On February 27, 1812, the order of the day in the House of Lords was for the second reading of the Frame Work bill, known popularly as the Frame Breaking Bill. The bill made it a capital offence to destroy various frames. It also compelled persons in whose houses the frames were broken to give information to magistrates. Lord Byron gave his first speech in the House of Lords in opposition to this bill.

The bill was intended to deal with the Luddite rioting that had broken out among unemployed stocking weavers. The livelihood of these workers and artisans was being threatened by new forms of frames that enabled more than one piece of material to be knitted at a time. In general, workers were experiencing changing economic conditions that we broadly call the industrial revolution. There were also various economic difficulties caused by the disruption in economic activity as a result of the Napoleonic wars. Byron had observed some of the economic distress when he had visited his estate in Newstead in December of 1811 on his return from his travels in Europe and Turkey.

Morelli was the most prolific architect of the Papal States during the mid-18th century. He was knighted by Pius IX, thanks mostly to his relationship with the Roman curia and his ability to interpret and develop the tastes of his epoch. Under the tutelage of Pope Pius VII, Morelli built, renovated, and amplified numerous civic and religious buildings.

YORK, February 25, 1812.

I cannot permit Colonel M’Donnell to return home without giving your excellency a short account of our proceedings here. I had every reason to expect the almost unanimous support of the two houses of the legislature to every measure the government thought it necessary to recommend; but after a short trial, I found myself egregiously mistaken in my calculations.

The many doubtful characters in the militia made me anxious to introduce the oath of abjuration into the bill: there were twenty members in the house, when this highly important measure was lost by the casting voice of the chairman. The great influence which the numerous settlers from the United States possess over the decisions of the lower house is truly alarming, and ought immediately, by every practical means, to be diminished. To give encouragement to real subjects to settle in this province, can alone remove the evil. The consideration of the fees should not stand in the way of such a politic arrangement; and should your excellency ultimately determine to promise some of the waste lands of the crown to such Scotch emigrants as enlist in the Glengary Fencibles, I have no hesitation in recommending, in the strongest manner, the raising of a Canadian corps upon similar offers, to be hereafter disbanded and distributed among their countrymen in the vicinity of Amherstburg. Colonel M’Donnell being in full possession of my sentiments on this subject, I beg leave to refer your excellency to him for further information. The bill for the suspension of the habeas corpus, I regret to say, was likewise lost by a very trifling majority. A strong sentiment now prevails that war is not likely to occur with the United States, which, I believe, tended to influence the votes of the members; I mean of such who, though honest, are by their ignorance easily betrayed into error. The low ebb of their finances appears to stagger the most desperate democrats in the States, and may possibly delay the commencement of direct hostilities; but should France and England continue the contest much longer, it appears to me absolutely impossible for the United States to avoid making their election; and the unfriendly disposition they have for some years past evinced towards England, leaves little doubt as to their choice. Your excellency, I am sensible, will excuse the freedom with which I deliver my sentiments.

Every day hostilities are retarded, the greater the difficulties we shall have to encounter. The Americans are at this moment busily employed in raising six companies of Rangers, for the express purpose of overawing the Indians; and are besides collecting a regular force at Vincennes, probably with a view of reinforcing Detroit. Indeed, report states the arrival of a large force at Fort Wayne, intended for the former garrison. Their intrigues among the different tribes are carried on openly and with the utmost activity, and as no expense is spared, it may reasonably be supposed that they do not fail of success. Divisions are thus uninterruptedly sowed among our Indian friends, and the minds of many altogether estranged from our interests. Such must inevitably be the consequence of our present inert and neutral proceedings in regard to them. It ill becomes me to determine how long true policy requires that the restrictions now imposed upon the Indian department ought to continue; but this I will venture to assert, that each day the officers are restrained from interfering in the concerns of the Indians, each time they advise peace and withhold the accustomed supply of ammunition, their influence will diminish, till at length they lose it altogether.

I find that ever since the departure of Priest Burke from Sandwich, the £50 per annum paid from the military chest to that gentleman have been withheld, on what account I have not been able to ascertain. The individual at present officiating is highly spoken of; and as several gentlemen of the Catholic persuasion have applied to me to intercede with your excellency to renew the allowance, I presume to submit the case to your indulgent consideration.

On February 24, 1812, Isaac Brock issued the following proclamation:

Proclamation. Province of Upper Canada

Isaac Brock, Esquire, President administering the Government of the Province of Upper Canada, and Major. General Commanding His Majesty’s forces with the same.

