CLERGY PENALTIES BILL. (Hansard, 31 March 1814)

Lord Folkestone
said, that in the early part of the evening it had been stated, that there was not likely to be any opposition to the principle of the Bill; that it would only be objected to in the detail; and that therefore there would be no debate on the second reading, as the entire examination of the measure would be reserved for the committee; he, however, had at that time different intentions; and he had been anxious to catch the eye of the Speaker, in order to give notice of that difference. So much did he object to the general principle of the Bill, that he felt himself obliged to oppose the second reading, even in that thin state of the House. All the general arguments which applied to precipitate Bills applied to that before the House; such Bills were usually rather the effects of feeling than of reason. His chief particular objection to the Bill arose from the injury it would do to an individual. The Act passed about twelve years ago, regulating the residence of the clergy, held out inducements to persons to commence actions for any breach of the provisions of that Act; and under the sanction of King, Lords, and Commons, the prosecutor had a vested interest in the penalties attached to its violations. The Bill went to destroy that vested interest, 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. Feeling had been called in to aid this cause, and the worst feelings that could be employed; prejudice had been resorted to; and the odious term of informer had been used, to excite hatred against the prosecutor of the actions which gave birth to the Bill, and pity and sympathy for those who were the objects of them. It had been said, that Mr. Wright had entrapped those persons whom he had prosecuted into the very offences for which he had prosecuted them; but how was it 405 possible that he could have so entrapped them? Although he had a vested interest in the penalties, yet that interest was subjected to the verdict of a jury and the decision of a court, and therefore it was impossible that he could entrap them; for if the prosecutor had caused them to commit the offence, they could have proved that fact on the trial; and indeed, any facts operating in their favour might also have been proved in a similar manner; and if sufficiently strong, not only would the prosecutor have lost his penalties; but he would also have been liable to the costs of the defendants, as well as his own. Much calumny had been afloat, and the term 'informer' was constantly applied to Mr. Wright; but it would be remembered, that this calumny originated with those who had been injured by him, and who had also been guilty of breaking the laws. He was not of opinion that the clergy had any pretensions to indulgence; if they had been a body remarkable for an assiduous discharge of their duties, he would not be one to punish them for a neglect of forms; but were they so? Another reason which had been stated for the Bill was, the great amount of the sums which might be recovered by Mr. Wright from some of the non-residents. But surely this was a singular case, if the extent to which the transgression of the law had been carried was to be a ground for not inflicting its penalties. It was said, too, that the penalties in many cases had been incurred by neglect or ignorance of the law. How was this argument, he would ask, listened to in other cases in courts of justice, even when pleaded in behalf of the lowest and most unlearned members of the community? Here, however, there was a body of men, the learned and affluent, who had broken the law, and yet prayed to be excused from suffering under it. It was said, that the ruin of several individuals would be the consequence of enforcing the law. That such ruin should take place, he should be as sorry as any man; but why should this calamity be averted at the expence of Mr. Wright alone? It might be a preferable course to indemnify those who were subject to the penalties, out of the produce of certain sincere places, or some such source. From the reasons he had stated, feeling it impossible to approve of the Bill, he protested against the second reading.

Mr. Wetherall
said, that not only the present Bill, but every Bill of Indemnity, was an ex post facto law. That the per- 406 sons indemnified by the Bill had committed any real offence he denied; they being liable to the penalties, in most cases, because they had neglected to send in a notification of their non-residence. The law involved in it a most flagrant absurdity, by making people liable to such severe punishment for the most trivial inadvertencies; for in nine cases out of ten the penalties were incurred on account of mere omissions of form. This being the case, the House was to look to what it had done on similar occasions; and it would be seen that by the 43d of the King, the clergy had been indemnified against the consequences of neglect, similar to that against the consequences of which it was now proposed to secure them.

Mr. Western
said, he should give his vote for the second reading of the Bill, though he could not help feeling the weight of those objections which were urged by his noble friend behind him, and which he thought were not sufficiently answered by the learned gentleman opposite. It could not be denied, that the informant had, by the Act of the 43d, a vested right in the writs he had taken out under that Act; and that the provisions of this Bill, if passed into a law, would deprive him of that right. The justification of such a measure could only be found in the peculiar circumstances, and the necessity of the case. It was a choice of difficulties in which the House was involved; but it was quite clear that the clergy ought not and must not be left without adequate relief, where no moral culpability whatever could attach. Mr. W. said, he thought the statement he had made was due to the character of the clergy in general, and concluded with saying, he should give his assent to the second reading of the Bill.

§ Mr. Creevey
would, as he supposed the noble lord would press the question to a division, give his reasons why he felt obliged to vote against the second reading of the Bill. It was not from any affection to informers; for he knew no class of persons whom he more inveterately hated and despised, than those who obtained money by practising informations; nor because he was not aware that the church was suffering great injuries in consequence of the Bill regulating residence; but he would not consent to relieve the clergy by the present Bill, because it would trench on the provisions of an act of parliament, and illegally destroy a vested interest; and he was astonished to find the Bill re- 407 ceive the sanction and support of the gentleman opposite. When he or any other person proposed to abolish any sinecure held by patent or otherwise, either at home or abroad, he was always answered, "Oh, you can do no such thing—such a one has a vested interest in it,"—and so forth; but now, when the matter was different in regard to the persons concerned, there was no hesitation to destroy a vested interest, although it was fenced by an act of parliament. The produce of the information was a vested right; and though the very name of "informer" was odious, he most support the interest of one, notwithstanding the hardships under which the prosecuted clergy laboured.

§ Mr. Bathurst
defended the Bill. That breaches of the law had been committed, was not denied; but he maintained that the quality of the offence was not that against which the legislature had most to provide. A Bill indemnifying a person from penalties incurred by the omission of a matter of form (Mr. Grant, jun), had just passed without opposition. From the language held by the noble lord, it should seem he would allow of nothing of this sort. He would not admit that a breach of the law could in any way be qualified by circumstances; his language would be Fiat justitia, ruat cœlum. For his part, it appealed to him, that the present was a case in which legislative interference was imperiously demanded. It was, however, not intended to save the clergy at the expence 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 those penalties which, in such cases, the legislature had intended should be paid. All that was desired by the present Bill was, to secure those from ruin who had unconsciously offended against the letter of the law, without violating its spirit.