Slike strani
PDF
ePub

The

must have been severe. body was in a state of putrefaction, and he could not ascertain the precise cause of the deceased's death. With all this evidence of violence upon the body, the House would be shocked and astonished to hear that the verdict of the coroner's jury was "Died by the visitation of God." On the subsequent trial of the rev. Mr. Rawlins, it was not only proved that he was present, but that he actually took a part, so far as aiding and abetting, in the execution of the punishment. The jury, however, found him guilty of man slaughter, though his crime, if the evidence be true, was an atrocious murder. The sentence was also a mitigated one; for it was only a fine of 2001. and three months imprisonment. The verdict of the jury was a no less extraordinary one. If they believed the evidence, they had only one verdict to find: if they did not, they had only one duty to perform by acquitting the prisoner. Lord Bathurst makes this appropriate remark in his dispatch to governor Probyn requiring the minutes of the trial. "If this statement be true, or in any way approaching to truth, Mr. Rawlins could not have been guilty of man slaughter; it must have been murder or an acquittal." He would now ask the gentlemen who charged others with issuing injurious and exaggerated statements on the subject of West India matters, with what face they could repeat such a charge after this scene of cruelty had been exposed to the public eye? They had now authentic facts, and not vague rumours, to inform them

selves on such practices; and he trusted the House would pursue the inquiry in the manner justice demanded. He concluded by moving "That there be laid before this House a Copy of the Depositions taken before the Coroner's Inquest which sat upon the body of a Slave belonging to Hutchinson's Estate, in the island of St. Christopher, of the name of Congo Jack."

Mr. Marryat began with complaining that the hon. and learned gentleman had taken an opportunity of drawing conclusions as to the general administration of justice in the West India islands; merely from the single circumstance of a particular fact. As to the mode of inflicting punishment for runaway slaves, it must necessarily, for the sake of example, be done in a summary manner, and sometimes intrusted to drivers, who might perhaps exceed proper bounds. The punishment must be executed as it generally was in the army or navy. It had been stated that the punishment of this slave did not last longer than two or three minutes, and that he was neither tied down, nor heard to cry, nor seemed to suffer as if labouring under heavy pain. The jury, he thought, could not have found a verdict of murder under the circumstances of the case. On the whole, there was enough in the case to entitle it to inquiry, and he could certainly have no objection to the motion.

Mr. Wilberforce asked, what would be thought if a transaction of equal atrocity had taken place in this country, and the person whose duty it was to represent

the

the case to government had omitted to state its leading circumstances. In all cases of this nature, it was one misfortune that our West India possessions were so remote; and it was another that none but a white could give evidence in a court of justice. This last was precisely the case in the West India islands. Had it not been for accounts through a private channel on the part of lord Bathurst, no notice would have been taken of the most important part of the case. The governors and judges in these islands should be rendered independent of the colonial legislatures if the House meant that the administration of justice should be pure; as it was difficult for either of them to maintain their inde. pendence in places where a single family possessed an uncontrollable ascendancy. Upon the same authority from which the other parts of the transaction had been

learned, he had understood that Mr. Rawlins had not been in custody before his trial, and that, while subsequently he had been in confinement pursuant to his sentence, he had received many visits and marks of attention.

Sir S. Romilly, in reply, said, that the case had not been prematurely brought forward. He had made a full statement of all the circumstances attending it, excepting the depositions taken before the coroner, with respect to which he admitted that farther information was necessary. He had not thrown out any reflections against the inhabitants of the West Indies generally, but had, upon a former occasion, made a distinction between the larger and the smaller islands, and had repelled the injustice of applying his observations indiscriminately

to the whole.

to.

The motion was then agreed

CHAPTER

CHAPTER XI.

Petition from Dublin for the repeal of the Window tax.—Continua tion of the Alien Bill.

MR.

R. Robert Shaw, member for Dublin, rose on April 21st to present a petition from the householders of the city of Dublin for the repeal of the win dow tax. This tax, he said, was always peculiarly obnoxious to the citizens of Dublin for several reasons-its very unequal pressure, the inquisitorial nature of its levy, and the ruinous consequences resulting to the health of the city; and it is now more oppressive than ever from their total inability to pay it. On its imposition by the last parliament that ever sat in Ireland, it was at first very generally opposed, until the chancellor of the exchequer repeat edly pledged himself on the part of the government, that it was intended for a war tax only; and accordingly the tax was at first proposed for three years, provided the war should last so long. Mr. Corry, who was at this time the minister of finance, expressly asserted, in a speech reported in the Dublin Journal, that the tax was not intended to be permanent, but as a mere war provision. Are gentlemen aware (said the hon. member) that under the present act the collectors may demand an entrance into every room in every house in Ireland, from eight in the morning till sunset, and

insist upon admission under a penalty of 20l. In the reign of William and Mary an equally obnoxious tax, that of hearth money, was levied, which the Irish House of Commons stigmatized as " a badge of slavery upon the whole people, exposing every man's house to be entered into and searched at pleasure by persons unknown to him," and their remonstrances were near putting an end to it. The hon. gentleman then took into consideration the dangers of infection which were thrown upon the city of Dublin during the prevalence of fever in the last year, respecting which he said, it was the unanimous opinion of the faculty, that unless the houses were more generally ventilated, the contagion must spread, and a plague be the consequence. In conclusion he moved, "That a select committee be appointed to consider the expediency of repealing the act of the 56th of the king, so far as respects the tax upon Windows and Hearths in Ireland."

