 2d Ser., xiv.