The Parliamentary Debates from the Year 1803 to the Present Time

the other issues joined at those assizes or sessions, and the said issue shall be tried by a jury taken from such panel; but in case the same shall come on to be tried at the bar of the court of King's-bench, then, that the sheriff of the county or place out of which the jury is directed to come, shall return such persons only as are qualified to serve, and for the time being do severally and actually serve upon common juries for such county or place: Provided always, that any party or parties moving the court, out of which the record comes, for leave to have the issue tried by a special jury, the said court shall have power and authority to order and direct the same to be tried by a special jury, upon the consent of the other party or parties, signified either by counsel in open court, or by the signatures of such parties, their counsel or agents.

And be it further enacted, by the authority aforesaid, that from and after the day of in the year one thousand eight hundred and sixteen, if any person or persons shall maliciously speak of and concerning any other person or persons, any defamatory word or words, injurious to the reputation of such person or persons, the person or persons so speaking the same shall be deemed and taken to have been guilty of a misdemeanor, and may be prosecuted for the same by indict; ment or information, and upon conviction may be punished for the same by fine and imprisonment, at the discretion of the court before whom he she or they may be tried.

And be it further enacted, by the authority aforesaid, that in all cases of prosecution by indictment or information, against the maker or publisher of any libel, or against the person uttering any seditious words, or against the person uttering any defamatory words of and concerning any other person or persons, in which cases issue shall be joined between the King and the defendant, it shall and may be lawful for the defendant to give a notice to his majesty's attorney-general, or other counsel acting on behalf of his majesty, or to the party prosecuting in the King's name, or his attorney or agent, free days before the day upon which the trial of the said issue or issues is to come on, that he means to give evidence of the truth of the matters contained in the said libel, or of the matters expressed by the said seditious words, or by the said defamatory words, and thereupon (VOL. XXXIV.)

and upon proving to the satisfaction of the court before whom the said issue or issues shall be tried, that such notice has been given, it shall be lawful for such defendant to give evidence of the truth of such matters as aforesaid: Provided always, that his majesty's attorney-general, or other counsel acting on behalf of his majesty, or the party prosecuting the said indictment or information in the name of the King, shall be at liberty to give evidence of the falsehood of the said matters both before the said defendant shall open his case, if he or they shall think proper, and also by way of reply to the evidence of the defendant, if he shall offer any evidence of the truth of the said matters: Provided likewise, that the jury who shall try the said issue or issues, shall be at liberty to find a general verdict of guilty or not guilty upon the whole evidence, and shall not be required to find a verdict of not guilty, by reason that the truth of the said matters may have been proved to their satisfaction, or to find a verdict of guilty, by reason that the said matters shall not have been proved to be true, or shall have been proved to be false: Provided likewise, that the court before whom such issue or issues shall be tried, may give such directions as it shall think fit to the jury who are to try the said issue or issues, upon the import or nature of the evidence given, as well for the prosecution as for the defendant, touching the truth or falsehood of the said matters.

Provided always, and be it further enacted, by the authority aforesaid, that nothing herein contained shall be taken or construed to prevent the jury before whom the said issue or issues may be tried, from finding a special verdict, if they shall think fit, upon the whole circumstances of the case, in like manner as they might have done if this act had not been made.

the said indictment or information; and if the said defendant shall be found guilty by the verdict, it shall and may be lawful for the court before whom the said defendant is brought to receive sentence, to take into their consideration the notice so given as aforesaid by the defendant, and that no evidence of the truth was offered by him.

Provided always, and it is hereby further enacted, by the authority aforesaid, that in all prosecutions by indictment or information against the maker or publisher of any libel, or against the person speaking any seditious words, or against the person speaking any defamatory words, of and concerning any other person or persons, in which prosecutions the defendant shall have given evidence touching the truth of the matters contained in the said libel, or expressed by the said seditious or defamatory words, if the said defendant shall notwithstanding be found guilty by the verdict, it shall be lawful for the court before whom he shall be brought to receive sentence, to take into their consideration the evidence given by the said defendant touching the truth of the said matters; and if they shall think fit to give such sentence as they might and would have given if no such evidence had been offered, and if they shall think fit to order and require that the defendant shall suffer a greater punishment, by reason of the evidence which he has given touching the truth of the said matters.