The Chancellor of the Exchequer said, that knowing the deep interest which was attached to this subject, it was with extreme regret that he felt himself obliged to state his objections to the present motion. The hon, gentle

man

man had rested his motion on two distinct grounds: first, the expectation which, consistently with the good faith of parliament, was entertained of the repeal of this tax in time of peace; and secondly, the oppressive nature of the tax itself, which bore unequally upon the community, and the utter impracticability of ren. dering it extensively productive. With regard to the first of these grounds, it rested entirely on a fallacy. Though when originally proposed in Ireland it might have been contemplated as a war tax, yet having been, from time to time, enacted and at length pledged as a security for certain charges on the consolidated fund, it appeared to him to have lost that character. In fact, it could not be repealed without acting unjustly to the public creditor; and it would be most dangerous it, to confer a boon on any body of people, the legislature were to depart from those great principles which formed the basis of public credit. It was a fact well known, and which showed that the faith of parliament was not pledged for the removal of this tax at the end of the war, that the same chancellor of the exchequer, Mr. Corry, who proposed it in the Irish parliament, made no proposition for its repeal at the time of the peace of Amiens. In the next parliament the tax was continued; and its having been pledged for a part of the debt, they could not, on any principle of good faith, have entertained such a proposition. If it could, indeed, be proved, that Ireland brought more than her regular proportion to the conso

lidated fund of the united kingdom, it would be a reason for entering into a minute consideration of the subject. But this was not the case. The expenditure of Ireland, at the consolidation of the two treasuries, was 6,500,000%.; her revenue was short of 4,500,000!. So that the whole deficiency, amounting to two millions, might be said to arise from that consolidation. The supply for Ireland being raised by loan, considerable taxes were pledged as a security for the necessary charges. Here, two millions were raised on additional taxes, without touching that part of the public revenue pledged for the public service. With respect to the other part of the hon. member's argument, he allowed that the assessed taxes, and particularly the window tax, had been increased with a rapidity, and to an extent, which defeated the object sought to be attained, that of producing a steady permanent revenue. Perhaps it would not be improper to grant a certain degree of relief to the people of Ireland with respect to this particular tax. The sub. ject had not escaped his attention, and he had prepared a schedule from which it would appear that a considerable relief would be extended to them. The relief to those on whom the tax pressed most heavily would be 25 per cent: to others a smaller degree of relief would be granted. He hoped that the distress under which Ireland had laboured, was in progress of removal. He felt a strong conviction, on examining the accounts laid upon the table of the House, that the trade of the country was improving, that

industry

industry was reviving, property increasing, and the comforts of the people daily extending. He had already expressed his wish to grant some relief with respect to the particular burthen under which the Irish laboured, and he conceived that the mode which he stated, would be more agree able to the people, than the appointment of a committee. He should oppose the motion, first, on the ground of the good faith which was due to the public creditor, and next, because an immediate relief to a certain extent would be much better than to wait for the deliberation of a committee, which would necessarily consume a considerable time. Mr. Plunkett began his speech with some additional arguments to prove that in the language of the acts of parliament there was clear, direct, and specific evidence that the window tax was only intended as a war tax. After dwelling for some time upon this topic, he said, the more he considered the right hon. gentleman's statement, the more he was surprised at his opposing the proposition for a committee, since a committee was the proper place to consider what modifications ought to be made in the tax. He next adverted to the produce of the tax, and showed that the deficit for the last year was between one third and one quarter of the estimated produce of the tax. Ireland, he said, could not exert herself beyond her strength; she could not pay beyond her means. He concluded with a pathetic address, upon the supposition that the right hon. gentleman was to revisit Ireland, and again be a

witness of the distressed condition of the people of Dublin.

Mr. Peel said, that if the case which the right hon. gentleman had stated could be made out-if it could be shown that parliament was pledged to the repeal of the tax at the close of the war, there was very little discretion left but to repeal it; but he denied that such a pledge had been given. He then explained the tax as first proposed in 1799 by Mr. Corry; and when in 1800 two acts had passed relating to the tax, one for continuing it, the other for regulating its collection, Mr. Peel contended that the words alluded to, were not those of the act for continuing the tax, but of that for regulating it. This, he conceived, was a direct answer to the statement of the right hon. gentleman with respect to the pledge. Indeed, so far was the Irish chancellor of the exchequer of that day from conceiving that a pledge had been given, that when, in 1803, he re-proposed the tax, he denied that he had given any such pledge. If any other tax could be pointed out which would supply the place of that proposed to be repealed, and which would at the same time press less heavily upon the people of Ireland, there would be no breach of faith with the public creditor, and it would be their duty to adopt it. But the important question then where, and in what manner, could such another tax be imposed. The hon. member then went into the consideration whether the window tax had contributed in a great degree to the rise and progress of contagious fever in Ire

came,

land;

« PrejšnjaNaprej »