Sitting of 20 February 1812

FRAME WORK BILL.
Mr. Secretary Rydermoved the order of the day for the third reading of the Bill for the more exemplary punishment of persons destroying or injuring any Stocking or Lace Frames, or other machifes or engines used in the Frame-work knitted manufactory, or any articles or goods in such Frames or Machines.
Mr. Hutchinsonsaid, that he would be the last man in that House to defend or justify the outrages against which this Bill had been provided; but it was a ma-
860
terial point to ascertain, before it passed into a law, whether it could have the desired effect of putting a stop to these outrages. He did not think it could; and he was fortified in that opinion by the frank declaration of the right hon. Secretary, who had, in introducing the Bill, protested against pledging himself to the ultimate success of his own measure. After so strange, but so explicit an avowal on the part of the originator of the Bill, he thought it became the House to be cautious of adding to the pile of their penal laws, one of which they only could be certain, that it might take away mens' lives without at all restraining their offences. The law which had been the professed model of the present Bill, made the offence of Frame-Breaking a transportable felony—the penalty, however, was departed from, and the offence made a capital felony. The reason for this change did not appear. It had been said that under the former act no persons could be brought to discover. If it had been so difficult to get witnesses to prosecute to conviction, when the offence was only transportable, would it be less so under the present act, when the conviction affected life? He thought rather that this very alteration would enhance the difficulty it was intended to obviate. But they had not merely the authority of the right hon. Secretary against his own measure—they had that of the minister himself, who bad expressed his apprehensions that this offence had not yet reached its height—that it might yet proceed to an alarming extent, and reach perhaps throughout a great part of the manufacturing system of the country. If the evil now to be provided against was so to en-crease, even under the operation of this statute, why enact it at all? They were not pledged to this particular act. Why not look anxiously for some better remedy? For surely gentlemen would not contend, that that which could do nothing was the best possible remedy the case admitted of. What had been the immediate cause of these outrages? Distress perhaps unparalleled. Did not this involve a consideration that bound them to reflect upon the measures that had created that distress? Why not then first inquire into the causes of that distress? If they had been pursuing a system which, in its consequences, threatened the people with beggary and want, it was their bounden duty to stop, and change, that system, before

861
they sent out an act to hang op the people for outrages into which their own mal-ad-ministration had driven them. They had no right to be so very keen and prompt in punishing the madness which they themselves might have occasioned. They had been called upon to be firm—let them be firm in resisting the outrages of the lawless; but pertinacious obstinacy in resisting the complaints of a distressed people, was no part of that firmness. But according to their own shewing, where was the firmness in making an ineffectual shew of power—in doing that which could do nothing? Would this act do away the unparalleled distress that had provoked, and must continue to provoke, these outrages? And if it did not, why not try to trace that distress to its true cause, and remedy it at once? But mark the inconsistency of ministers, who admitted and denied the existence and extent of that distress, according as such admission or denial was meant to square with the topic then to be disposed of. If the efficacy of the Orders in Council was impeached, instantly this distress became comparative commercial prosperity. The trade, of the enemy was annihilated, and ours was progressively prosperous; but when the House was to be called upon for another penal statute, and when the unprecedented distresses of the people were attempted to be traced to their natural source—the unprecedented errors of the government—then, indeed, the extent of the calamity was admitted, and ascribed to the wide and heavy operation of those Decrees which they had been told, the Orders in Council had rendered altogether nugatory and futile. Could the people think them sincere in their professions to relieve their pressures, when they found them thus sporting with their distresses? An allusion had been made to that part of the Jewish law which condemned children who rebelled against their parents, to be taken without the gates of the city and there stoned to death—but were there no obligations on the part of the parent? If the parents profligately and desperately consumed the substance of their children, deprived them of their birth-right, and all means of living, were children so abused bound by all those strong ties of tenderness and piety which connect those sacred relationships in ordinary life? He, for his part, was shocked to see such total indifference on the part of ministers to the sufferings of this class of their
862
