Abbildungen der Seite
PDF
EPUB
[merged small][ocr errors]

General Smith NOES Mr. Pierrepont jun.

deference, because there might be in- | stances where strong proofs could be brought against the validity of that decision; and this principle might apply with much more propriety to military tribunals. But the question was, whether, in the present case, such a counter statement had been made to the sentence of the court-martial, as would warrant the House in not adhering to its decision. It was true, the Journals of the House furnished no precedent for the motion; but if the principle on which it was founded was in itself just, it did not stand in need of any precedent. The House proceeded on the motion, not because the courtmartial had found colonel Cawthorne generally guilty of misconduct in a military capacity, but because they had found him guilty of charges which rendered him unworthy of a seat in that House. To prevent the possibility of applying the present motion as a precedent hereafter, that the House should generally proceed on the sentence of a court-martial, he would propose, that the specific motives on which the court-martial had found the unfortunate person guilty, should be recorded on the Journals. Such a proceeding would guard against the possibility of any inference being drawn, that the resolution of the House had been founded merely on the sentence of the courtmartial.

General Tarleton condemned the conduct of Mr. Cawthorne, but doubted the propriety of the House proceeding to expel any one of its members, upon the evidence of any court whatever. He thought they could not regularly proceed to such a measure, without hearing evidence of the guilt of the party, at the bar of the House.

Mr. Francis said, it appeared to him that the House, in the function and duty which they were to exercise that night, did not assume, and could not hold, any appellant jurisdiction whatever from the sentence of a court-martial. It had no authority to revise the proceedings or to confirm or reverse the sentence. The sole purpose for which, as he conceived, the proceedings were ordered to be laid on the table was, that the members might have the means of judging for the direction of their own conduct on another point, whether the sentence of the courtmartial, as it appeared on the face of the proceedings, was or was not warranted? The next question for the House would

12

108

So it passed in the negative. Then the said proposed question was, with leave of the House withdrawn. And it appearing to the House, that John Fenton Cawthorne, esq. a member of this House, has been found guilty, by a court-martial, of divers charges, in respect of some of which he is found guilty of having acted fraudulently, and in a scandalous and infamous manner, unbecoming the character of an officer and a gentleman: resolved, "That the said John Fenton Cawthorne esq. be expelled this House."

Debate on the Quakers Relief Bill.] April 21. Mr. Serjeant Adair presented a petition from the people called Quakers, setting forth;

"That the Petitioners think it right to represent to the House the suffering situation to which they are subjected, both in person and property, by the conscientious scruple that it is well known they entertain against the payment of Tythes and other Ecclesiastical Demands: That the property, the domestic comfort, and the personal liberty of the Petitioners, are so liable to be affected and interrupted by the prosecution of Claims upon them for Tythes, &c. more especially in either the Ecclesiastical or Exchequer court, that they think they shall not be deemed importunate in referring their case to the House, seeing so long a time has elapsed since the Petitioners have made any application on the subject: That the Petitioners cannot ascribe to the legislature a disposition to place them and their posterity in a state of suffering on account of a religious scruple, which they can neither evade or desert, without violating their integrity; yet such is the effect of the law, as is painfully manifested in sundry instances, particularly in the deplorable case of seven of their brethren, now prisoners in the gaol at York, and without any present

prospect of release, though convicted of no crime, except it be a crime scrupulously to adhere to what they conceive to be the plain precepts of Christ respecting the ministry of the gospel: And therefore earnestly requesting, that the House will bestow a serious consideration on their case, and grant such relief as may appear proper."

Mr. Serjeant Adair said, he should be content for the present with having the petition laid upon the table. The nature of the relief proposed, he would explain on Monday.