And be it further enacted, by the authority aforesaid, that in all prosecutions against the maker or publisher of any libel, by indictment or information, in which issue shall be joined between the King and the defendant, it shall and may be lawful for the said defendant to give in evidence that the said libel was made or published without his privity consent or knowledge: provided always, that the jury before whom the said issue shall be tried, shall be at liberty, to find a general verdict of guilty, notwithstanding such evidence; provided likewise, that the said jury shall be at liberty to find a special verdict upon the whole matters in evidence before them, in like manner as if this act had not passed.

And be it further enacted, by the authority aforesaid, that from and after the passing of this act, it shall and may be lawful for the plaintiff or plaintiffs, in any action brought for defamatory words, spoken of and concerning him or them,

to sue for and recover damages for the uttering and speaking those words, provided the same are in any way injurious to the character and reputation of the plaintiff or plaintiffs, and notwithstanding the same words may not impute to him or them any indictable offence: provided always, that the court before whom such action is tried, shall be at liberty to direct the jury upon the import of the said words, if they shall think fit.

And be it further enacted, by the authority aforesaid, that from and after the day of in the year one thousand eight hundred and sixteen, if any action or suit shall be brought against the maker or publisher of any libel, or against the person uttering defamatory words, of and concerning any person or persons, it shall not be lawful for the defendant to plead in justification that the matters contained in the said libel, or expressed by the said defamatory words, were true, but it shall be lawful for the said defendant to plead the general issue, and to give notice days before the trial of the same to the plaintiff, that he means to give the truth of the said matters in evidence, and thereupon, and upon proving that such notice was duly served upon the plaintiff, his attorney or agent, it shall be lawful for the said defendant to give evidence under the general issue, of the truth of the said matters, which evidence shall be taken into consideration by the court and jury before whom the cause shall be tried: provided always, that notwithstanding the truth of the said matters shall be proved to the satisfaction of the said court and jury, it shall still be lawful for the said court to direct the jury to find a verdict for the plaintiff, with such damages as they shall think proper, and for the said jury to find such verdict, if they shall think fit.

The

BANK RESTRICTION BILL.] Chancellor of the Exchequer moved the order of the day for taking into further consideration the report of the committee on the Bank Restriction bill.

Lord Folkestone said, he felt it his duty to oppose the measure in its present form, and contended that a clause was required to compel the directors of the Bank to make preparations to resume cash payments at the end of two years. By their silence they had admitted that they would do nothing in consequence of the mere suggestion in the preamble; and he was

convinced that the desirable object of a gold currency would not be attained. What he particularly wished to remind the House of was, that by this restrictive measure the House was making the directors of the Bank of England its masters, and that the country was perfectly at their discretion, if parliament suffered them to have the power of refusing to give specie for their own paper. The public, he maintained, . could be considered as neither more nor less than enslaved by the Bank, if such a power was allowed. It was but about ten days ago that he had observed in the London Gazette a notice that the Bank would, he believed in October, call in the 5s. 6d. bank tokens, and that new tokens would be issued, paying, however, not less than eight at a time. Such was the notice of the directors, but what did it amount to? -a direct order and command that any person receiving money at the Bank should be obliged to take at least eight of these tokens. He begged the House to consider what an extensive power was thus granted to the Bank; for if at one period the directors were allowed to issue not less than eight at a time, it would soon amount to 80, 800, 8,000, or what number they should choose to name. He did not rest these opinions merely upon himself; they were also those of many hon. gentlemen better acquainted with the subject than himself; and he considered that he should be wanting in his duty both to the House and to the country, if he did not move by way of amendment, That the report of the bill be taken into further consideration this day six months.

Mr. Grenfell thought that the House had had ample and abundant proof of the profligacy of the measure about to be adopted by parliament; and conceived that it would be a dereliction of his duty if he did not strenuously resist a system which, in every light, appeared to him most unjustifiable and indecent; and applying, as he did, his observations to the system, he did not hesitate to say, that that system upon which the Bank conducted themselves to the public, was that of a usurious money-lender, who had been lucky enough to get into his clutches one who cared not how or in what manner his life or his fortune were spent or squandered away. As long as he had the honour of a seat in the House, and God gave him health, he would enter his protest

against a measure which he should always consider as one which took the money out of the pockets of those who could but ill afford it, and enriched those who bad already amassed too great a wealth by usurious means.

