CHAPTER XI. Bills to suspend and discontinue certain Proceedings against Clerical Persons. Debates and Bills relative to the Corn Laws.---Proceedings relative to the Slave Trade. ed became the occasion of frequent discussion in the present session of parliament. An act had passed about ten years before, brought in by Sir William Scott, for the purpose of remedying the evils arising from the prevalent non-residence of the clergy on their cures, to the provisions of which heavy penalties for default were annexed. These penalties attached not only to non-residents without excuse, but to those who should neglect to make returns to the bishop of the diocese of the claims to exemption as allowed by the act. It had happened that a Mr. Wright had been successively registrar of the bishoprics of Norwich, Ely, and London, and being dismissed from bis office in the last, he had availed himself of the knowledge he had acquired in his station, to institute prosecutions against a number of the clergy for violations of the act, of which the penalties to which he was entitled as informer, would amount, if levied, to 80,000l. As a great majority of these actions was founded on mere omission of the returns, an alarm was excited among all who were conscious of any neglect of form in this particular, and who saw themselves exposed perhaps to absolute ruin at the pleasure of an ship, Mr. Bathurst, in the last autumn session, moved for leave to bring in a bill to suspend for a limited time the proceedings in actions under the act above-mentioned, which passed both houses. The period of the operation of this bill being near expiring, Mr, Bathurst, on March 24th, rose to move for leave to bring in a bill "to discontinue the proceedings on certain actions already commenced, and to prevent vexatious actions, under the 43d of the king." He introduced his motion with the observations he had formerly made on the great hardships to which the persons against whom the actions had been brought were exposed; and in proof that their offences in general consisted only in the neglect of duly applying for licences, he said, that in a list of ninety-two persons in the diocese of London, against whom Mr. Wright had instituted prosecutions, only two were destitute of a rational excuse. Mr. Whitbread said, that those who remembered the proceedings on the bill in question would be struck with what they now heard. At that time it was contended that every thing should be done to induce informers to come forward, for for which purpose it was thought right that the whole penalties should go to them; but no sooner does one appear, than the House is called upon, first to suspend the law; secondly, to continue the suspension; thirdly, to quash the prosecutions; and lastly, they would be asked to alter the law. He, however, would rather entertain the bill moved for, than suffer the unfortunate persons under prosecution to be entirely ruined. After some observations by other members, leave was granted, and the bill was read the first time. Mr. Bathurst also brought in a bill to continue the suspension-act of the last year. The bill for discontinuing the prosecutions, &c. having been committed, its second reading was moved on March 31st, when Lord Folkestone rose, and declared his objection to the principle of the bill. This he chiefly founded on the injury it would do to an individual. The prosecutor had a vested interest in the penalties attached to violations of the law in question, which the bill went to destroy. It would be an ex post facto act to deprive an individual of his right, and to indemnify others who had been guilty of a breach of the law. His lordship then noticed the calumnies which had been raised against Mr.Wright, and the means that had been used to interest feeling in favour of the persons prosecuted; and ended with declaring that he must protest against the second reading. Mr. Wetherall said, that every bill of indemnity was an er post facto law equally with the present; and he denied that the persons to be indemnified by the bill had committed any real offence. Mr. Western acknowledged that he felt the force of the objections urged by his noble friend, which he thought had been inadequately answered. The house, in fact, had only a choice of difficulties; but as it was clear that the clergy ought not to be left without relief, in a case to which no moral culpability attached, he should give his assent to the second reading. Mr. Bathurst, in defending the bill, said, that it was not intended to save the clergy at the expense of Mr. Wright. He would be allowed his costs; and where the law had been broken so as to involve a moral offence, he would be enabled to proceed. for his penalties. The bill was read a second time. The further consideration of the report being postponed, a petition was presented to the house, on April 21st, from Mr. Wright, against the bill. It recited the fact of his having commenced actions against divers clergymen for penalties, to which their neglect had rendered them liable, believing himself entitled to the protection of the laws of his country in so doing; complained of the representations made by the clergy derogatory to his character, as having entrapped them, or kept back their licences or notifications, which he solemnly declared to be untrue; and that, on the contrary, he had drawn up an abstract of all the statutes respecting non-residence, with the forms of notification, and petitions for licences, which he had distributed gratis at his own expense, not only to the clergy of the dioceses wherein he acted as secretary, but to those of other dioceses, and had also inserted advertisements in the pro vincial vincial papers, and had written circular letters to remind the clergy of the necessity of renewing their licenses; affirmed that the actions he had commenced were against clergymen of twenty different dioceses, and therefore his researches had not been confined to the dioceses in which he had been secretary; mentioned, that since the commencement of his actions, clubs and associations of clergymen had been formed for the purpose of defeating his claims, and several of the clergy had even caused friendly actions to be commenced against themselves with the same intention; and he concluded with placing himself under the protection of the house, and praying that he might be heard by himself or counsel, and allowed to produce evidence. On April 26, the house having resolved itself into a committee on the bill, Mr. Wright's petition was referred to it, and counsel was heard on his part against the bill. After the counsel had finished his speech, which was merely a recapitulation of the allegations in the petition, Mr. Brand rose, and professing himself friendly to the bill in general, said he had objections to some parts of it. In the first place, be thought it did not offer sufficient security to Mr. Wright, who ought to be indemnified for all past and future expenses. He further was of opinion that the bill should define the grounds on which licences for non-residence should be given, instead of leaving it to the discretion of the bishops, who, he thought, had not sufficiently attended to the duty of enforcing residence, or ascertaining who did reside, or under what circumstances the order to reside had not been complied with. He concluded with moving, as an amendment, "That it should be lawful for any person against whom actions for penalties might have been brought, to adduce