the magiftrates of counties, without a hearing, without the proof any crime committed, without the charge, or even the fufpicion of offence, to difiifs an entire clafs of His Majefty's fubjects from their only occupation, and to congn them to mifery and want.

In what refpect is this claufe conne&ed with the compact of last year? In what refpect is the entire profcription of the hawkers and pedlars effential to their juft taxation?Foreign to the principle, and unthought of by the framers. of the act of which it forms a part, this claufe was propofed in one of the lateft ftages of the bill, and near the clofe of the fefion, by an honourable gentleman on the other tide of the house-I well remember its introduction; few perfons were prefent, and of thofe few, the greatest part, fatigued with the long and laborious attendance of many preceding months, feemed little difpofed to exactnefs of investigation or minutenefs of inquiry. Some of us indeed. had also a powerful perfuafive for acquiefcing in the clause, in the confidence we felt in the character of its honourable over to his known integrity we trufted, that nothing. which he recommended to the Houfe could be intentionally wrong; and we trusted to his acknowledged good fenfe that he was not likely effentially to err. Sir, the uneafness and ftrong remorfe which from that hour I have almoft unceafingly felt, have convinced me, that in all cafes, and more efpecially thofe in which the fubfiftence of many hundreds of my fellow fubjects is at flake, a vote of confidence is a moft unwarrantable thing; for though I may be perfectly fure that the honourable gentleman means not to deceive the Houfe, yet I never can be fure, that he is not kimfelf deceived. Upon thefe grounds I am anxious, that the claufe propofed to be repealed fhould, now at least, be debated-without regard to authority, which, as far as perfons and perfonal confiderations are in queftion, is feldom in favour of the poor. But the Houfe, I well know, will not be the lefs difpofed to fupport a juft caufe from its having nothing but its juftice to recommend it. In what light then are we to view the power that has been given to the magiftrates for the ruin of a numerous defcription of people: a power to commit without a trial; to condemn without a hearing; and to punifh without even the fufpicion of guilt? Sir, the law which gives that power violates the Conftitution, contradicts the exprefs words of Magna Charta, and wounds the fecurity of every individual in the kingdom. What principle shall be deemed facred, when the first principles of juftice are violated? What obligations fhall be vaLied when thofe of humanity are defpifed? Or what government can be thought permanent when the bafis of civil fo

Ff 2

ciety

ciety itself is thus wantonly attacked? Has the Legislature a right to establish oppreffion by law? Has the Legislature a right to connect punishment with innocence? Has the Legiflature of a free people a right to invest its magistrates with a power which even in governments the most defpotic would be confidered as a just ground of diffatisfaction and complaint.

I know I fhall be told that the claufe which conveys this power is not of a judicial nature, but is merely a regulation of police. Sir, to the fubject, the name is immaterial, for give to the act whatever appellation you will, it ftill is an act that renders the subject dependent for his fafety, not on his own innocence, not on his ftrict obfervance of the laws of the land, not on the faithful difcharge of every duty which he owes to the State, but on the cafual opinion, the accidental humour, the mere caprice of the magistrate : nor is there the smallest pretext for giving this intemperate law the fpecious appearance of a meature of police; for meafures of that fort can only be founded on neceffity or expedience: now, of the firft of thefe pleas on the prefent occafion, the existence is not pretended; the law itself is a proof that the power which it gave to the juftices, of profcribing an entire defcription of people, was not founded on neceffity; for if the neceffity of taking their livelihood from these unhappy men had existed, the law could not have left the execution of the measure to the uncertain decifion of the magiftrates. Equally obvious it is, that this strange and unprecedented delegation of power was founded on no expedience, for the perfons to whofe judgement you ap pealed for the propriety of the measure, the very magiftrates themselves, by their almoft unanimous refufal to execute the law, have strongly and emphatically declared, that the measure is inexpedient, is unjust, is inhuman.