Mr. Baring wished to make a few observations on what had fallen from the noble lord before the question was put. It had been said that the Bank would be bound to comply with any measure parliament might judge most proper to adopt. He could not deny but that the directors were compelled so to comply, but the court would not be called upon to state what particular construction the Bank might put upon any precise expression which might have been used; this, again, was construed into a reluctance to give proper information, and a design to conceal some hidden secret; but, however anxious the directors might be, under different circumstances, to give this information to the House, it must be confessed that the manner in which it was sought did not give much encouragement to those by whom it was possessed to divulge it. He was perfectly ready to admit, as an individual, that at the end of the two years the Bank ought to be considered as in some measure bound to restore cash payments; but the noble lord had asserted that there was no notoriety which proved the necessity of this restrictive measure. It seemed to have been quite forgotten by his noble friend, that during the last war there was no possibility of any mass of gold being collected into the country, on account of the state of exchanges, and that until the change which had taken place little more than a month, the gold had been daily going out of the country. It was impossible that that gold could be brought back, although the exchange had taken a favourable turn, either in a day or a month; but a much longer period was requisite; and it was the opinion of all those who were the most conversant in this question, that two years was not too long a time to allow, before the Bank could safely return to cash payments. If the amendment of the noble lord were agreed to, what would be the consequence? Nothing less than the complete stagnation of trade. The taxes could not be received, and the great wheel, on which the prosperity of the country depended, would be completely checked and clogged up. This reasoning followed naturally from the very arguments of the noble lord,

when he asserted, that any reduction in the circulation of the Bank of England notes would be attended with the greatest calamities to the country. Would not a reduction in the circulation, then, so much to be dreaded, be the very consequence of the motion of the noble lord, if agreed to? He felt perfectly confident that no hon. member would vote for the restriction on account of any interest the Bank of England could have in the question; and he could assure the House that the very first moment that it might be thought fit and proper to return to cash payments, the Bank would be most ready to comply with the order of parliament.

Mr. Hammersley opposed the amendment. He conceived that it would be an impossibility for the Bank to return now to cash payments without involving the country in new troubles and difficulties. The question was then put on the amendment, and negatived without a divi

sion.

HOUSE OF LORDS.

Thursday, May 9.

HELLESTON ELECTION BILL.] Earl Stanhope said, that it was impossible to endure this any longer in the extent to which it had been carried. Here was a bill on the subject of the elections for the borough of Helleston, which had been ordered to be printed; and now, on looking at the printed bill, he found that they had made perfect nonsense of it. The bill enacted, that certain freeholders as mentioned in the bill, should vote by ballot, and then afterwards the printed bill enacted that the right of voting should be in the freeholders and inhabitants householders aforesaid, there having been no aforesaid inhabitants householders. He had looked at the original to see whether it contained any of this nonsense, and found that there were no such words as inhabitants householders. Then the name of a parish mentioned in the bill was in the original spelt The Chancellor of the Exchequer re- with an e and sometimes with an i, and the marked, that the motion of the hon. andprinter had taken care wherever it was e learned gentleman was similar to that which he had made before, and that on the present occasion he had urged no additional arguments in its favour. Besides, it was merely declaratory of the preamble of the bill, and was therefore unnecessary.

Mr. Horner observed, that as it appeared from the observations of his hon. friend (Mr. Baring), that the bill was understood to imply merely, that the Bank should resume payments in cash at the end of two years, he thought it proper to propose a clause, providing that the directors of the Bank should take measures immediately, in order that cash payments might be resumed, at as early a period after the pas sing of that act, as appeared to them to be expedient.

The House divided on the clause, when there appeared,

For the clause......
Against it........

32 ..135

in the copy to print with an i, and wherever it was i in the copy to print with an e. The print and the original did not agree, and he moved that the bill be printed, such former printing being considered no printing at all-Ordered accordingly.

HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Thursday, May 9.

