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.

GENOA.
Earl Grey Earl Grey moved for several papers respecting Genoa, to the production of which he understood that there was no objection.
The Earl of Liverpoolsaid, that he felt no objection to the production of the papers moved for by the noble earl, many of which it was intended to have laid before the House with the other papers on the table upon this subject, had they been in preparation.
Earl Greyobserved, that from some of the documents on the table, a very extraordinary power appeared to have been granted, or at least exercised, by an individual minister (alluding, as we understood, to lord Castlereagh), and at this power he felt the more surprised, because the transfer of the powers of the Executive Government to any minister, at a
[646
foreign court, struck him as utterly inconsistent with the practice of the British Government, and decidedly hostile to the principles of our constitution.
The Earl of Liverpooldeclined to enter at present into the subject alluded to by the noble lord, but observed that any minister was warranted in acting upon the instructions of his Sovereign, and that it was notoriously not unusual to give directions, and grant powers to a foreign minister to conduct and conclude the most important transaction; such a practice, no doubt, might, to a certain extent, be deemed a transfer of the powers of the Executive Government.
Earl Greyadmitted the propriety and practice stated by the noble Secretary upon any contingency or expected event, but declared that he had never heard, and he denied the propriety of investing any minister with a discretionary power to exercise the authority of the Executive Government upon any event that might arise, however unexpected, and such authority appeared to him to have been exercised by the minister alluded to.
The motion was agreed to.

CONGRESS AT VIENNA.
Marquis Wellesleythought that it would be much more consistent with the dignity of that House, as well as with the magnitude and importance of the subject, that ministers, instead of waiting for questions from that side of the House, should come forward and present, for the satisfaction of their lordships, a general exposition of all the circumstances connected with the great transaction at Vienna, in which they had been so long engaged, together with the papers necessary to illustrate that transaction. He wished to know whether ministers intended to lay such an exposition before the House, and when it was likely to be brought forward, or whether they proposed to wait until the negociations in which they were engaged had terminated, or a treaty had been concluded? Such an exposition he thought highly desirable, in order that at such a crisis as the present, that House, the country, and the world might know what system ministers and the Allies had evinced a disposition to support—that before the British Parliament had concluded the dreadful pledge of war, it should be seen whether they were supporting the same principles for which the British nation had been struggling for twenty-five