miserable fellow subjects. In the name of those sufferings he called for inquiry into the causes of them. They were bound to know what those people suffered before they Could ascertain the amount of that criminality which their miseries had extorted, and which they were now going to punish with death. Was it the war? or the mode of carrying on the war? or were they to look at home for the fatal cause—was it to be traced to a total abandonment of ail economy at home? If it was one of those, apply the remedy to the source, and do not begin by unnecessarily cutting off the extremities. After vaunting so much about the prosperity of the country, was this the comment put by ministers upon it? They sent out this act to tell the people of their commercial prosperity—this first act of what may yet be followed by a bloody code—an act that professedly can neither remedy nor prevent, but hang the criminal without putting a stop to the crime. It was rather an inauspicious act for this new administration to commence with. They begin their new government of a new æra by adding to the capital crimes of the country, an offence arising out of the desperation of unexampled distresses—this, he must say, was rather an unfortunate beginning at so prosperous an sera for so unfortunate a set of ministers! He asked if they had yet given the people one practical pledge of their sincerity in the cause of economical reform? They had been lately making enormous additions to their civil establishments, and since that they had again thrown back the Reversion Bill upon the discontents of the country. An hon. gentleman (Mr. Herbert) had talked of the White Boy system, in Ireland, and said, that if the Irish Parliament had not resorted to those vigorous measures which were proposed in the present instance, that system might not have been put down. He (Mr. H.) could not help thinking this a most unfortunate allusion. The White Boys broke out in 1760—at that period, owing to a great dearth of cattle in consequence of a general murrain in the north of Europe, cattle in Ireland brought so high a price, that it became an object with many landholders to turn their arable into pasture—a system that, by taking in all the commonage, operated in the most hard way upon the poor peasantry. This produced the insurrection denominated White Boys.
Mr. Cripps.—Mr. Speaker, I beg leave

863
to ask whether the hon. gentleman is in order.
The Speaker. I hardly know how to answer that question. If the hon. gentleman is in order, I am at a loss to discover how he is so (hear, hear!)
Mr. Hutchinson.—The riots of the White Boys were adduced as analogous to those of the Frame Breakers. We were told that the same vigour which had checked the one would now be necessary to put down the other. I answer, first, that admit the analogy, because both species of outrages originated in iniquitous grievances and hardships; and, secondly, that as the White Boys were put down by redress of their grievances, and not by the rigour of law, that according to the same analogy, you are bound to inquire into the grievances of the Frame Breakers, and to remedy them without delay, as the most effectual way of putting a stop to these outrages. I know not, Sir, whether you can now perceive the applicability of my argument; or whether you are still at a loss to discover whether, in urging it, I am within the limits of order. I repeat, then, that the vigour of the law failed in putting down the White Boys—that it will fail in putting down the Frame Breakers. But is it meant that the one should be the pure model of the other? Would you introduce the pitch cap, and the other memorable insignia of torture, so well known in Ireland, though not understood here? Would you introduce them into England? The White Boy code was fit only for the meridian of Barbary, as it had, indeed, been well described by a most intelligent writer on the state of Ireland. But look at this subject as you will, you are forced to the consideration of the cause—are any portion of the people of England given to wanton riots? was this the national character? was it the character of the manufacturing part of the country? were they not proverbially a grave, plodding, quiet, discreet, sedate, business-involved class of men? What but intolerable distress could drive such a class to lawless outrage; and if the distress was too great to be borne, the legislature was bound to interpose some remedy, and not hang men because they could not suffer beyond human nature. I have now stated my objections to this measure, and condole with the new minister that such should be the first act of this new æra of the flourishing state of the empire. The proofs of such national prosperity were unfortunately but too
864
equivocal, if they were to be found only in such a measure as that which they are now about to pass, or in a rupture with America; or in the midst of such general peril, in the alarming discontents and alienation of the Irish people. The man who can repose confidence in those ministers who have brought the empire to such a state, is not only, in my opinion, incapable of forming a sane judgment, but would deserve, while he ranted about our national prosperity, to be hung up in a cage to the gaze of the starving multitudes in this country, and himself be made the sport of those, upon whose miseries he could pass so cruel a mockery. If the Bill does pass without inquiry, I trust that the people of England will proceed to hold constitutional meetings, and resort to every constitutional mode of redress. I hope that they will at length make that voice be heard within these walls which has had for so long a time such little influence upon our counsels.