April 26. Mr. Serjeant Adair called the attention of the House to the nature of the relief which he intended to move for in behalf of the Quakers. He entered into a detail of his object in the present measure, and also into a history of acts of parliament as they had been made, from the 7th and 8th of king William downwards. By the religious scruples of the Quakers, they could not make a voluntary payment of tythes; conceiving it to be contrary to the precepts of Holy Writ, and in consequence of these scruples they were subject to great inconveniencies. This circumstance had struck the legislature long ago, and therefore, an act had passed, whereby a justice of peace might make an order for the sale of the defendant's goods who had been found to owe tythes, and, who being a Quaker, could not make any voluntary payment; this extended, however, only to the sum of 10. This act had been found, as far as it went, to answer the purposes for which it was intended. His intention was, to follow up its principle, but to take off the limitation which confined it to 10%. There would, however, still remain a case, to which the remedy of the act he alluded to did not apply, and that was when the title was in question. That he proposed to be tried in a court of law, like other titles, and when the question of title shall have been settled, then the mode of obtaining the dues on that title shall be subject to the same summary jurisdiction, as if the title had never been in question. This would produce the whole remedy upon this branch of the case. He should propose farther to remedy another defect, with regard to the enforcing payment of tythes, that where the party had not goods sufficient in one county, that wherein he shall dwell, to pay all that should be due for litigating the issue, a sequestration

shall be issued against his effects, as in other cases, until the demand shall have been fully satisfied. The only beneficial effect of all this would be, that the plaintiff who shall sue for and recover his tythes, shall not be at liberty to make his election and imprison the defendant, while such defendant shall have goods enough to satisfy the demand, because in that election consisted the hardship against the Quaker; for if he was imprisoned for it, he must either be confined for life, although he may have goods to pay, or do a deed which he thought against the law of God. He had now stated all that the Quakers wished to be offered on their part. There was, however, another subject which he felt it his duty to state to the House. This was the present restriction in taking the affirmation of Quakers. By the law as it stands, they cannot be examined on their affirmation in any but civil actions. He was not able to see the wisdom of the distinction. By taking their affirmation in criminal cases, the public would be benefited by their testimony. He had known some important failures in the administration of justice in consequence of this restriction. He should, therefore, propose that Quakers should be examined on their affirmation in criminal cases, subject as they now were in civil cases to all the consequences of perjury. He then moved, "That leave be given to bring in a bill for the farther relief of the people called Quakers, as to the imprisonment of their persons, and for making their solemn affirmation evidence in criminal as well as civil cases."

Mr. Wilberforce expressed his hearty approbation of the principle of the bill.

Mr. Francis was as desirous as any man to give every possible relief and protec tion to persons who were really and sincerely scrupulous, in a religious sense, about paying ty thes. His doubt was, whether, in some cases, these scruples might not be professed where they were not seriously felt, for ostentation or for merit, in hopes to pass for victims or martyrs with their sect; and then, generally, whether it might not deserve consideration how far it might be safe for the legislature to encourage the plea of religious scruples against obedience to the laws, how far that indulgent principle ought to be carried, and by what general limits it ought to be confined in its application. With respect to the affirmation of Quakers in criminal cases, un

doubtedly, the public ought to have the benefit of their evidence.

Mr. Pitt said, that he also should be unwilling to give extraordinary indulgence to scruples that were not sincere, but here there was no temptation for persons to pretend to scruples falsely; for by so doing they would be subject to much more rigour, with regard to tythes, than if they did not pretend to them.

Sir W. Dolben approved highly of the proposed regulations, and thought they would be equally beneficial to the Quakers and those entitled to tythes.

Mr. Lechmere said, that the Quakers were a most orderly and quiet set of people, and highly deserving any immunity that would render them comfortable.

Mr. Wigley believed the scruples of the Quakers sincere, and expected the greatest advantages from the bill proposed.

The motion was agreed to nem. com. and the bill was brought in on the following day.

May 10. On the order of the day for going into a Committee on the Bill,

Mr. Francis said, it was a matter of fact, that the scruples of conscience stated to form the grounds of the necessity of this bill, did not proceed from the individuals themselves, but from the operation of a higher power, which at the yearly meeting prescribed rules and orders in the manner of a government, and excommunicated the persons who did not obey them. If such were the fact, he thought that dictatorial power ought to be check ed, and the persons inclined to obey the laws of their country protected.

Mr. Serjeant Adair thought it would be difficult for the House to take cognizance of this objection, and dive into the hearts of men for the causes and motives that regulated their opinions. Whatever the scruples of the Quakers might be, they did not interfere with the rights of others, and that he considered to be the necessary question.

Mr. East objected to the bill, because it gave a relief to Quakers from the process of the Ecclesiastical court, which was an indulgence not allowed to members of the church of England.