647]
years, or for any other system—whether for a system of general justice and permanent peace, or for a system of gross injustice likely to lead to perpetual hostility; whether the arrangements in the contemplation of the Allies were calculated to put an end to the calamities which had so long afflicted mankind, or to produce still greater evils. On these grounds the noble lord thought that the exposition alluded to was due to the character and interest of our own Government, and to the common cause of the Allies.
The Earl of Liverpooldeclared, that it was the anxious wish of his Majesty's ministers to lay before Parliament, as soon as circumstances permitted, a full exposition of their conduct in the great transaction alluded to by the noble marquis, whatever might be the result of that transaction. Two branches of that transaction, tie negociations respecting which were completed, had already been brought under the consideration of that House, and he assured their lordships that as soon as the other arrangements were definitively settled they would be submitted to the judgment of the Legislature. But until those arrangements were concluded, and pending a negociation, attended, especially at present, with embarrassing circumstances, he trusted their lordships must feel that he could not be authorized in entering into the question stated by the noble marquis—that he would not be warranted in presenting the House with partial views, or premature information. But when the case should be complete, be could declare for himself and his colleagues, that it would afford them the greatest satisfaction to lay the fullest information before the House, and he had no doubt of being able in due time to satisfy their lordships that his Majesty's Government had not supported any system inconsistent with justice, or with those principles which had been recognised, by the greatest statesmen this country had ever known.
Marquis Wellesleysaid, that the noble earl had admitted the necessity of having a complete view of the whole arrangement before any one branch of it could be with advantage discussed, and before an accurate and just opinion could be formed respecting it: but then the whole was not completed, and he supposed he must wait for that period for which the noble earl professed to be so anxious, be fore he could expect any thing like a general view of the arrangements. The
[648
noble earl himself had, however, recognized the principle, that some points were so prominent that, they ought to be brought forward without delay. He had produced papers relative to one or two of the branches before the completion of the whole; and unquestionably some particulars were of such vast importance, and so loudly, demanded a prompt attention, that they must be considered an exception to the general rule. Admitting, then, the advantage of having the whole arrangements in their view before they attempted to form a decisive opinion on any one branch, he should be much disposed to wait till the conclusion, before he entered upon the discussion of any particular part, unless, indeed, the period should be so long protracted as to make it impossible to wait for that, of which it would be impossible to say when it might terminate: but at the same time exceptions must be made as to certain prominent points, and one of these points which demanded instant attention was the arrangements with respect to Saxony. It was due to the justice, the dignity, the honour of the country, that this should be brought under their lordships consideration. As the matter appeared at present, we had taken the judgment seat, and pronounced sentence upon the head of a venerable legitimate Sovereign of an ancient family, of whom, whatever might have been his errors, it might be said that few had adopted a more wise and beneficent system of government than he had done with regard to his own subjects. A cabinet minister acting for the Government bad been, sent out, and it appeared from certain information which had been received, that we had really taken the judgment-seat, and avowedly proceeded against a legitimate Sovereign on penal principles! But though we had thus taken the judgment-seat, even supposing it were to administer justice, it could not be said that it was to administer justice in mercy. This was a transaction which, for the honour of the nation, must not be allowed to rest any longer in silence. The attention of their lordships and the country must be called to it, and that without a moment's unnecessary delay. It was for these reason that he now wished to communicate his intention of submitting a proposition to their lordships on that head, at no distant period, when he should perhaps move to some further information connected with that particular point.
The Earl of Darnleycomplained of the delay in producing the documents which the House bad ordered in compliance with his motion before the recess, with respect to our naval administration in the course of the American war.
Viscount Melvillejustified the delay, by stating, that in order to comply with the noble earl's motion it became necessary to refer for information to our officers on Lake Ontario, and also to read overall the correspondence of the Admiralty for two or three years.

ADDRESS ON THE TREATY OF PEACE WITH AMERICA.
The Earl of Liverpoolrose to move an Address to the Prince Regent, approving of the Treaty of Peace concluded with the United States of America. As he did not anticipate any opposition, he did not think it at all necessary or proper to detain their lordships for any long time on this subject, or to enter upon any discussion of topics with respect to which he was aware that much difference of opinion prevailed. Their lordships were aware that the war arose from disputes originating in certain orders commonly called the Orders in Council. Before the American declaration of war arrived in this country, those orders had been repealed; and as it was presumed, that, upon notice of this circumstance, the Americans would be desirous of returning to a state of peace, such directions were given as might facilitate that object, and render the evils necessarily connected with a state of warfare as light as possible till an arrangement could be concluded The Americans, however, did not, it appeared, wish to return to a state of peace and when the cause of complaint was removed they changed their ground, and insisted that we should give up that right which, by the well-known and admitted law of nations, we had to seize our own subjects, and claim their services in time of war, wherever we found them. This was a clear principle of the law of nations which we only claimed in common with every other nation. We claimed nothing from the Americans, we did not insist that they should acknowledge any new doctrines and principles of the law of nations set up by us. But they, on the contrary, set up new doctrines and new principle of their own, and insisted that we should adopt them, and sacrifice rights which we considered as essential to our own security. The consequence was, that the
[650
necessity of the war on our part was universally felt, and a unanimity was manifested on the subject which was very rarely found on such occasions. It was not till the 7th of August that the American commissioners received instructions not to insist upon this point, and then the negociation proceeded. As to the mediation of the Emperor of Russia, there were certain points on which one would not choose to accept even of mediation, because it often happened that in mediations there was something like arbitration. With respect to our maritime rights, we never could accept of arbitration. He would not go the length of saying that we ought under no circumstances to accept of mediation with respect to our maritime rights; but this did not appear to be an instance in which it was desirable to accept of any such mediation. It had been said, that while we rejected mediation on one point, we had agreed to arbitration on another. But the points were totally different, and the mode of arbitration appeared to be the best way of settling the disputes about the boundaries. America then having given up the point for which she had carried on the war, the negociation, as he had said, proceeded; and he contended that there might be circumstances under which we might, in justice to our own subjects, insist upon terms for which it would not be proper originally to go to war. That, however, was a consideration of expediency. But a principle of good faith required that the Indians should be included in the Treaty, and they were included. As to the Slave Trade, the objects of the two governments were the same; as to commerce, it appeared most proper to leave these matters to subsequent arrangement, and that the most liberal principles of commercial intercourse would be the most advantageous for both countries. As to territorial arrangements, the best mode of proceeding had been adopted on that head that could be devised. It appeared more advantageous to call in the arbitration of one who might be supposed to be impartial, than to leave the matter to the decision of the lot; and upon that, the arrangements for setting the tine had been adopted. On the whole, the noble earl considered the Treaty as equally honourable and advantageous to this country; and concluded by moving an Address to the Prince Regent, assuring his Royal Highness of the great satisfaction felt by the House at the