Mr. Sinclairsaid:—I rise, Sir, to give my decided support to this measure, the necessity of which I both acknowledge and lament. Though for the most part disposed to concur, on the subject of capital punishments, with an hon. and learn" ed gentleman opposite (sir S. Romilly,) whose humane and enlightened exertions for mitigating the rigour of the Penal Code, entitle him to the gratitude of his country, yet on the other hand, I contend, that cases may occur (of which I conceive the present to be an instance) in which lenity to the aggressors, is cruelty to the injured. The first clause of this Bill, by which the perpetration of these outrages is rendered a capital offence, may not, it is true, facilitate the detection of the past, but will (I trust) be conducive to the prevention of similar enormities in future—whilst the second clause, which enforces the necessity of giving early information when an outrage has been committed, will powerfully second the exertions of the magistrates to bring the offenders to justice. When the punishment of death has long subsisted against a particular crime, it may perhaps be viewed with less terror by offenders, as the nature of the crime and that of the penalty attached to it are equally familiar to their minds; but when it is for the first time enacted against an offence, to which a slighter punishment was attached before, it cannot, I think, fail to deter many persons from engaging at all in the crime, and recall many others

865
to a sense of what they owe to themselves and to their families. We need not be afraid of the judgment of posterity on the subject of this law. Whilst they deprecate its rigour, they will acknowledge its necessity; and only consider it as a temporary remedy for a temporary evil, arising, I trust, from temporary causes.—Sir, I should have thought that the candid and perspicuous statement of the right hon. Secretary on a former occasion, corroborated as it was by the members for the town and county of Nottingham, would have prevented any insinuations from being thrown out, that the government had acted with supineness or inactivity. To such insinuations an honourable contrast is afforded by the manly and impartial declaration of the member for Bedford (Mr. Whitbread,) that in his opinion nothing had been left untried.—Sir, the protracted continuance of these disturbances does not prove any remissness on the part of the government, but aggravates the criminality of the offenders. From the secrecy with which their attacks were planned, the celerity with which they were executed, and the suddenness with which they were renewed in quarters where they least were expected, I cannot help inferring that their misconduct was not owing to the momentary impulse of distress or irritation, but to a premeditated plan of systematic aggression, which certainly rendered vigilance and energy on the part of the government doubly necessary, but must also in many instances have rendered them ineffectual.—Sir. I sincerely hope that the complete restoration of tranquillity may render it unnecessary to have recourse to the provisions of this act; but, on the other hand, I trust, that if a continuance of these disturbances should render it expedient, they will be enforced with vigour, and attended with success. With regard, Sir, to what fell from the hon. gentleman who spoke last, if I had entered the House in the middle of his speech, I should have supposed that we were discussing the state of the nation—a topic to which his arguments had a much more immediate reference than to the question now under consideration. I shall not pretend to comment upon such extraneous observations.—When the motion of which an hon. baronet has given notice for an inquiry into the State of the Nation, is brought forward, I have no doubt that most of these arguments will be repeated, and many of them. I trust, satisfactorily refuted.
Mr. Herbertsaid, that he did not recommend the mode of punishment adopted in Ireland against insurgents here, but gene-rally the necessity of having recourse to a capital enactment.
Sir A. Piggottcould not refrain, in this last stage of the Bill, from repeating his objections to it, being satisfied that it was a measure calculated to mislead the public, and at the same time to operate as no check upon the outrages sought to be corrected. He could not forbear expressing his astonishment that such acts as had lately been carried on for a series of months with impunity bad not called out the inquisitorial power of that House, but that, instead of such an inquiry, an act should be introduced, which was calculated for nothing but to mislead the public. If such acts as those sought to be provided against, could be carried on without detection, what did the present Bill do to deter from the commission of them? Increasing the degree of punishment only tended to add to the motives which now prevailed in favour of concealment, and to increase the reluctance to give testimony. Did they not, however, by the present Bill, furnish motives even for the commission of another crime of a still deeper dye? Did they not furnish persons already so well disciplined in the arts of concealment with a fresh motive, if detection could not otherwise be secured, to cut off the evidence against them? If in any one instance such an occurrence as this were to take place, must the House not feel that they had aggravated, instead of curing the evil?
