Sayfadaki görseller
PDF
ePub

bill, he had no other object in view than that of preventing the recurrence of those disgraceful scenes, which, it was proved in evidence, had been prevalent at the last election. If there were any objectionable points, they could be amended in the committee.

The gallery was cleared for a division, which, however, did not take place. The bill was then read a second time; and the Speaker was ordered, not to issue his warrant for a new writ till the 1st of June.

SETTLEMENT OF THE POOR BILL.] Mr. Sturges Bourne having moved the order of the day for the farther consideration of the report of this bill,

General Gascoyne said, that he had several objections to make to this bill, for which reason he should move as an amendment, that it be recommitted. The, provision in it which he would chiefly oppose was that relating to the length of time necessary for gaining a settlement. This, in his opinion, ought to be extended from three years, as proposed by the bill, to five years, in the case of native subjects, and to seven in the case of foreigners. This and other points could be discussed only in a committee, for which reason he should move, that the bill be re-committed.

Sir J. Mackintosh observed, that the opinions of the noble lord and the worthy alderman would come better at another stage of the bill. It should be recollected, that the present was not a penal bill: it was not to punish particular individuals that could be obtained by the courts of law; but the object of the bill was a general one, and done to guard the House against a gross invasion of its privilegesto prevent, by enlargement of the number of voters, a corrupt body of men from again bartering their rights, and sending their purchaser to take a seat in that House. The hon. member then went on to show the impropriety of looking at the present bill as a penal law against a particular body of men, and maintained that it should only be viewed as a law in support of a general principle-a principle which the House was bound to support. As to the question of general reform, he should not say more than that he would consent to no reform where a great practical evil did not exist, and to which a probable remedy could be applied. The House, he contended, were bound, for the sake of their own character-for the sake of that respect which it was essential they should be held in by the country, to pass the present measure. The great mischief which the country was likely to sustain from violent declaimers on the subject of reform, arose from those single Mr. Mildmay seconded the motion, instances of corruption being suffered to although his objection went rather to the pass unnoticed, or with impunity. Such principle of the bill than to its provisions. tales passed from mouth to mouth, and But of the provisions, he would princifrom generation to generation, and con- pally oppose that which related to domestributed more to alienate men's minds tic servitude. The bill was supported on from the constitution than any other which the ground that it would put a stop to could be devised. They were used by much litigation, but in this he thought incendiaries for their own purposes, and there was a fallacy. The claims to settlewere always productive of a lasting im- ment under the existing law, though depression against the government. A pending on many circumstances, were single instance of such a case was cal-not liable to so much difficulties in their culated to do more mischief than many details as those which were proposed to of perhaps better-founded objections. The be substituted. hon. gentleman went on to show the bad effects of such practices being suffered to pass with impunity, when they were urged by political incendiaries; and after a few comments on the argument of extending the franchise to some great towns instead of the neighbouring hundreds, which he thought would be inconvenient, concluded by expressing his concurrence in the general principle of the bill.

Mr. Forbes spoke in favour of instituting prosecutions against the guilty.

Lord Clive said, that in forming this

Mr. Phillips objected generally to the bill, and said, that if the hon. general would consent to withdraw his amendment, he would propose instead of it that the report be taken into consideration on this day six months. He argued at some length to show the injustice and impolicy of compelling parishes where an individual had resided for three years, to support them in their necessities. He supposed the case of a labourer in a manufacturing town, wherein the manufactures had failed-in such a case it would

be not only a hardship to the parish, but a cruelty to the man himself, to compel him to remain in the place of his usual residence.

serve, that the poor laws were not strictly observed-a circumstance which greatly aggravated all their evils. He hoped that he had said enough to support the opinion which he had originally expressed on this question. It was not, perhaps, desirable to press it upon the country under the present clamour which had been raised against it, but still it was due to those who had recommended the proposed alterations to show that they had not adopted them upon light or inconsiderate reasons.