651]
terms and conditions of the Treaty of Peace concluded between Great Britain and the United States of America.
Earl Stanhopesaid, that he could not allow this opportunity to pass, without adverting shortly to the high and even impudent language which he had so often heard upon what were called our maritime rights. The noble secretary had, however, stated, that we claimed no rights which did not belong to all independent nations. But the fact was obviously otherwise, for this right of search, so much contended for, belonged only to belligerent nations, and not to those at peace. Thus, if Denmark should unjustly declare against Sweden, she might, according to this pretended right of search, claim to search our ships and those of other nations for Danish subjects. Would this be endured? But the pretension was quite preposterous. Yet America, when at peace with the world, was condemned to have her shipping subjected to the most vexatious search by British cruizers, because this Country was at war with France. Bat now that this country was at peace (would to God he could hope that it would long so continue!) and America was at war with Algiers, the tables being thus turned, would British ships submit, according to the right alleged by the noble secretary, to be searched by American cruizers? If commodore Rodgers, for instance, were to meet one of our convoys at sea Hear! hear, from lord Liverpool]. Yes, he would ask, if commodore Rodgers undertook to search for American seamen, and under the prevalent practice, according to this alleged right, the commodore himself was to be the judge in the exercise of authority, he might take out-five or six seamen, whom he supposed American, from a merchant vessel—what then was likely to be the consequence? Why, the vessel might go to the bottom for want of being manned, and how would the merchants like that? and the merchants had been among the most clamorous upon this point when the assertion of it operated against others; but the fact was, that this right, if even well founded, was liable to so much abuse in the application of it, that it was evidently necessary to come to some explanation, and arrangement upon the subject, that by some negotiation it should be endeavoured to do away with the exercise of it altogether.
The Marquis of Lansdowneexpressed
[652
his concurrence with the terms of the Address, but strongly condemned the unnecessary delay that had taken place in the conclusion of the Treaty, which Treaty, by-the-by, had left unsettled all the points for which the war had been commenced, as would appear upon reference to the published Declaration of ministers at the outset. Yet while these points were waved, new claims were started at the commencement of the negociation, which were abandoned also. But still he rejoiced in the conclusion of peace. The noble marquis concluded with observing, that he understood the American ministers at Ghent proposed an article pledging both powers to treat all vessels as pirates which should be found engaged in the Slave Trade, but that this article was resisted by our commissioners; and this resistance he conceived the more extraordinary from the instructions to our minister at Vienna to promote the universal abolition of that odious traffic.
The Earl of Liverpoolspoke in explanation, and assured the noble marquis and the House, that what had been stated of the proposition as made by the American ministers respecting the Slave Trade, was totally unfounded. Until that moment, through any channel whatever, either public or private, he had never heard a word of such a proposition. The article, as it stood, was originally proposed by the British commissioners, and to which the American ministers never proposed any addition.
The Marquis of Lansdownesaid, that he had received the statement which he had communicated to the House, from what he conceived the very highest authority, which he had no objection to name.
The motion for the Address was then agreed to, nem. diss.