Mr. Secretary Ryderdid not conceive it necessary to repeat over and over again, the reasons which urged him to the adoption of this measure. If he had, however, done so, he should only be following the example of his hon. and learned friend who had just sat down. He recommended this Bill to the legislature, not in the certainty, but in the hope of putting down the disturbances in Nottinghamshire, and to shew the country that every legislative means were used, before recourse should be taken to measures of greater severity. He was quite confident that the suffrage of the people would be with this Bill.
The Bill was then read a third time and passed.

LOCAL MILITIA BILL.
On the order of the day for the second reading of the Local Militia Bill,
Lord A. Hamiltonsaid, he thought that the inconsistency of conduct in the House on the subject of ballot, was a matter of very serious regret. The ballot was now the only source resorted to for supplying the military force of the country, whereas it had been generally declared in that House, within these few years, to be a system which was wholly unfit to be persevered in. Such an inconsistency as this, he was afraid, would seem to justify the suspicion, that the members of that House were not sufficiently alive to the interests of that part of the community, who were more peculiarly exposed to the burden of ballot. There was another objection, which struck him with peculiar force on perusing the present Bill. Not only were persons belonging to the Local Militia, who were guilty of offences, liable to the usual punishments inflicted in such cases, but they were to be liable to the punishment of being continued in the Local Militia beyond the stipulated period of their service; not only so, but even to be sent into the line, and there to be kept, for an unlimited period of service. The noble lord apprehended, if this clause was to be allowed to continue in the Bill, it would be far from palatable with the public. Imprisonment too, his lordship observed, was to be inflicted by this Bill, not as a punishment, but before trial for any supposed offence. This was such a mixture of military law as he could not think of countenancing in such a Bill as the present. There was also a large fine of 15 l. a man on the county, for every man not raised. These were all clauses which appeared to him to be highly objectionable, and which rendered the Bill totally unfit to pass the House in its present state. He might be told, perhaps, that the committee was the proper place to have these objections remedied. It surely was so; but he did not conceive he should have done his duty, had he not noticed them in the present stage of the Bill. If the right hon. gentleman should persist in carrying the Bill through in its present state, he would take another opportunity of stating his objections more in detail.
Mr. Whitbreadagreed in thinking that there were many objectionable clauses in the present Bill, but he did not agree in all the objections stated by his noble friend. What he particularly objected to was an alteration in the present system of the Local Militia. The noble lord who
868
originally proposed that measure, proposed it as a measure by which the whole male population of the country might be gradually trained. The greater part of the Local Militia now embodied had already served three years, and would therefore fail to be disbanded in the course of the following year, the men not being capable, by the present law, of continuing embodied more than four years. The present Bill, however, proposed, that on an understanding taking place between the commandant and the men, a certain proportion of the present Local Militia might be continued; Thus, then, was the plan of proceeding in a series, and of training the whole population of the country by degrees, to be abandoned. In his opinion the first plan had been found to be a good one, and ought to be continued, and the clause in the present Bill, introducing the change to which he had alluded, ought to be rejected.
Mr. Secretary Ryderagreed that the alteration alluded to by the hon. gentleman was a deviation from the original plan of the Local Militia, in as far as it was to that extent a deviation from the system of ballot, which was the corner stone on which the Local Militia system was built. The acceptance of the voluntary service of such corps as chose to offer themselves, a thing which was permitted under the original Bill, was also, so far, a deviation from that system. He was of opinion, however, that the alteration now proposed was an improvement, for several reasons: first, it would produce a much more efficient force; again, relieve the country from a great inconvenience and burden, as it would prevent the necessity of calling persons away from their avocations in husbandry, &c. during the harvest; and, in an economical point of view, it would cause a great saving to an amount of not less than 100,000 l. a-year.
Lord A. Hamiltonexplained by stating, that he had not said that the system of ballot ought to be laid aside altogether, but that he regretted the inconsistency of the House on this subject.
