to forfeit, the sense of the ill-usage they are to suffer by the detention of their wages, will incite them, at any hazard, to desertion. Of this propensity we have the strongest confirmation from the authentic accounts we have lately received of the numerous desertions out of the ships at home only. There can be no doubt, Sir, but that the regular and punctual payment of seamen's wages, and the privilege of making remittances to their wives at home, or, upon being paid at home, to any other persons they think proper, will render the service far more grateful than at present, to such seamen as are endowed with the least portion of humanity, or feel the least concern for their wives and families. The establishment of such privileges, Sir, will likewise be highly agreeable to the families and friends of all seamen whatever; and if we consider how much men are under the influence of those with whom they are connected, it will manifestly appear, that the Bill proposed would remove the principal obstructions and aversions, which at present operate against their entering into his majesty's service. It is notorious, Sir, that a great number of good seamen have lately refused to enter into his majesty's navy, because of the uncertainty of being paid their wages; and the dread, as they have alledged, of exposing their families, in the mean time, to beggary and famine. It has likewise appeared, Sir, in several instances, that five or six prizes have been taken by the crews of particular ships, and several pay. ments of prize money having been distributed to them in the course of a year, yet scarce any men were lost by desertion out of such ships, though they were all permitted to go on shore, in companies of 40 or 50 at a time. We may with good reason, Sir, conclude from hence, that the keeping of seamen's wages in arrear, prevents a great many of the most sober and serviceable men from entering into the royal navy; and that the speedy payment of their wages, with other indulgences, instead of weakening any ties, which at present restrain them, would create among them a general fondness for the service, and be the most effectual means of preventing desertion. But as experience, Sir, out-weighs speculation, this point will be best determined by authentic accounts lately taken for the whole navy. In these accounts, Sir, the desertion from his majesty's ships for two years under quick payment of seamen's wages has been compared with the desertion for two similar years under slowe payment. From whence it is evident, notwithstanding what the gentleman who spoke last has been pleased to advance to the contrary, that in the duennium of quick payment, when the debt for seamen's wages was small, desertion was at the rate of two out of 236 men per month: whereas, in the duennium of slow payment, it was at the rate of two out of 187 men. That is, Sir, as many deserted out of a small number under slow payment, as did out of a greater number under quick payment. This sufficiently demonstrates, that the keeping a large arrear of their wages unpaid, is far from being the proper means of retaining seamen in the service. It has been invidiously insinuated, Sir, that "in consequence of the provisions contained in the proposed Bill, an increased profit will redound to the treasurer of the navy, by causing more money to circulate through his hands, under the speedier payment of seamen's wages." It must give uncommon pain, Sir, to feeling minds, to find their most worthy acts ascribed to ungenerous motives. They, however, who are conversant with the course of naval business, know that the arrear of seamen's wages will not be brought altogether into the hands of the treasurer of the navy, to be lodged with him till demands for it shall arise: on the contrary, it is to be received and paid by him in such portions, and at such times, as shall be appointed by the commissioners of the navy; which appointment, according to the established rule, will not be made until equal sums are ordered by the Admiralty to be immediately put in a regular course of payment. Besides, Sir, the great scope and tendency of the Bill proposed, instead of aiming to detain money in the hands of the treasurer of the navy, is calculated to facilitate its speedier issue, by various new provisions, and the removal of many present obstacles: and it is demonstrable, that a treasurer of the navy would be able to keep much larger sums in his hands, if such was his intention, under the regulations now subsisting, than he could possibly retain by the proposed Bill under present consideration. With regard to the general arguments advanced against the Bill, they are SO weak, that they stand self-confuted; and the general objections to it are so immaterial, that they do not require discussion. upon the second reading of the Bill; the Commons hoped their lordships would make them acquainted with their intention. The Lords, in answer to this intimation, gave the Commons to understand, that they desired the attendance of the members mentioned in their messages, that they The gentlemen have been pleased to say, that it contains no provisions but what the lords of the Admiralty have at present power to direct. But I beg leave to ob serve, that it is the business of legislators not to trust to what men may do, but to direct what they must do; not to leave them to their own inclinations, but to pre-might be examined as witnesses upon the scribe their duties. second reading of the Bill. This expla As a free people, Sir, sound policy di- nation being deemed satisfactory, the rects us to leave as little discretional members attended the House of Lords, power as possible in the hands of the offi- where they were fully examined, as percers of government.