Commons Sitting of 17 April 1815

PROPERTY TAX.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerrose to move the postponement of the second reading of the Assessed Taxes Bill, which stood for that evening. In doing so he said he would avail himself of the opportunity of stating that in the committee of ways and means, on Wednesday next, he meant to refer the acts relating to the property tax to the said committee, for the purpose of moving the continuance of the same.
Mr. Fremantleasked whether it was proposed to submit any alteration either in the principle of the measure, or the mode of its application.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerreplied, that he did not intend to propose any alteration in the principle of the Bill. It would be open to any gentleman to suggest such modifications in the committee as he might deem advisable.
Mr. Hornerinquired, whether the right hon. gentleman meant to relinquish the assessed taxes, as well as to renew the property tax?
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, he should put off the consideration of the assessed taxes from day to day, until he learned whether the House would coincide in the propriety of a renewal of the property tax.
Mr. Whitbreadasked whether, under any circumstances of the country, the right hon. Gentleman meant to propose the renewal of the property tax? Did he mean to say that the revival of that measure would not depend upon any political arrangements that might be effected?
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, that in his view of the subject, whether this country were in a state of war, or of defensive and expensive pacification, the renewal of the property tax would be equally necessary for the public service.

MOTION RESPECTING MR. LATHROP MURRAY.
Sir Samuel Romillyrose, in pursuance of notice to move, That an humble Address be presented to his royal highness the Prince Regent, that he will be graciously pleased to give directions that there be laid before this House, a copy of the Report to his royal highness the Prince Regent, by the Recorder of London, of the case of Robert Lathrop Murray, tried for bigamy at the Old Bailey in January last." The case of this unfortunate gentleman had been already detailed, at various times, to the House and the public, and no person had ventured to contradict the statement. It was one by no means aggravated in its circumstances, but which had been visited by the severest punishment it was possible to inflict. The prisoner had petitioned his Majesty's Government to permit him to transport himself to any place out of his Majesty's dominions; but even this had been refused him—while many others, convicted of the crime of bigamy, under cases much more aggravated, were pu-
[654
nished merely by twelve months imprisonment. What was the peculiar nature of the present case, that called for such, severity? or why was such a variety permitted in inflicting the punishment, that, one man should be sentenced to seven years transportation, a second to imprisonment, and a third punished by the infliction of a pecuniary fine? Since the Act had been passed which attached the punishment of transportation to this offence (now eight years), not one in four had suffered that sentence. Out of 104 cases, only 23 persons had been transported for the offence, and in general the punishment was only one year's imprisonment, or a small fine. The second wife, knew perfectly well of the first marriage before she married the prisoner, and, as well as the prisoner, was convinced the first marriage was illegal, it appeared to him, therefore necessary that the Recorder's report should be seen, that a fair judgment might be formed of the cause of such an extraordinary distinction.
The Attorney Generaldeemed it his duty not to let the present motion pass without some observations. He adverted to the opinion of the hon. and learned gentleman opposite, when he made his first motion relative to Murray, namely, that the House ought not to interfere with the sentences of courts of justice without the most grave and weighty reasons. In this opinion he perfectly agreed; but he assured him that he totally differed from him in the view he had taken of the case in question which he considered to be one of the most flagrant nature. If it had been deemed necessary of late to make the punishment for the crime of bigamy more severe, it was because the law had found that imprisonment was not sufficient to deter evil-minded persons from committing it. He reprehended the conduct of the second wife of Murray, in consenting to marry him, without the knowledge of her friend, after he had told her of his former marriage, and merely taking his word that it was null and void. She had a fortune of 10,000 l. which was to be paid to her on the day of her marriage, and she was entitled to 70,000 l. more at the death of her mother. He would therefore ask, whether, if her guardians or parent had known of this intended marriage, it could be supposed possible that they would not have interfered to prevent it? The circumstances alleged by the hon. and learned gentleman in behalf of the culprit,

655]
those of his having had a University education, and being an officer and a gentleman, only tended, in his opinion, to render him still more criminal. But even the grounds on which he had petitioned for a reversal of the judgment were marked by depravity; for it would scarcely be credited, that in the document now lying at the Secretary of State's office, he had dared to say, that having had a dispute with a jeweller who had used him ill, and that jeweller being the brother-in-law to the Recorder, who had tried him, it was not extraordinary that he should have been convicted. Such a libel upon so just and honourable a man was not to be endured; and he could only attribute the interest which his hon. and learned friend had taken in this culprit's case to his excessive urbanity. Under all the circumstances, he appealed to the House if this was a case in which the sentence pronounced by the judges ought to be brought to that House to be revised. He felt it to be his duty to offer the most decided resistance to the motion.
Mr. Addingtonthought that no case had been made out to warrant the interference of the House, with the exercise of the judicial authority.
Sir Samuel Romilly, in reply, contended, that the case under consideration was one of peculiar hardship, and therefore one in which the interference of the House was loudly called for.
The motion was negatived without a division.