Mr. N. Calvertpaid a compliment to the framer of the present Bill, which was complete and intelligible in all its parts, and was not, like too many Bills, framed, as it were, with no other object than to bewilder and perplex.
The Bill was then read a second time.

PRINCE REGENT'S MESSAGE RESPECTING LORD WELLINGTON.
The Prince Regent's Message respecting lord Wellington having been read,
The Earl of Liverpool, in rising to move an Address to his Royal Highness, in answer to this communication, observed, that the first object to which he desired to call their lordships' attention, was, that the act of conferring upon lord Wellington a higher rank in the peerage, was the first exercise of the Prince Regent's unrestrained prerogative. The reason why he adverted to this peculiar circumstance was, that, while all must be sensible how well earned these honours had been,—while the country must feel the highest satisfaction at their being conferred; considering the foundation on which they rested,—and while lord Wellington himself must feel gratified at this acknowledgment of his merits, he, their lordships and the whole nation, might have the farther gratification of knowing, that the reward must derive a still brighter lustre from the time and manner in which it was given. He wished to direct their lordships' attention to this circumstance, also, as a test of the high gratification which his Royal Highness would always have in rewarding public men for public services—as a test that he regarded his prerogative as vested in him for such important purposes—as a test that he never would feel so thoroughly pleased at its exercise, as when he employed it in paying the just tribute of honour and applause to undoubted and distinguished merit. Every class in the community must feel gratified at this first act of his Royal Highness after the termination of the restrictions. The public must look with the highest satisfaction on this proof of attention to one who had deserved so well of, his country; while those who were engaged in the most important of public
856
duties, would feel an additional stimulus to their exertions when they saw desert and service so faithfully rewarded—This much he had felt himself called upon to say; but it was not his wish to dilate at present upon the services of the earl of Wellington. He had, on other occasions, had opportunities of dwelling upon his merits, and endeavouring, as far as in him lay, to impress others with that deep sense of them which he himself entertained. To enter now at any length upon that subject, would only be an unnecessary waste of their lordships' time. The actions of the earl of Wellington spoke his praises with eloquence far more impressive than any words he could use; but there were two or three considerations connected with the subject which he found it impossible to pass over in silence. The first was, that this honour had been conferred, and the provision to support it recommended, without the knowledge of the noble earl, or any communication with him (Hear, hear, from marquis Wellesley.) The second consideration was, that when the. Prince Regent of Portugal conferred upon the earl of Wellington the highest honour which the crown of Portugal could bestow, he proposed to accompany this honour with a pension of 20,000 crowns. Their lordships would recollect what the state of that country was at the time,—impoverished and exhausted by the inroads and wanton excesses of the enemy, and the exertions necessary to be made for repelling the invaders. Their lordships would remember, that the inhabitants of Portugal had been compelled to appeal to the parliament of this country, to enable them to re-establish their domestic affairs, and to provide the means of existence. Under these circumstances, the earl of Wellington was aware, that all the resources of Portugal were pressingly required for its own internal purposes, and therefore did not think proper to avail himself of the provision made for him by the Prince Regent of that country. He received the honour conferred upon him as a mark of the approbation with which the Portuguese government regarded his conduct; but refused the emolument with which it was intended toe they would not fail of accompany it, because he thought it would be pressing too severely upon the country in its then exhausted condition. The third of those considerations to which he alluded was, that when the earl of Wellington was made captain

857
general of Spain, he accepted the honour, but refused the pay usually attached to the situation. These things he thought it right to mention, and was sure they would not fail of their due effect upon the minds of their lordships. But this was not all: he had farther to remind them that the earl of Wellington held a charge hardly ever committed to a British subject before—a charge supported upon a scale of expence, of which their lordships could scarcely form an adequate conception. This expence, however, he had borne out of his own private fortune, though in circumstances but moderate enough for supporting the rank of a gentleman; that fortune, too, chiefly formed of the honest earnings of severe and distinguished service. This he had stated not from any communication with the noble lord, but from his own knowledge. The grant now proposed, therefore, was equally due, whether regarded as the reward of splendid exertions in the service of his country, or as the means of defraying the expences to which the situation which he held for the benefit of the public necessarily exposed him. In one sense, indeed, it was a debt of honour; in another, it was no less a debt of justice.—He need not, he trusted, occupy their lordships' lime any longer. Here, he presumed, there could be no difference of opinion. He wished to avoid every topic that could possibly lead to opposition. Let the earl of Wellington's claims rest upon their own merits, independent of any political questions with which they had no connection. That the honour conferred by the Prince Regent had been most richly earned, all must admit; and from that, he apprehended, it followed as a corollary, that they should give the means to support it. His lordship concluded by moving an Address to the Prince Regent, thanking him for the communication, &c.; being, as usual, an echo to the Message.
