Sidebilder
PDF
ePub

influence had greatly increased. This last, under the present circumstances, could not be diminished: the other, he conceived ..that the proposed measure would tend to lessen; and if it did not go >sat far as he could wish, be approved of it as a kind of pledge of a serious intention in the house to do away those abuses which it wwas in their power to remove.

The Earl of Liverpool said he - did not mean to discuss the princi-ple of the bill, but would confine Shimself to some observations on the amendment. This, he con-tended, went to destroy altogether -the principle of the bill. The question now was, not whether sinecures and reversions should be abolished, but whether, with references to certain inquiries pending in the other house, they would for a limited time suspend such appointments till the result of these inquiries was known? The proposition, therefore, contained in the bill, the provisions of which would expire in two years, was reasonable; but it would be a mockery to enact a suspension of > twenty-six years more. He then -proceeded to make some remarks on the influence of the crown, and -asserted that it had not increased with the increasing establishments hof the country in the manner stateed by the noble earl. In conclussion, he said the bill should have -his support in the state in which it came from the commons.

Earl Morton called upon their Jordships to consider what would be the effects of the amendment with a view to the prerogatives of sithe crown, one of which would be suspended by its operation during twenty-eight years; and he inti

ཙ༽༽ །

mated that the Regent, by giving his assent to such a bill, would become an unfaithful guardian of the trust committed to him.

[ocr errors]

Lord Holland spoke to order, and asked if the noble earl meant to assert that the Prince Regent was not vested in all the prerogatives of the crown, or had not a will of his own? ..

Earl Morton explained; and-after some further debate the amendment proposed by Lord Grosvenor was negatived without a division, and the report on the bill was ordered to be received. It afterwards passed into a law without further discussion.

The disturbances in the town and county of Nottingham having continued during the winter, to the terror of all peaceable inhabitants, and the destruction of much valuable property, and the practice of frame-breaking having been organized into a regular system, which the exertions of the magistrates, with the aid of military force, were found unable to counteract, Mr. Secretary Ryder, on Feb. 14, introduced to the House of Commons two bills for the purpose of adding new legal powers to those already subsisting, for the suppression of disorders now become so serious. He introduced the subject by giving a summary account of all that had hitherto been done by government in the matter, and by stating the causes which rendered the detection and apprehension of offenders so difficult. He then said, that by an act of the 28th of the King, the breaking of frames was a minor felony, punishable with transportation for fourteen years; but this having proved completely inefficacious in deter

[blocks in formation]

ring from the commission of the offence, it was his intention to propose that it should now be made capital. He was by no means a friend to the increase of capital punishments, but the present situation of the scene of those illegal proceedings was exactly such as came within the definition of the best ancient lawyers, when speaking of a state of things which called for severe punishment. He then quoted the authority of Sir Matt. Hale, and applied it to the existing case of Nottingham. This was his first measure; the second was to enable the lord-lieutenant of the county, the sheriff, or five justices, when disturbances existed, to call a meeting, and give immediate public notice that a special meeting would be held for the purpose of obtaining lists of all the male inhabitants of the county above the age of 21, in order to select from them such number of constables as they think necessary, and establish watch and ward throughout the disturbed parts. He might be told that part of this plan was law already; but it was law which had fallen into disuse. The right honourable secretary concluded by moving, "That leave be given to bring in a bill for the more exemplary panishment of persons destroying or injuring any stocking or laceframes, or other machines or engines used in the frame-work knitted manufactory, or any articles or goods in such frames or machines."

Colonel Eyre, member for Nottinghamshire, seconded the motion, and confirmed the Secretary's ́statements respecting the riots.

Mr. J. Smith, member for Nottingham, suggested, as another cause of the riots, besides the de

cay of trade, a custom adopted by some manufacturers of paying their workmen in goods charged be yond their value, which he thought deserved inquiring into. He was sorry to say, that he never witnessed so much misery as when he was last at Nottinghain. He allowed that the mischief was dreadful, but felt very unwilling that the punishment of death. should be resorted to. He bore an ample testimony to the zeal and abilities displayed by the right honourable Secretary in the whole of this business, and gave great praise to the conduct of the magistrates of Nottingham, who, he said, in their provision for keeping the peace had gone beyond the measure of the proposed bill. He further observed, that the existing law against frame-breaking, extended only to stocking-frames, and not to lace-frames.

Of the other speakers at this early stage, some recommended a committee of inquiry previously to an enactment which constituted a new capital offence, and thought the case was not of urgency sufficient to deinand hasty remedies, especially as the mover had acknow. ledged that the disturbances had been gradually diminishing, and were now nearly subsided; others declared themselves convinced of the immediate necessity of strong measures. A division upon the motion at length took place, in which it was carried by 49 votes against 11.

Mr. Secretary Ryder then mov ed, "That leave be given to bring in a bill for the more effectual preservation of the peace within the county of Nottingham, and the town and county of the town of Notting

ham

ham. Leave was accordingly granted, and the two bills were brought in and read the first time.

Mr. Herbert then moved, "That a committee be appointed to inquire into the late riots in the county of Nottingham and the neighbouring counties, and what further legal provisions, if any, are necessary for the suppression thereof, and also the steps which have been taken for the discovery of the offenders."

Mr. Secretary Ryder argued against the appointment of a committee as wholly unnecessary; and on a division, the motion was negatived by 40 against 15.