-No man can place sons conversant in sea affairs, touching the higher confidence in those who at present inconveniences which had formerly atsuperintend the naval department, or re- tended the sea service, as well as the regard them with greater respect, than my-medies now proposed; and the Bill having self; but as their power is no more per- passed through their House, though not manent than their lives, I should think it without warm opposition, was enacted into madness to trust the business of the navy a law by his majesty's assent. to their well known discretion and integrity. One of the gentlemen has confessed, that the provision in the act of George 2, for the payment of two months in six, has been remitted, as prejudicial to the service. It is needless to examine, Sir, how far such payment may be prejudicial; but I will be bold to affirm, that they who are directed to execute a law, are not to judge whether the law is expedient or not. We do not allow of a dispensing power in the crown, and let us never suffer it to be exercised by a subject. Practices of this sort are of themselves sufficient to determine us in favour of the present Bill, by which the duties of the officers in the naval department are prudently regulated, and particularly ascertained. In few words, Sir, the Bill seems to be wisely contrived to promote the happiness of the seamen, the benefit of the service, and the interest of the nation in general. The Bill having passed the Commons by a considerable majority, it engaged, in a particular manner, the attention of the Lords, who by divers messages to the Commons, desired the attendance of several members. These messages being taken into consideration, several prece dents were recited: a debate arose about their formality, and the House unanimously resolved, that a message should be sent to the Lords, acquainting them, that the Commons, not being sufficiently informed upon what grounds or for what purposes, their lordships desired the House would give leave to such of their members, as were named in the said messages, to attend the House of Lords, in order to be examined Bill for shortening the Duration of Parliaments.*] February 20. Sir John Glynne moved, That an Act, made in the 6th of William and Mary, intituled, • An Act for the frequent meeting and calling of Parliaments, might be read: and the same was read accordingly. He also moved, That an Act, made in the 1st of George the 1st, intituled, An Act for enlarging the time of continuance of Parliaments,' appointed by an Act, made in the 6th of William and Mary, intituled, An Act for the frequent meeting and calling 6 of Parliaments,' might be read: And the same being read accordingly; a motion was made, and the question being put, That leave be given to bring in a Bill for shortening the Term and Duration of future Parliaments: the House divided, Yeas, 74. Noes, 190. So it passed in the negative. Proceedings in the Commons on the Bill to explain and amend the Habeas Corpus Act.] February 21. During the recess of parliament, or soon after the beginning of the next session, it happened that a gentleman was pressed and confined in the Savoy, whereupon his friends applied for a Habeas Corpus. Upon this a question arose, whether this writ was to be granted or no? It was certainly a case not within the Habeas Corpus Act passed in the 31st of Charles the 2nd, because that Act, by the preamble, relates only to persons committed for criminal, or supposed criminal matters, which this gentleman was not; and the granting of a Habeas Corpus at common law seemed to be prohibited by the above-mentioned Act of the preceding session. This question was not at that time determined, because the gentleman was discharged by an application to the secretary at war; but it made the defection in the said Act of the 31st of Charles the 2nd to be taken notice of, and it was thought to be a defect of the most dangerous consequence to the liberty of the subject; therefore this day leave was given to bring in a Bill for giving a more speedy remedy to the subject upon the writ of Habeas Corpus. March 8. The Bill was presented, read a first, and ordered to be read a second time; which it was on the 17th, and ordered to be committed to a committee of the whole House. April 17, the House resolved itself into the said committee, and Sir John Cust reported, that they had gone through the Bill, and made several amendments thereunto, which they had directed him to report. The report being received next morning, all the amendments except one were agreed to; after which an amendment was made by the House to the Bill, and then the Bill, with the amendments, was ordered to be ingrossed. On the Monday following the Bill was read a third time, passed, and sent to the Lords. hath in all times, been deemed to be the most effectual security for the liberty of the subject against every kind of wrongful imprisonment or restraint: and whereas any delay in the awarding or returning of such writ may be attended with the most fatal consequences to the person under restraint; and, by reason of such delay, the relief intended to be given may come too late for such person to be discharged from his restraint, or to receive any benefit from such writ; be it therefore enacted by the king's most excellent majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords spiritual and temporal, and Commons, in this present parliament assem. bled, and by the authority of the same, that the several