Earl Grosvenorrose, certainly not to oppose the Address, but to endeavour to persuade their lordships to extend the grant considerably. Whenever these honours were conferred for great and distinguished services, they ought to be accompanied with a fortune, sufficient not only to enable the individual to support his dignity, but sufficient to enable his posterity to maintain it without becoming dependents on the crown. Under this impression, he thought that ministers had
858
not gone far enough. He had on a former occasion observed, that in order to reward signal services with the least expence to the country, and the least injury to the aristocracy, a new order ought to be created in the constitution, with a rank equal to the peerage. The order of the Bath, for instance, might be advanced to a rank equal at least to that of a baron. The dignity would then be only for life; and the objection as to dependence upon the crown would be at an end. The noble earl referred to three cases in our history as instances of splendid, moderate, and inadequate provision made for individuals advanced to the peerage. The first was the case of the duke of Marlborough. No one could look at the splendid palace of Blenheim without admiration of the actions that could deserve so brilliant a reward, and of the munificence which had conferred it. The next was the case of the late lord Nelson. There, indeed, a sum of 100,000 l. had been given, and he was far from thinking that it was too large. The third was the case of the late lord Chatham, whose great talents and eloquence exerted in the public service bad justified his exaltation to the peerage. Yet lord Chatham must have strongly felt the unpleasant situation in which his posterity would be placed. They could have no means of supporting in a proper manner the rank to which they had been raised without some of the offices in the gift of the crown. This he was sure could not fail to be a very disagreeable situation. The practice of giving peerages, without adequate fortunes, if carried to a great extent, might be fatal to the independence of the aristocracy. Reverting to the point more immediately before the House, his lordship observed, that whatever difference of opinion there might be as to the policy of the war in Spain, there could be none with regard to the merits of lord Wellington. His only objection was, that his services had not been sufficiently rewarded. The noble secretary himself had stated, that lord Wellington's fortune was but moderate. Why then not grant a much larger sum? He should say, that in addition to the annuity, a sum of 100,000 l. should be granted, that his lordship's posterity might not be compelled to become dependants of the crown. If that should not be acceded to, he hoped, at least, that the annuity should be made 6,000 l. instead of 2,000 l. or at the very lowest that it might be 4,000 l. He could not, in point of order,

859
offer any of these additions at present; but when the Bill came before the House, he should take the liberty of moving an amendment. There were some words in the Address, however, to which he could not agree. The words were, that the services of lord Wellington in Spain had been "eminently beneficial to the interests of the kingdom." Though he allowed the great merits of lord Wellington in their utmost extent, yet he could not approve of words which seemed to convey an opinion favourable to the policy of the war in the peninsula. It was on this ground solely that he objected to them, and could not suffer the Address to pass without stating his disapprobation. It was impossible, he admitted, to speak in too high terms of the gallant exploit at Ciudad Rodrigo; but he was by no means convinced that it tended much to farther the great object of the war. It might be called the key of Spain, but would it open the gates of Madrid? A great object might have been gained, if the passes of the Pyrenees had been occupied, as had once been suggested; but whether this could have been done, or not, he really did not know. But unless we in concert with our allies made one great effort, the continuance of the contest would be a mere useless waste of blood and treasure. If that could not be done, we ought to have recourse to the maritime system which had been so strongly recommended. The present system, he was convinced, could not lead to any beneficial result. He would not trouble their lordships farther at present, as he might have another opportunity of delivering his sentiments.
The question on the Address was then put, and carried unanimously.