Mr. Frankland Lewis spoke at some length in favour of the measure. He was supported in the opinion he entertained of it by one whose sentiments had always been listened to with attention, and whose loss would for ever be deplored by the House; he meant the late sir Samuel Romilly. By him it was said, that such a system as was now proposed to be introduced was one of the greatest improvements in the laws regarding the poor he had heard of. But this was not a solitary opinion; men whose knowledge and experience on these matters rendered their sentiments valuable had also expressed their approbation of the system. Supported and strengthened by these opinions, he had no difficulty in declaring, that the system which at present existed brought ten times more injustice upon the pauper, and ten times more hardship upon the parish, than the system which was proposed to be introduced by this bill. He strenuously supported original settlements-settlements in that parish where Mr. Huskisson admitted, that the rethe child was bred and born, under the moval of the cruel and unfeeling restraint parental roof where it had received its which the old laws put on the poor man's education, and where it had given the be- labour ought to be removed, but he could nefit of its labours. How often was it not see how the law of settlement could the case at present, that a man worn be removed, unless the poor laws were aldown by age an infirmity was sent from together repealed. An amendment was the spot where he had spent the greater necessary in the existing law-to make it part of his life, to that parish where he was, in fact, a choice of evils, and he might have obtained a settlement by the thought this bill would answer every purlabour of a single year, but where he was pose. He complained of the moral evils perhaps unknown, and where he was un-which were produced by the old law upon likely to obtain a subsistence! This was hard indeed upon the parish, but doubly hard upon the unfortunate pauper, to be removed from his friends and connexions, at a moment, perhaps, when he was afflicted with illness, to a place where he might expire without regret to a single individual in the parish. He remarked upon the facility with which settlements were gained by labour, and earnestly recommended the adoption of a system which would prove a comfort and a blessing to the pauper. He saw no reason why towns as well as country parishes should not bear a proportion of the burthen of supporting these paupers. He was sensible of the inconvenience of charging the manufacturing districts with paupers, but still they ought to support their share of the burthen. He was also sorry to ob

Mr. Allan objected to the bill, principally on the ground of its tendency to increase parochial burthens.

Colonel Wood objected to the notion of uniting two of the parishes in Wales in the manner alluded to. He rather thought the bill would work more harm than good.. The only way to get rid of the difficulties respecting the poor laws, which caused such endless litigation, was to retread the steps that had been passed, and abolish settlements altogether. Labour was the property of the poor man, and he should be at liberty to exercise it wherever he pleased.

the agricultural population, and contended it was most desirable to amend a system so productive of injurious effects. Not the least of the merits of this bill was, that it would prevent the great expense and litigation now so common in asserting rights of settlement.

Mr. G. Lamb denied that the effect of the bill' would be to prevent litigation. To give the lawyers a new act of parliament, was rather a strange way of diminishing their practice. He enumerated in detail the provisions of the bill, and thought that it was most injudicious to prevent a man from obtaining a variety of settlements in the course of his occupations.

He

Lord Milton supported the bill. thought it was a considerable improvement upon the old law, which was too compli

cated to be useful. He attributed the augmentation of the poor-rates to the anxiety to reduce the price of agricultural labour. The great manufacturing towns were no doubt desirous of getting rid of their poor who had spent their lives in the workshops of Manchester or Birmingham.

Sir G. Clerk suggested to his gallant friend who had moved the amendment, to withdraw it, and allow the bill to go through another stage.

Mr. Canning approved of the bill in general, though he admitted that there were some objections to it. The amendment was important, as tending to raise the character of the poor. A great number of Irish were annually imported into Liverpool, and he thought the residence in large towns ought to be five years. The simplification of the law was a great gain, although in the present generation it might be attended by inconveniences. It would be ungracious to object too strongly to this first-fruits of the committee on the poor laws. The task it had to perform was complicated and difficult; and if it were not encouraged, gentlemen would be very reluctant to undertake the duties. He was in favour of the re-commitment, that the amendment might be introduced. Mr. A. Wright opposed the bill, on the ground that it was fertile of litigation.

Mr. S. Bourne replied briefly, and said he had no objection to the recommittal of the bill.

Mr. W. Smith, though originally a friend to the motion, felt it a duty he owed to a very large body of his constituents to oppose it.

The question being put, "That the Bill be recommitted," the House divided. Ayes, 62; Noes, 92. The question, that the farther consideration of the report be put off for six months, was then put and agreed to.

HOUSE OF LORDS,

Thursday, May 11.