ALIEN BILL.
Mr. Bathurst, after a few words upon the number of Aliens at present in this country, and the necessity of arming ministers with further powers, moved for leave to bring in a Bill to provide further regulations respecting aliens.
Mr. Ponsonbyacknowledged, that he entertained a great jealousy towards those powers intrusted to the Government by the Alien Acts, and thought that no ground existed at present for granting any of an extraordinary nature. The reason for which those Acts were originally passed was, to obviate the injury that might result from Aliens endeavouring to propagate in this country sentiments and principles subversive of good order, and hostile to the Government; but surely such apprehensions could not be seriously entertained at the present period. If Aliens transgressed the ordinary criminal laws of the realm, those laws were equal
[656
to their punishment, without arming the Government with extraordinary powers, which might be exercised from the suggestions of private malice, and were, from their nature, open to abuse, in consequence of misrepresentations difficult to be examined into. The only ground urged by the right hon. mover was, that there were at present a great number of Aliens in the kingdom; but could it be said that they were for the purpose of forming an army, to carry on war within the kingdom? In the present crisis, it might be more naturally expected that Aliens friendly to this country, and hostile to the present Ruler of France, would come to England. From these no injurious movements could be apprehended. He was convinced that these measures had been greatly misapplied, and had been made the instruments of private malice, while the Government was imposed upon. He, therefore, felt indisposed to permit the Bill to be brought in, without taking the sense of the House.
Mr. Bathurstsaid, he had not entered into details upon the subject, because he did not think that the necessity of the Bill would be doubted at the present crisis. It was not at all impossible that persons might be sent from France to this country, or to Ireland, to estrange the population and weaken its allegiance. The principle of the Bill had already been several times recognised by Parliament.
Mr. Whitbreadsaid, that the right hon. gentleman had talked of the measure being necessary in the present situation of the country; but neither he nor any of his Majesty's ministers could inform the House what that situation was. He bad uniformly opposed the Alien Acts, thinking them the instruments of great abuse and cruelty. He was sure that minister; had been imposed upon frequently, and that they had paid money to emigrants who were holding correspondence will the enemy, while they sent innocent foreigners out of the country. Most probably upon this Government in a great degree depended the question of peace o war—the Continent would be guided by it; but before such a question was deter mined, it seemed to him a litte too early to bring in a Bill for the regulation o aliens, that war only could justify. He denied that there was any danger that the minds of the people of Ireland would be corrupted by aliens, or that ministers bat not adequate means of meeting such a evil without this Bill.
Mr. Dennis Brownesaid, that while a Jacobin government, assisted by an over-whelmning military power, existed in France, the ministers should be armed with extraordinary powers relative to aliens. Such, he feared, would be particularly necessary in Ireland, from the feelings too prevalent in that kingdom. He thought that if the Alien Act did not resist in Ireland, the hon. gentleman who spoke last would have to ask other questions relative to that country than he found necessary at present.
Mr. Bathurstsaid, that it was impossible for ministers to state particular cases, when they came to the House for a measure like the present; such conduct would defeat the very object in view.
Mr. Whitbreadsaid, that in order to have the matter more fully explained upon a future day, he should divide the House.
Mr. Bathurstremonstrated, observing that such a proceeding could only cause useless delay. The measure could be debated in its future stages.
Mr. Whitbreadindicated his intention of persevering. With regard to what the hon. gentleman opposite had said upon the Jacobin Government of France, all be (Mr. W.) could observe in reply was, that the Congress of Vienna had been an arch-manufacturer of Jacobins.
Mr. R. Wardsaid, that if the hon. gentleman took advantage of the then state of the House merely for the sake of a delay of 24 or perhaps 48 hours, he would prove himself the greatest friend of ministers by such a proceeding.
Mr. Whitbreadsaid, that if he should prove a friend to the present ministers, it vests more than he intended to be.
The House then divided: Yeas, 24; Noes, 3. As there were not forty members present, the House adjourned, and the motion, was of course lost.