On Feb. 17, Mr. Ryder having moved for the second reading of the bill for the more exemplary punishment of frame-breaking, &c. Mr. Abercromby rose to declare his objections to the bill, chiefly on the ground of its being ineffec tual for its purpose. He was followed by several speakers on both sides, whose arguments differed little from those advanced on the former reading. Sir Samuel Romilly, whose attention had already been particularly directed to capital punishments, took a leading part in opposition to the bill. He said, it was folly to talk of the terror that would arise from converting the punishment of transportation for fourteen years into that of death: the one would always have almost an equal influence upon the human mind with the other, and he would answer for it, that this terror would not tend to diminish the evil. If the existence of this evil were to be attributed to a conspiracy for suppressing evidence, the terror of a greater punishment would tend the more to keep wit

nesses from coming forward. The bill was totally directed against individual depredation, and not against the conspiracy which had given birth to the disturbances. He complained of the want of examination and inquiry; and said, that in after-times it would asto-. nish an English House of Commons to find, on inspection of the journals, that in a case of life and death their predecessors had upon only a few minutes examination. adopted a measure of so much importance.

Sir Arthur Piggot, on the same side, observed, that if ever a legislature took a wrong step, it was when there existed a degree of indignation against persons who had committed violent aggressions against private property and the public peace. Before any one asked him to extend the punishment and make it capital, he ought to prove that the law had been en forced and found ineffectual; but as it did not appear that there had been any prosecution upon the 28th of the King, there was no autho rity for saying that the law was not adequate to its purpose, except that there was a necessity of extending it to the breaking of lace-frames.

On the other side, the peculiar danger and extent of the outrages which had been committed, was dwelt upon as a call upon the le gislature to enact some more severe punishment than had hitherto been applied to the case. The house at length divided on the second reading which was carried by 94 against 17. Mr. Ryder then moving that the bill be committed for to-morrow, Sir S. Romilly moved as an amendment to substi

tate'

[merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors]

Lord Byron then rose, and in the first speech he had made before that assembly, described in very strong terms the distresses which had driven the poor manufacturers to acts of outrage, and expressed his detestation of the sanguinary spirit of a measure which, he contended, had only been resorted to in consequence of the neglect of government to apply timely remedies for the evil.

Other lords in opposition spoke against the bill, with even greater severity than had been used in the House of Commons.

- At the close of the debate, the -house divided on the motion of Lord Lauderdale to adjourn the discussion till Monday, when there appeared, contents, 17; non-contents, 32; majority, 15: after which the bill was read. His lordship's motion, that the judges be ordered to attend on Monday, was negatived.

Upon the order of the day for the committal of the bill, March 2, Earl Grosvenor rose to move the discharge of the order. The debate was thereupon renewed with the same arguments which had been before used, and the question being put upon the motion, it was

negatived. Two proposed amendments were agreed to; one, that the attempt to destroy frames should be made only a misdemeanour; the other, that it should not be imperative upon the person injured to proceed immediately to prosecute, provided he could shew a reasonable cause for his delay. The bill was then committed, two peers, Lords Lauderdale and Rosslyn. entering a protest against it.

the debate was briefly resumed, on March 5, on the motion for the third reading, but it passed without a division.

The fellow-bill, for the preservation of the peace in the town and county of Nottingham, was brought to a committee on Feb. 18, when, on the suggestion of some members for extending its provisions to the neighbouring counties, Mr. Secretary Ryder moved, that it be an instruction to the committee, that they be empowered to extend the provisions of the bill to any other county in Great Britain, which was agreed to.

When the report of the committee was brought up on February 26, Mr. Ryder said, that since the bill had been before the house, he had received several communications, which had made it advisable to extend its provisions to the whole kingdom. The bill had been, in consequence, new modelled in many parts, and in this state was submitted for discussion to the committee. The clauses then went through the committee, da để

No further discussion is recorded respecting this bill, which, with the former, passed into a law. The operation of both of them was di mited to March 1, 18145

CHAPTER

-a

༄།

CHAPTER V.

Bebate on the expulsion of Mr. Walsh-Renewal of the Gold Coin and Bank-Note Bill-Motion of Lord Boringdon for an efficient Administration Provision for the Princesses.

A

PRIVATE matter, which was discussed in the House of Commons at the early part of the session, is entitled to notice, on account of its involving a principle of parliamentary law, though otherwise it might have been passed over in the public history of the year. Mr. Benjamin Walsh, a member of parliament, had been guilty of a very gross breach of trust in his business of a stockbroker, for which he had been tried at the Old Bailey, and convicted of felony. He had afterwards obtained the royal pardon for his crime, on the ground that it did not properly amount to felony; but his remaining a member of the -house could not but be regarded as derogatory, to the dignity of that sassembly. On Feb. 25, on the emotion of Mr. Bankes, copies of the papers relative to his trial and conviction were laid before the bouse, and an order was made for his attendance on the 27th. On that day nothing more was done than taking some preliminary steps -to further proceedings. Repeated orders having been made for Mr. Walsh's appearance, with which he did not comply, but stated by letter his desire that the proceedsings of the house should not be delayed on that account, Mr, Bankes, on March 5, rose, and after a

speech setting forth the enormity of the offence of which the mem ber in question had been convicted, and the practice of the house of expelling for notorious crimes, particularly for pecuniary frauds and breaches of trust, he moved," That Benjamin Walsh, esq. a member of this house, having been tried at the Old Bailey, in January last, for felony, and convicted thereof, and having received a free pardon, by reason of his offence not amounting to felony in the opinion of the judges; but gross fraud and notorous breach of trust having been proved against him on the said trial, is unworthy and unfit to continue a member in this house."

[ocr errors]

Sir Arthur Piggott, in opposition to the motion, adduced various arguments to prove the incompleteness of the evidence before the house of Walsh's guilt, and to shew, that although he had disgraced himself in the eyes of seciety, his action was not of a nature of which the house could take cognizance.

Mr. Bathurst replied to his ob. jections, by shewing that there was sufficient proof of moral turpitude for which no circumstances of mitigation had been adduced; that the house was not bound by technical rules; and that every one must feel the gross indecorum of

such

« ForrigeFortsett »