LEATHER TAX]. Lord Althorp, in rising to submit a motion to the House for a repeal of the duties affecting the manufacture of leather, expressed his apprehensions lest he might be considered too obstrusive in thus bringing forward two motions of such importance, in the course of the same week. With respect to the present, it might, perhaps, be said, that his only reason for submitting it to the House, was the particular interest which his own immediate constituents felt in the

question; and he confessed, that were it quence of a progressive increase of home not for that connexion, he would not be consumption and foreign export, and also the member to appear foremost on the oc- point out the continued diminution of the casion; but he could with sincerity assure produce since doubling the tax. The the House, that, feeling as he did respect- amount of the tax in 1802, was 251,3916.; ing it, he would most gladly have concur- in 1811, it increased to 307,4167.; but the red with any other member in promoting falling off in the year 1816, was no less a measure of such vast importance to the than 30,000l. This falling off arose, not general interests of the country. He fear- from the decrease of the home consumption, ed lest many, considering only the com- but from a cessation of the army contracts, mon uses to which leather was applied, and and a diminution of the foreign exports. its great comparative cheapness, might The army contracts could not of course, treat the question with an air of ridicule, be restored; but essential relief would be or at least of levity; but who could deny afforded by encouraging exportation, It the importance attached to the question, had been represented to him that if the on reflecting that it related to one of the duties were removed, tanned leather would staple manufacturers of the country, and fall 6d. in the pound, which would cause a the number of persons-not less than reduction in the price of shoes for expor500,000-employed in it? The manufac- tation, of one shilling a pair, and he unture of leather was one in which this coun- derstood from several persons in the trade, try particularly excelled; so much so, that if they could lower their shoes one that at any thing like an equality of price, shilling a pair, they could easily command our manufacturers could never dread com- a sale in the foreign market. All this of petitors in any foreign market; and with course depended on the accuracy of the respect to the persons employed, the statements that had been made to him, and House should consider not merely their he had every reason to believe them pernumbers but their description, for many fectly correct. This would compensate for who were incapable, from accidents to ob- the loss of the army contracts, and relieve tain a livelihood in any other tradecould work the trade from its present depression.in leather manufactories as a proof of He would next refer to the most important which, he need only refer the House to a part of the question, which was the mode well-known fact, of a Mr. Brunell, an in- of collecting the tax. It was a principle genious friend of his, having established a of taxation, that those taxes should be manufactory of shoes, in which none were preferred, which brought most into the employed but such as had lost a limb in exchequer with the least possible injury to the service of their country. The leather the contributor, while those which sensitrade, however, was at present in a state of bly depressed or ruined a trade, should be most extreme depression, and in those altogether rejected.-Such he represented parts of the country which were principally to be the effects of the present system, concerned in it, hundreds of journeymen which deprived the leather trade of four were thrown on their parishes not having times as much as it put into the exchequer, any means of providing a subsistence. If, caused a waste of time and capital to the then, he could prove that the state of dis- tanners and curriers, and, by its injurious tress resulted from the operation of the operation, prevented the complete tanning tax and would terminate with its removal, of the leather. The mode was this-after and also that the present mode of collect- it had undergone the process of tanning ing the tax was calculated to increase the the excise officer came to collect the duty grievance manifold, he conceived that he and imprinted his stamp upon the leather, should have made out a case sufficient to The tanner was not allowed to curry his induce the House to concur with him in own leather, because in the process of cureffecting its total repeal. The first point rying some of the surface was perhaps to would, he felt, be extremely difficult of be cut off, and the appearance of the hide proof; for while every trade and every so altered, that it would be impossible to branch of commerce laboured under a ge- distinguish whether it had paid the duty or neral depression, it would be hard to point not. This was the first restriction, and out the cause of a particular distress. The was imposed as early as in the reign of papers, however, that were laid on the ta- queen Anne, but by means of it much time ble, would show the progressive increase was lost, and as the process of currying of the produce of the original tax previous could not be undergone, unless the hide to the increased duty in 1812 in conse- were wet through, this alternate wetting

« Poprzednia Dalej »

Książki

The Parliamentary Debates from the Year 1803 to the Present Time, Tom 34