THE FLORIDAS-EXECUTION OF ARBUTHNOT AND AMBRISTER.] The Marquis of Lansdowne, in pursuance of the notice he had given at an early period of the session, and since postponed, now felt it his duty to call their lordships' attention to the transactions which had taken place on the occupation of the Floridas by the American forces; and with a view to that object, he intended to move for copies of

the communications which passed betwee his Majesty's government and the government of the United States, with respect to the invasion of the Floridas, and more particularly the trial and execution of British subjects by the general commanding the troops of the United States. It was unnecessary for him, after what had passed at the beginning of the session, to enter into any explanation as to the mo tives which induced him to delay bringing forward this subject to so late a period. That explanation relative to the transac tions between this country and the United States which the noble earl opposite had promised to give, had in the first instance induced him to abstain from pressing the consideration of the subject; but any silence which had taken place either on his part, or on that of parliament, could not be construed into a disposition to acquiesce in what appeared to be a departure from the law of nations, and the introduction into warfare of a barbarous practice, subversive of the principles of humanity, by which civilized states were governed. He was most unwilling to cast any reproach whatever on the government of the United States for the occurrence of the transaction, which he could not but characterize as one of the most atrocious that could be committed. He was far from attributing to that government any disposition to encourage or counte→ nance that act. He had too high a respect for the character of the distinguished individual who filled the first office in the government of the United States, to believe that he, or any one connected with him in that government, would approve of the proceedings of general Jackson. In moving, therefore, for the correspondence which had passed between the United States and the Prince Regent's government, he was in hopes to find that proper explanations had been given.-He should now briefly state the origin of the transaction to which his motion referred. In the winter of 1817, in consequence of disputes which had arisen between the United States and the Seminole Indians, a war was commenced by the latter, who were charged with the commission of most flagitious outrages on the citizens of the United States. General Jackson, who was intrusted with the direction of the military operations against the Seminoles, thought fit to carry the war into the neutral territory of Spain, under the pretext that the Indians might make themselves

under arms. These circumstances he stated from the published account of the court-martial. With respect to Arbuth not, the facts were materially different. Neither in the evidence produced, nor in the finding of the court-martial, was it pretended that Arbuthnot was found bearing arms, either at the time of the invasion, or in Fort St. Marks, in which he was taken. There was no proof of any connection between him and the Indian chiefs, except a letter which was spoken to by one witness; and nothing to make out the charge of his having instigated the Indians to hostility. It appeared that he had supplied the Indians with articles of merchandize, among which were some small quantities of lead and powder. This was a kind of transaction very common in war, and the property of the neutral merchant, when taken, had generally been held to be forfeited; but in no case was it ever before heard of, that he should be condemned to pay also the penalty of his life. But it was not only the sentence of the court-martial which was in this case calculated to excite indignation, the subsequent conduct of the American general was still more revolting. One prisoner was condemned to death; the other to the punishment of a severe imprisonment. General Jackson took upon himself, not the right of mitigating the sentence, but of aggravating it. He ordered the punishment of death to be inflicted upon Ambrister, who had been condemned by the court-martial to imprisonment only. Could these transactions be justified on any principle of the law of nations, or in any way by the plea of necessity, which had alone led to the invasion of Florida by the American army? But suppose that general Jackson was authorised in proceeding with severity against Ambrister and Arbuthnot, he ought to have felt that, from the analogy of punishments enacted by the laws of the United States, he could not inflict on these men the penalty of death, and that they could, in fact, be liable to nothing more than fine and imprisonment. The noble marquis referred their lordships to an act of the United States, a clause of which he read, by which citizens carrying on correspondence with a foreign power at war, or act. ing as commissioners or agents for such power, were liable, on conviction, to the. penalty of 1,000 dollars, and one month's imprisonment. Thus it appeared, that citizens of the United States, guilty of (U)