May 14. The bill being read a third time, Mr. Robert Smith proposed a clause by way of rider, "for liberating certain women, calling themselves Quakers, from the gaol of Nottingham, imprisoned there [VOL. XXXII.]

under a writ of excommunicato capiendo.' The Speaker said, that as the proposed clause was not connected with the title of the bill, it could not be introduced without infringing the rules of the House. Sir W. Scott, the Master of the Rolls, and Sir R. Sutton also opposed it as a violation of the orders of the House, and contended, that it was not right to suffer people to set up religious scruples, as a pretext for disobedience to the laws of the country. In a regular way, they would not object to any relief the House would think proper to grant. Mr. R. Smith withdrew the clause, and the bill was passed.-On the 15th, the Bill was read a first time in the House of Lords. On the following day, when the order for the second reading of the Bill was read, the archbishop of Canterbury said, that as the bill involved a question of right of very great importance, and as it had been introduced at this late period of the session, he would move, that it be read a second time on that day three months. After a few words from the duke of Norfolk, the bishop of Rochester, and the lord Chancellor, the Motion was agreed to. The Bill was consequently lost.

Debate in the Commons on the Bill for granting Duties on Legacies of Personal Estates.] May 22. On the order of the day, that the report on this Bill be now taken into further consideration,

Mr. Alderman Newnham said, he felt objections to this bill, which, to his mind, were insurmountable. First, he objected to the tax on account of the inquisitorial part of it. By this bill, an exact account of a man's circumstances might become the conversation and amusement of the loungers of a common coffee-house. For if government should not be satisfied with the account given in by an executor, there was to be an inquisitorial power, in order to examine the whole of his accounts. There were many circumstances which a man might fairly and prudently wish to conceal, even from his partner in trade; but by this bill every thing was to be exposed to the public at large. This would subject all descriptions, particularly commercial men, to the most serious inconveniencies. This bill was a tax on the bounty of a man to a well-tried and approved friend or domestic, to the great amount of 6 per cent. There was a description of persons not acknowledged by the law, for whom a man might, very [3 U]

properly, have a tender affection, who would feel severely the effects of this bill: he meant illegitimate children. The bill stated what was to be done by those who should take upon themselves the burthen of executors. None but an attorney would be qualified to be an executor. The original plan, too, had been divided; the landed property into one bill the personal property into another. He wished them both to come on together, that the House might see the extent to which this was to be carried. He bebelieved that when the landed property bill should be brought forward, the opposition to it would be so great, that the minister would be compelled to abandon it. He would venture to foretel, that when this bill came to be understood by the public, there would be a terrible outcry against it. He would therefore move to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the question to add the words 66 upon this day four months."

Mr. Rashleigh said, that the exposure of property which would be consequent upon this bill, would be highly prejudicial to trade. Many traders of the best character and fairest intentions, extended their speculations to double or triple their capital: and it might hurt their credit, if the exact state of their property were laid open to the world. He thought the bill would introduce much litigation.

Mr. Fox said, he had considered the bill from the very beginning to be a measure altogether impracticable in the present state of the country. Every species of commercial property must by the bill be laid hold of and exposed. The very idea of making a man pay a profit to government for his property ad valorem, implied that the value of that property should be ascertained. This must also necessarily make public the value of all the bequests in the kingdom. This ascertainment of the value of every thing hereafter to be bequeathed, must necessarily depend upon a balance between debts and credits. Now, there must be cases in which this system would be attended with great injustice. It was said, that as we cannot ascertain the value of a person's property, it should be taken according to the profits afterwards received. Let the House consider the tendency of this system. There must be thus annually laid before parliament the whole state of our commercial prosperity and adversity. A man might lose upon one