proofs as to whether they had been entitled to licences for non-residence or not; and if they were enabled so to do, that such proof should be considered as an adequate excuse for their conduct. Mr. Bathurst defended the bill, and made various observations on the statement given by Mr. Wright, who, he said, had made it the object of his inquiry where the proofs of his case were the easiest, not what was or was not a case of inadvertency. As to the suggestion of depriving the bishops of the powers vested in them by the 43d of the king, that power had been given them for good reasons, and a case should be made out before it was changed. He declared that he should give his negative to the proposed amendment. Mr. Whitbread, though still of opinion that the bill ought to pass, yet confessed that he had been led to entertain a more favourable opinion of Mr. Wright in the part he had taken; and instead of his requiring the indulgence of the house, they themselves ought to ask indulgence from him, who was to be prevented by an act from getting possession of what an existing law assigned him. It had been said that Mr. Wright might bave admonished the bishops instead of taking the course he had pursued; but was this the provision of the act? or, in framing it, was it contemplated that the bishops were to to be directed by their secretaries in the performance of their duties? Whatever might be the motive of Mr. Wright in informing, he was exactly the man whom the act looked for, and to whom it held out the penalties as an inducement to inform. After some farther debate the amendment was put and negatived, and the original clause was carried. A clause being read respecting bishops acting upon their responsibility,. Mr. Whitbread observed, that that word might as well be left out, since, in truth, they would be responsible to no tribunal whatever. He said, his hon. friend (Mr. Brand) on leaving the house had left with him a clause which he would propose to the committee: its purpose was, to provide that the licence for non-residence should be rendered void, if not granted upon sufficient grounds. Mr. Bathurst replied, that the object would be equally attained by the clause as it stood. Several new clauses were afterwards brought up; and in fine the bill was reported and ordered for printing. The bill being sent to the House of Lords, the house resolved itself into a committee upon it on May 13, when, upon the clause authorising the courts, under certain circumstances, to stay the proceedings that had been entered upon, the Duke of Norfolk made some objections relative to the justice of it, similar to those advanced in the other house. Lord Ellenborough observed, in reply, that the principle of the provision was analogous to the usual practice of Parliament A conversation ensued, in which the merits of the bill of the 43d of the King were discussed; and the Archbishop of Canterbury gave it as his opinion that great relief had been afforded to the clergy by that bill; whence it was much to be deplored that the inadvertence and misconduct of some of them had given occasion to the present bill. It would, however, be found that its provisions separated the cases of vicious non-residence from those of mistake and neglect. The clause was then carried without a division, and the report on the bill was received. It afterwards passed into a law, under the title of "An Act to discontinue proceedings in certain actions already commenced, and to prevent vexatious suits against spiritual persons, under an Act passed in the 43d year of his present Majesty; and further to continue, until the 20th day of July, 1814, an Act of the present Session of Parliament, for staying proceedings under the said Act." The defects of the Act of the 43d of the King being universally acknowledged, Sir William Scott, on May 9th, moved in the House of Commons for leave to bring in a bill for its amendment as far as it relates to the non-residence of the clergy, which was granted. which Among the topics of Parliamentary discussion during this session, no one excited so much general interest as the Corn Trade, the proceedings concerning were the subject of as much agitation, and produced as many petitions, as the East India and Catholic questions of the last year. The speeches in parliament on the occasion were so numerous, and were involved in so much intricacy from opposing calculations and statements, statements, that instead of attempt ing to give a statement of what was said, we must be contented with a succinct account of what was proposed and done. The State Papers of 1813 will be found to contain a "Report on the Corn Trade," framed by a select Committee of the House of Commons, in which were consider ed the two different systems on which the Corn Laws of the country had been hitherto founded. The first, commencing in 1670, discouraged the importation of grain by high duties, whilst it encouraged the exportation by bounties. The second, commencing in 1765, proceeded on the directly opposite principle. The effect of these systems is stated by the committee to be such, that they recommend a recurrence to the former policy, by fixing very high the regulating price for allowing the importation of corn, with the permission of free exportation till it had nearly reached that standard. The respective prices specified were, exportation up to 90s. per quarter, and importation when at 103s. At that time, in consequence of two successive scanty harvests and other circumstances, the price of grain was extremely high, and much distress was incurred by the dearness of bread and the other necessaries of life. When, therefore, an intention was declared of bringing in a bill to parliament upon the principles supported by the committee, a great alarm was excited, especially in the commercial towns and manufacturing districts; and the suspicion was generally entertained of a design of sacrificing the trading to the landed interest, and enabling the country gentlemen to keep up the greatly increased rents of their estates.The cultivation of corn having of late years been so much extended in Ireland, that a considerable part of the deficiency of England was supplied from thence, it was natural that the members of that part of the united kingdom should take the lead in the attempt to discourage foreign importation; and Sir H. Parnell, member for Queen's County, who had been chairman of the committee, was the person who brought the matter under discussion after the Christmas recess. Petitions had in the mean time been pouring in from different places against any alteration in the corn laws. On May 5, "Sir Henry Parnell moved that the debate on the corn laws, adjourned from the last session, should now be resumed; which was put and carried. He then moved that the first of a set of resolutions which he had prepared, and which were essentially different from those which he had proposed in the last year, be referred to a committee of the whole house. It was in the following words :— "That it is expedient that the exportation of corn, grain, meal, malt, and flour, from any part of the united kingdom, should be permitted at all times, without the payment of any duty, and without receiving any bounty whatever." Mr. Rose opposed the motion in a speech full of information concerning all previous laws relative to the corn trade, and supported by tables, of which no abridgment can be given; and he concluded with earnestly intreating the house not |