To all to whom it may concern: Greeting.

Whereas information has been received, that divers persons have recently come into this Province, with a seditious intent to disturb the tranquility of thereof, and to endeavour to alienate the minds of His Majesty’s Subjects from His Person and Government; I hereby require and enjoin the several persons authorized, to carry into effect a certain Statute, passed in the Forty-fourth year of His Majesty’s reign, intituled, “An Act for the better security this Province against all seditions attempts or designs to disturb the tranquillity thereof, to be vigilant in the execution of their duty, and strictly to enquire into the behaviour and conduct of all such persons as may be subject to the provisions of the said Act; I also charge and require all his Majesty’s Good and Loyal Subjects within this Province, to be aiding and assisting the said Persons, in the execution of the powers vested in them by the said Act.

Given under my Hand and Seal at Arms, at York, this Twenty-fourth day of February, in the year of our Lord One thousand Eight hundred and Twelve, and in the Fifty-second of his Majesty’s Reign.

Isaac Brock, President

QUEBEC, February 22, 1812.

Sir George is much pleased with the favorable account Captain Gray has given him of your proceedings. Your speech is highly approved of here, and we shall rejoice to find our house following so laudable an example as your commons have shewn them: but I am not sanguine; they have already commenced with great illiberality and violence to vent their spleen and resentment against Sir James (Craig) in votes of censure, and I fancy Sir George, with all his amiable, conciliatory mariners, will hardly succeed in keeping them within bounds.

This day being appointed for the meeting of the Provincial Parliament, His EXCELLENCY THE GOVERNOR IN CHIEF came down in state, and being seated on the throne, with usual solemnities, the gentleman Usher of the Black Rod, was sent to command the attendance of the the Members of the House of Assembly. The Members having come up, His Excellency was pleased to the deliver the following:

QUEBEC, February 20, 1812.

Captain M’Donnell has not clearly understood the purport of his mission to Upper Canada, and the general regrets that he should have proceeded the length he has done without having previously received your advice and instructions, to obtain which was the chief object of his visit to York. It is to be hoped, however, that sufficient patronage still remains open to meet your wishes, as the appointment of three of General Shaw’s sons may be considered, from the sentiments of friendship and regard you have testified for that officer, to be almost equivalent to anticipating your own choice of them. And Sir George has directed me to inform you, that he readily accepts of your proposal to recruit two companies, to be added to the Glengary Fencibles; the nomination of the officers, viz. two captains, two lieutenants, and two ensigns, to rest entirely with you. The general has approved of the following quotas of men for the respective ranks: captains 30, lieutenants 15, and ensigns 20; the commissions to be issued on completing the quota, and such as complete their proportion quickest, or exceed in extra number of recruits, will have priority in regimental rank. I am not aware that Sir George purposes nominating a lieutenant-colonel; but I am sure that you will not feel less disposed to promote the formation of this corps, when I inform you that it is his intention to recommend me to the commander-in-chief for the appointment of colonel.

19. Slept near seven hours last night, and did not rise till 8. My umbrella hung heavy at my heart. Went to hunt for it. Walked back on the track I came from J. H.’s yesterday, and called at the places I had been ; but no umbrella. It is finally lost, and I must submit to the inconvenience of getting wet and of spoiling my clothes. Called at Godwin’s on my way to the city. To friend Allen’s. He was out, but I saw the foreman of the laboratory; he had made the experiment I suggested to take the bad smell out of the acid. It did effectually take out the smell, but at the same time it took out the acid, and the residuum was neither more or less than simple water. So that won’t do. To Graves’s, where finished a letter I began yesterday to S. Swartwout. D. M. R. came in and took charge of the letter, and we walked together. He dined yesterday with his country gentlemen, and thinks they were delighted with his wheel-carriages. D. M. went to the Exchange (where merchants assemble at 4 every day) to get the news, and I went by Lincoln’s Inn 1 to see K., but he was out. Home at 4. D. M. came in at 5, as agreed, and I had for him a Virginia dinner, bacon and greens, with which he was delighted. He sat till 8 ; and now I am deliberating how to dispose of the residue of the evening. Bought for J.H. to-day paper, pen, wax, wafers, &c., 4 shillings and 6 pence. Have paid my weekly bill this evening, 14 shillings, 6 3/4 pence, which includes lodging, milk, fuel, boot and shoe cleaning ; but no washing this week.