provisions which, by an Act made in the 31st year of king Charles the 2nd, entitled, An Act for the better securing the liberty of the subject, and for prevention of imprisonment beyond the seas, are made for the awarding of writs of Habeas Corpus, in cases of commitment or detainer for any criminal, or supposed criminal matter, shall, in like manner, extend to all cases where any person, not being committed or detained for any criminal or supposed criminal matter, shall be confined or restrained of his or her liberty under any colour or pretence whatsoever; and that upon oath being made by such person so confined or restrained, or by any other on his or her behalf, of any actual confinement or restraint, and that such confinement or restraint, to the best of the knowledge and belief of the person so applying, is not by virtue of any commitment or detainer for any criminal, or supposed criminal matter; an Habeas Corpus directed to the person or persons so confining or restraining the party as aforesaid, shall be awarded and granted in the same manner as is directed, vided by the said act, in the case of per and under the same penalties as are prosons committed or detained for any crithat the person or persons before whom minal, or supposed criminal matter; and the party so confined or restrained shall be brought, by virtue of any Habeas Cor the authority of this act, may and shall pus granted in the vacation time under within three days after the return made, tained in such return, and into the cause proceed to examine into the facts conof such confinement or restraint; and thereupon either discharge, or bail, or reThe following is a copy of the said Bill:mand the parties, as the case shall re"Whereas the writ of Habeas Corpus quire, and as to justice shall appertain. fence committed, unless the party grieved be then under confinement or restraint ; and if he or she shall be then under confinement or restraint, then within the spaces of twelve calendar months after the decease of the party so confined or restrained, or his or her delivery from such confinement or restraint, which shall first happen; and such person or persons so sued in any court whatsoever, shall and may plead the general issue, not guilty, or that he or she owes nothing; and upon any issue joined may give the special matter in evidence: And if the plaintiff or prosecutor shall become non-suit, or, forbear further prosecution, or suffer a discontinuance; or if a verdict pass against him or her, the defendant shall recover his or her costs; for which he or she shall have the like remedy as in any case where costs by the law are given to defendants." "And be it further enacted by the authority aforesaid, that whensoever any writ of Habeas Corpus, granted either in term or vacation time, on the behalf of any party so confined or restrained without a commitment for any criminal, or supposed criminal matter, shall be served upon the person so confining or restraining such party, or shall be left at the place where such party shall be so confined or restrained, the person so confining or restraining such party shall make return of such writ, and bring or cause to be brought the body or bodies, according to the command thereof, within the respective times limited, and under the provisions prescribed by the said Act to sheriffs and other officers, in case of commitment or detainer for criminal, or supposed criminal matters; and every such person neglecting or refusing so to make return of such writ, or to bring or cause to be brought the body or bodies, according to the command thereof, within the times respectively limited, and under the provisions prescribed by the said Act to sheriffs and other officers, shall be guilty of a contempt of the court under the seal of which the said writ of Habeas Corpus shall issue; and shall also for the first offence, forfeit to the party grieved, the sum of three hundred pounds, and for the second offence, the sum of five hundred pounds. "And be it further enacted by the authority aforesaid, That the several penalties inflicted by this Act, shall be recovered by the party grieved, his or her executors or administrators, against the offender, his or her executors or administrators, in like manner as the penalties inflicted by the said Act are to be recovered. "And, to the intent that no person may pretend ignorance of the import of any such writ, be it enacted, That all writs of Habeas Corpus, awarded or to be returned under the authority of this Act, shall be marked by the court, or person respectively awarding the same, in this manner: "By an Act passed in the 31st "year of the reign of king George the "2nd." And shall also be signed by order of the court, or by the person respectively awarding the same. "And be it further enacted by the authority aforesaid, That if any action, plaint, suit, or information, shall be commenced or prosecuted against any person or persons for any offence against this Act, the same shall be commenced within twelve calendar months after the time of the of ments which were made use of for and The following are the principal Arguagainst the Bill: Arguments for the Bill. Sir; however liberty may have been abused by the treachery of pretended patriots on one hand, and the licentiousness of an unruly multitude on the other, we ought not therefore to grow cool in our concern for this inestimable blessing, which is, in some degree, the common end of every social institution. There is not a civilized nation upon earth, which has not some kind of provision to secure the person and estate of the subject; at least from the violence