masters of the forts, as the Spanish force | was unable to resist them. How far this ground for the invasion of a neutral state was justifiable, it was not his present purpose to inquire, though it would be impossible for him not to call their lordships' attention before he sat down to the final cession of the Floridas by Spain. The invasion at the time it occurred, however, was, he admitted, a question solely between Spain and the United States. The circumstance to which he wished particularly to call their lordships' attention was, as he had already said, the trial and execution of two British subjects under the authority of the American commander. He thought the invasion of the Spanish territory was in itself an act of violence; and he believed it would be felt by all the world, that if state necessity was made the ground of so extraordinary a measure, those who had the conduct of the operation ought to be careful to avoid every unnecessary act of inhumanity. For instance, when Copenhagen was, under the pretext of state necessity, taken possession of by our government, it would have been an act of great aggravation, had the British general, intrusted with the command of the expedition, proceeded to try and condemn to death the subjects of neutral powers found in the Danish capital. General Jackson was, however, no sooner in possession of the Spanish territory than he proceeded to bring British subjects before courts martial, and try and condemn them to death for pretended offences against the United States. There was some difference in the situation of the two individuals who had undergone this melancholy fate. Ambrister, it appeared, had undoubtedly borne arms against the United States; and he was not prepared to say, that there did not exist a right, according to the laws of war, in the commander of an army to refuse to regard the subjects of a neutral state taken with arms in their hands as regular prisoners of war. This might lead to a denial of quarter; but it was a most unjustifiable extension of the principle when it was applied to the case of Ambrister, who was not taken in arms. The principle was in itself one of great cruelty, and it never could be the interest of any nation to apply it in a way which would establish a practice so repugnant to all the feelings of humanity. Ambrister was only proved to have borne arms in opposition to the invasion of the Floridas, but was not found (VOL. XL.)

|

the same offence as that with which Ar buthnot was charged, with the aggravation of violating their allegiance to their own government, could only be fined and imprisoned; and yet, with this act of the Congress staring him in the face, general Jackson had taken upon himself to sentence a British subject to death. He did more; after the sentence was passed, he proceeded to carry it into execution, in defiance of one of the articles of the American military code, which provides that no sentence of a court-martial affecting the life of an individual shall be carried into effect until it has been communicated to and approved by the president of the United States. To demand an explanation of such a transaction was a duty incumbent on this government; but its disavowal was not so much called for by the honour of this country as by that of the United States. That it was disapproved by that government was a hope which he cherished in common with those friends of humanity who looked to the American States as the means of diffusing over that part of the world the spirit of freedom and love of justice which they inherited from their ancestors, of planting in that continent all that was most noble in this. But how could such a hope be entertained, if this atrocious transaction should finally prove to be sanctioned by the government of the United States? He should not trouble their lordships further on this subject; but it was impossible for him not to advert to that event which had so materially changed the situation of this country with respect to its colonial power in the West Indies. He meant the cession of the Floridas. He could state without fear of contradiction in that House or elsewhere, that no colonial cession so materially affecting the interests of this country had ever before taken place. It was his anxious wish, and, he believed, that of all the country, that the peace now enjoyed should be of long duration; but neither their lordships nor those who administered the government were justified in overlooking the prospect of a renewal of hostilities at some period or other. Should a war take place the relative situation of this country would be essentially changed. He could with out the slightest hesitation assert, that the acquisition of the Floridas would place a great part of the commerce of this country with the West Indies at the mercy of the United States. In the case of hostilities, our homeward-bound fleet

could not pass the Gulf of Florida without the greater part becoming the prey of gun boats and small privateers of every description. Another injurious consequence to this country was, that the possession of Florida gave the United States a commanding influence over the present black governments, or any which might hereafter be formed in the West Indies. He was far from supposing that the noble lords opposite were insensible to the importance of this cession, but the event was strangely inconsistent with the commanding influence which it was supposed British councils had obtained by the late adjustment of the affairs of Europe. That settlement had often been the subject of congratulation on the other side; but with all the titles which it gave this government to influence, it was extraordinary that a transaction so inimical to our interests should be the act of the country which owed us the greatest obligations. How did it happen that ministers had been unable to prevent this cession? Why was such an event not guarded against by the treaties concluded at the peace? This neglect was the more remarkable, when it was considered that at the peace of Utrecht-a peace concluded by persons not much complimented for attention to the general interests of the country-it was provided by a specific article, that Spain should not cede any of her colonies to another power. Any one would think it impossible that such a security should not have been asked at the congress of Vienna; and yet from the treaties it appeared that nothing had been done there in the way of security, no provision introduced to guard against so momentous an occurrence as the aggrandizement of another power, in such a way as to completely subvert our influence in the West Indies. It had been stated, he understood, by high authority in another place, by the secretary of state for the foreign department, that the silence of the treaty of Vienna respecting the cession of the Spanish colonies was unimportant. When asked why no provision to guard against such cessions had been introduced the noble lord answered, that although the treaty of Utrecht was not referred to, the omission was unimportant as the treaty of Seville, signed in 1729, and which remained in force, confirmed the provision in the treaty of Utrecht. Thus it was asserted that complete security was obtained; but ought it not to have occur

« ÖncekiDevam »