On what grounds then was this condemned and reprobated claufe propofed and recommended to the Legislature? Unconnected with the principle of the bill of which it forms a part; alien to the laws; incompatible with the Conftitution, and adverfe to every principle of expedience, of justice, and of humanity, on what foundation does it reft? Sir, it refts on a foundation fo abhorrent to every honeft and honourable feeling, that I cannot, without the deepest concern describe it to the House-It is founded on the fpirit of monopoly; on commercial hatred; on the eagerness of one description of traders to ruin and deftroy another; to fuch views the members of this Houfe, the guardians and protectors of every clafs of the People; of the laborious industry of the poor, as well as the ample poffeffions of the rich, will never deliberately give the smallest countenance or support. They

They who advise an oppofite conduct; they who propofe that the measures of the Houfe fhould take their direction from the dictates of private animofity, and of trading rivalfhip; they who would make the Legiflature itfelf the inftrument of injuftice, and an act of Parliament the mode of. fanctifying oppreffion; are as careless of the honour of the Houfe, as they obviously are of the happiness and profperity of the kingdom.

fham.

Mr. Marsham remarked, that when the fhop tax was pro- Mr. Marpofed, it had been exprefly stated, that hawkers and pedlars fhould be abolished; and under that fuggeftion, many gentlemen had confented to vote for the fhop tax: afterwards, when the idea was departed from, and a tax on hawkers and pedlars had been propofed, and the fubject came into difcuffion, it had been urged by feveral gentlemen, that there were parts of the kingdom in which hawkers and pedlars were extremely useful from the fcarcity of villages and towns, their extreme distance, and the confequent difficulty of getting at fhops without great trouble and lofs of time. On the other hand, it had been ftated, that there were other parts of the kingdom where villages and towns. were numerous, and fhops almoft every where within reach; his clause therefore had been calculated to meet both these arguments, in counties where hawkers and pedlars were ufeful, the magiftrates, instead of forbidding their coming, would naturally encourage it: whereas in those counties where their prefence, fo far from being wanted, was deemed a nuisance, the magiftrates were authorized to prevent their coming. But they were not to be sent to prifon without a hearing. They had an appeal to the quarter feffions, upon whofe authority alone they could be committed and detained; nor was it to be imagined that any gentleman in the commiffion would wantonly exercife his power over poor hawkers and pedlers.

Mr. Courtenay faid, that the honourable Baronet (Sir Ed- Mr. Courteward Aftley) had given good, and indeed excellent reafons, nay. why the bill ought not to pafs into a law. He had stated that the hawkers and pedlars carried about old-fashioned goods; undoubtedly the honourable Baronet would be exceedingly fhocked at perceiving any thing old fashioned about him. He had also faid, the hawkers and pedlers had no refident place of habitation, and that they travelled about from one part of the country to another. This was also an excellent objection, for how dare fuch humble individuals follow the order of nature? Why had they not learnt the art of being in two places at one and the fame time? And yet, no doubt, they had the impudence to juftify their conduct, by declaring that they could not stay at

home,

Mr. C. Robinfon.

Mr. Samuel

home, and travel about with their packs at the fame period. The juftices alfo had acted wifely in profecuting thefe hawkers and pedlers, and they had affigned admirable reafons, as juftices always did, for their proceedings. They had itated, and he had that day read it, Mr. Courtenay faid, that the hawkers and pedlers impofed on the people, by carrying about English goods, and pretending they were fmuggled from France. This was indifputably a grofs and fcandalous impofition; for what could be more nationally injurious than to cheat the public into the purchase of British manufactures? There were other reasons of an equally ferious tendency, Mr. Courtenay faid, to be urged in juftification of adhering to the bill of the laft year. Perfeverance was a noble and a magnanimous virtue, and furely perfeverance in the wrong fhewed more magnanimity and firmness than perfeverance in the right. If the Houle made an egregrious miftake in palling a fevere, oppreffive, and unjuft act against hawkers and pedlers laft year, why fhould they avow their weaknefs and pufillanimity by acknowledging their error? It was much better to be firm, and to prove beyond poffibility of doubt, that the Houfe would maintain its proceedings right or wrong. There might, to be fure, be fome weak-minded men, who, thinking that juftice was a better caufe than obftinacy, might be inclined to favour the hawkers and pedlers, and as their weaknefs was an amiable one, their want of magnanimity might be forgiven. Indeed, if the number of gentlemen of this defcription fhould prove fuccefsful, he believed the world would admit they were in the right, and that they ftood fully juftified to their constituents in particular, and to their country in general.