branch and gain upon another; he might have a partner in the one case, and he might be concerned alone in the other, and he might bequeath a legacy to the partner who had sustained this loss; then there must be a deduction of 6 per cent. out of such bequest. This was an evil that was inseparable from the very nature of the bill. Now he would ask, how was it possible for a man to give an account ad valorem of the profits of a trade complicated with a thousand circumstances? And how was this account to be made to government without the whole of the circumstances of that trade being made known to the public? It was well observed, that a great hardship would be cast on illegitimate children. How was this to be managed? Was there to be an inquiry into the legality of the marriage of the father, or the grandfather? Had government that power? If they had, what a scene of confusion and intolerable vexation would follow from the exercise of that power! If this bill was consented to, other taxes of the same kind would be brought forward. Admitting the principle to be just, he could not see any good reason why it should not be extended. He then took notice of property in the funds. There was, indeed, a solitary act which recognized the practice of recurring to it as an object of taxation. But he did not think that just; for when we funded a debt, we contracted with the holder of it, that he should enjoy it without diminution by a tax while he lived, and that he should bequeath it to his posterity.-He thought there was a great deal of force in the objection of the wor thy magistrate about not bringing forward the other bill with regard to the tax on landed property. He saw no good reason why they should be separated, but many why they should be kept together, and chiefly that the House might see the real extent of the plan. By applying it to landed property, the impracticability of it would be more striking. He had many objections to the particular provi sions of the bill, but they were all as nothing when compared to his objections to the general principle. The idea of an ad valorem estimate of taxation on a man's property was repugnant to sense and jus tice in any country, but particularly in such a country as ours, where it was impossible to calculate the inconveniences to which it would give birth. He was confident that a sense of duty would

oblige him to vote for the rejection of the bill. He should now, however, only desire that this bill should be delayed, until the bill for taxing landed property should be brought forward.

reviewed the acts relating to legacies, passed in 1780, 1783, and 1789, every one of which, he said, permitted the inspection of private concerns. The bill, on the whole, provided for the ease and convenience of executors, by obviating numerous inconveniencies; and he was persuaded it would be acceptable to the country.

Mr. W. Smith thought the clause in the bill respecting the disclosure of commercial property so objectionable, that, if it was understood by the public, he was convinced it would occasion serious opposition to the measure. The mercantile world were totally unaware of the clause; and this was a reason why time should be given for farther consideration.

The Solicitor General said, that there was not a necessary connexion between the two bills. The principle of both was already recognized in the act imposing a duty on legacies of 20s. per cent. when the legacies was above 100l., and of 40s per cent. when it exceeded 400. It had been argued that the bill was impolitic, because it went to lay open the state of private property. Such investigations were sanctioned by the laws in Jamaica, and there they had been productive of no bad effects. But, upon the provisions of the present bill, there was no necessity for any such investigation because it would be always in the power of an executor to avoid it by proposing a composition. The mode of taxation proposed in the bill took nothing from the actual enjoyment of any person upon whom it operated. The case of illegitimate chil-out by gentlemen opposite with respect dren was somewhat hard, but it would be impossible to make an exception in their favour; besides, it would be in the power of the father to provide for the payment of the tax, by making an additional allowance to his natural child.

Mr. Grey thought the bill would operate as a considerable hardship upon those persons who, though not illegitimate themselves, derived their existence from an illegitimate source, as they would be strangers in blood, and be made liable to incur the whole expense. Whatever might be the policy of Jamaica, it had always been contended here, that to oblige a person to make a discovery of his private concerns would be fatal to the commercial credit of the country. The learned gentleman said that the bills ought to be divided, because the provisions were different, though the principle was the same: now, he thought, that, if the principle was the same, they ought to be discussed together.

The Attorney General said, that the first objection to the bill was, that there was no exception for illegitimate children. Now, such had always been the case with former acts, and he conceived it proper. This act, however, was lenient, in comparison with other acts: for if the testator stated his legatee to be his child, although illegitimate, he would enjoy the exception made in favour of the lineal descent. He

Mr. Pitt said, that in the course of the debate it had been asserted, that if the House agreed to the tax on collateral succession, they would establish the principle by which a tax might attach on direct succession. How little was this argument consistent with the idea thrown

to illegitimate children! They thought the case of illegitimate children distinct from that of strangers; that they stood in a more intimate relation to the testator. Yet illegitimate children stood, in the construction of the law, as absolute strangers, and, except an express provision was made for them, were not entitled to claim any thing. Yet they who affected to complain of the hardship in this instance, affirmed, that in the present measure there was no distinction of principle from the case of the immediate succession of legitimate children. The present bill introduced no new principle of inquiry. It had existed for a long series of years; and to those who were best acquainted with its operations he appealed, whether it was attended with any of those fatal consequences to commercial credit, which, it was stated, would result from the present measure.

The question being put, That the word 'now' stand part of the question, the House divided:

[merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small]
« ZurückWeiter »