and encroachments of others of equal rank with himself. Where the government is most despotic, slaves are not subject to the oppression of any but their own masters. But under a free government, like ours, the laws in defence of liberty are various and extensive. In our constitution, such laws do not only bind the common and lower class of people, but every degree and order in the state: so that no man's liberty can be legally restrained any farther than the law directs, for the welfare and preservation of the whole community. In construction of law, we are all commons alike, and equally entitled to protection. Such as do not inherit wealth, are nevertheless heirs to freedom; and they who have no other property, have a property in their liberty: indeed such, above all others, may be thought to have the best title to liberty, since it is the only valuable enjoyment to which they can lay claim. It is essential to liberty, that no man shall | plication, Sir, a doubt arose concerning be obliged to act or suffer, but in con- the construction of the statute of 31 formity to, and by the direction of known Charles 2, commonly called the Habeas laws and indeed all states, of what nature Corpus Act. or origin soever, have necessarily this one fundamental principle, that the persons and properties of its subjects are to be free from any wrongful or illegal encroachment of any other subject. Yet, notwithstanding this universally acknowledged principle, and though our ancestors have established the wisest and most noble institutions for our security, yet we often find ourselves reduced to the necessity of renewing our claim, and of struggling for the recovery of our rights and privileges from the hands of usurpation. This necessity, Sir, recurs in the present occasion. The case of one unhappy man, out of many, who was torn by violence from his family, friends, and occupation, and perplexed with doubts and difficulties on his application for a Habeas Corpus, has been the means of bringing before us the Bill now under consideration. The person, Sir, thus violently deprived of his liberty, was seized in order to be forced into military service as a foot soldier; under colour of a late act of parliament for the speedy and effectual recruiting of his majesty's forces: by which certain magistrates are authorized and empowered, within their several limits, to raise and levy such able-bodied men, as did not follow any lawful calling, or had not some other lawful and sufficient support, to serve his majesty, &c. and to commit them to close custody till properly disposed of; the men so impressed being made liable to all the penalties of martial law in case of desertion. This act, Sir, nevertheless contained a special proviso, that every person having any vote in any county, city, borough, town, port, or place, should not be liable to any such compulsion. It will be needless to comment on the propriety of this act, which did not pass in silence, and without opposition: a protest of twenty peers is still extant, who expressed their dissent to it. It will be sufficient for my present purpose to observe, that the unhappy person under confinement was supposed not to be within the description of this act, though prosecuted with all the rigour imaginable. Being without other remedy, he applied for his Habeas Corpus, as a writ of right to which every subject was entitled. Upon this ap That statute made provision only for the relief of the king's subjects committed for criminal or supposed criminal matters; and as the prisoner, as well as others confined by virtue of the Press Act, was free from every criminal imputation, it was contended that he could derive no benefit from it. So that his innocence, which, according to reason and nature, should plead in his behalf, became a ground for doubting whether he was entitled to that relief in law, on which supposed criminals might insist. In discussing this doubt, Sir, it will be necessary to consider, in the first place, the extent of the subject's original claim to liberty; and in the next, how far this claim is destroyed or abridged by any law now in being. To proceed with more order and perspicuity, it will be necessary to recur to Magna Charta, the first written law which contains a solemn recognition and confirmation of those rights and privileges established by the fundamental or common law of the land. The most material clause relating to the liberty of the subject, is that which follows: "No freeman shall be taken or imprisoned, or disseized of his freehold, or liberties, or free customs, or be outlawed, or exiled, or any other ways destroyed; nor will we pass upon him, or condemn him, but by the lawful judgment of his peers (that is, his equals), or by the law of the land." The words of this clause, Sir, seem to be very explicit. Nevertheless, by forced construction and misrepre sentation, they were perverted in aid of tyranny and usurpation: which put the subject under the necessity of obtaining a further explanation and confirmation of their rights. The advocates for tyranny, in the reign of Charles 1, contended that the law of the land included a new kind of law of their own creation, which they called State law; and they argued, that by virtue of this law the king and his council had a right to imprison the subject, without specifying any cause of commitment. Under sanction of this diabolical doctrine, Sir, the most daring practices were committed. It is well known, that five gentlemen, being under imprisonment for not contributing their quota to the loan, having brought their Habeas Corpus in the King's-bench, |