Mr. C. Robinfon ftated that hawkers and pedlers were only forbidden from entering market towns, except on fair days, but that cities and capitals were open to them; and that if the act had not contained fuch a reftriction, they all knew that by the charters of many old corporations, the corporations themfelves enjoyed rights and privileges tantamount to the keeping out hawkers and pedlers. There was an implied compact held out to the fhopkeepers during the last feffion, and under the faith of that, his conftituents had cheerfully paid the tax.

Mr. Samuel Thornton declared he had given his confent to Thornton. the fhop tax, under an idea that hawkers and pedlers were to be abolished.

The Lord

The Lord Advocate of Scotland faid, he had been inftructed Advocate of by feveral of his conftituents, who were fhopkeepers, to Scotland. fupport the prefent bill, and to endeavour, as far as in him lay, to obtain a repeal of the fevere claufe against hawkers and pedlers.

Colone!

Colonel Phipps faid, that he believed the fhopkeepers, who Colonel had inftructed the learned Lord to be an advocate for the Phipps. hawkers and pedlers were themfelves hawkers and pedlers, otherwife he did not fee how a conduct so contrary to their interefts as fhopkeepers was to be reconciled. An honourable gentleman near him (Mr. Brown) who had argued forcibly in favour of the hawkers and pedlers, and had dwelt on the fuppofed hardship of obliging them to quit travelling, and the difficulties to obtain a livelihood that it would expofe them to, had himself dropt a hint of the means by which they might be ufefully employed for the Public, and advantageously for themfelves, viz. by cultivating the wafte lands of the kingdom; for, if by ftaying at their village in Staf fordshire only a few months of the year, they had been able fo to cultivate the ground as to convert it from barrennefs to fertility, and render it worth five thillings an acre, by continuing there the whole year, it was reasonable to fuppofe that they might be able to cultivate it ftill more highly, and increase its value to ten fillings an acre.

ham.

Mr. Wyndham declared, that however confident he might Mr. Wyndbe, from the liberality of his conftituents, manifefied already towards him in a very exemplary manner, that to vary from their fentiments would not injure him in their opinion; yet. that an oppofition to their wishes muft even on that account give him particular pain. It was not, therefore, without a facrifice of his private feelings to his fenfe of his public duty, that he rofe to declare he held to the fingling out any particular defcription of perfons, as the objects of taxation to be to the full as unjustifiable, as it would be for the Minifter to put his hands into the pockets of an individual, and infift on the State's fharing with him. in the contents of his purfe. All taxes fhould be governed by fome general rule or other, indifcriminately applying to the people univerfally; and any diftinétion taken, to the prejudice of one fet of men, and in alleviation of another, was, in his mind, proceeding upon a falfe principle of taxation. Equally falfe in principle and unwarrantable in practice, was it to take a load off the fhoulders of one let of men, and place it on the fhoulders of another fet of men lefs capable of bearing it; and yet this had actually been done in respect to the country ihopkeeper and the hawker and pedler. As an inducement to the former to fubmit to a harfh and fevere perfonal impoft, the hawker and pedler had been heavily taxed and rigorously reftrained within certain convenient limits, and now, after the country fhopkeeper had been relieved almoft entirely from his burden, the load was to remain on the back of the hawker and pedler. This mode of proceeding was unjuft and indefenfible. He, there

fore,