FRAME BREAKING BILL

HC Deb 18 February 1812 vol 21 cc847-53 847

§ The order of the day being read for going into a committee on this Bill,

§Mr. Lamb rose, and said, he was anxious to state the grounds on which he should give the Bill his support. Those who opposed the measure insisted chiefly on the necessity which they conceived existed for going into a previous enquiry. If that enquiry should tend to ascertain the causes of the violation of the laws, it would certainly be beneficial; but he was against it because it would produce delay. The great cause of the disturbances he considered to be the decay of trade. The measures of the emperor of France were evidently their main causes; and it was nothing less than wilfully deluding the country, to hold out a hope that greater commercial embarrassments, greater severity of distress, than the country had hitherto felt, were not yet to be endured. As to the disputes between the masters and the workmen, he did not think it right to enquire into them, as causes of the riots;—such enquiry only tended to inflame the minds of the working-men, who generally concluded that they had rights which were infringed upon by the masters: and that they were justifiable in retaliating violence on thorn for the infringement of those supposed rights. The terror of death, he conceived, though it would have little effect on men habituated to guilt, would operate powerfully on the general mind. The atrocity of the offence against which the present Bill was intended, was as deep as any offence against property could be; and such, in his opinion, as called for the severest punishment. Another reason for having recourse to the punishment of death was, the difficulty of detection. When crimes became difficult of detection, the necessary and only resource was severity of punishment. As to the objections against the Bill, that it would involve persons who were within the letter, and not the spirit of it, there was little danger, he imagined, to be apprehended from any unfortunate result of that kind arising from it.

§Sir T. Turton contended, that the Bill was not directed against the real danger, which was combination; it only looked to individual offenders. He did not think that ministers had used either the ordinary civil means, or the extraordinary military means which they possessed, to active and proper advantage. The poor deluded people who were the objects of this Bill were greatly to be pitied. They were in want of bread; and any measure of the legislature would not, he was afraid, be 849 able to put down the risings of hunger. The great evil, and the spring of every minor evil, was the continuance of the war.

§General Tarleton said the debates on this subject had disclosed two important facts; in the first place it appeared that the late disturbances were caused by the decay of our trade: in the next, that a large number of the inhabitants of one part of the county had been almost in a state of insurrection. Far from thinking that there was any merit in the conduct of his Majesty’s ministers, to him it appeared that great demerit was there to be seen. He thought the subject was not treated by the honourable House as so grave a subject ought to be treated. It ought to be most carefully looked into, as ministers had brought the country into a situation, to extricate it from which all the wisdom of parliament was required. He was averse to increasing the number of capital punishments. Were the laws of Draco the best the world had ever seen, because they were written in blood? Experience had proved the reverse to be the fact.

§Mr. Ellison defended ministers against the aspersions of the two last speakers. He was afraid that there was something of the spirit of party in the opposition made to the Bill. He did not profess to be the defender of ministers, except as far as truth and justice bound him; but if a charge should be brought against them on the head of supineness, in not using the means which they possessed 10 put down the disturbances, he was ready on that score to meet any hon. gentleman opposite. As to the crying, puling maxims so much insisted upon, and the noise made about humanity, and he knew not what, he asked, were not the sufferers by these outrages sufficient objects for that humanity? He wished not to be considered as agreeing by any means to the new doctrines on criminal law, which tended to cast reproach on the wisdom or humanity of our ancestors. The law proposed, appeared to him to be dictated by humanity; it was not like the laws of Draco to be written in blood. The dread of capital punishment might prevent the repetition of the offence, and if (as had been said would be the case,) no convictions should take place on it, no blood would be shed in. consequence of it. The conduct of ministers he thought had been perfectly correct, as they had done all in their power to put a stop to the evil by the means of the common law of the country.
850
§Mr. Curwen , notwithstanding what had fallen from the last speaker, was still of opinion, that ministers had mean which were not used promptly or beneficially in quelling the riots. As to the argument deduced from the terror expected to be produced by the punishment of death, he had one curious fact to state to the House, by which they might judge what effect it would have. In the county of Cumberland, it was made a capital offence to steal lead, and what was the consequence? Why, that no conviction ever took place under that law, because witnesses were shocked at the disproportion between the crime and the punishment, and would not come forward. He was sorry to hear hon. gentlemen say, that no hope ought to be held out to the country of escape from the pressure under which it at present laboured. He believed that there existed other causes of these disturbances, besides the measures of the emperor of France; and those were the measures of his Majesty’s ministers. He saw in their mistaken policy grounds enough for the decay of trade; and he was of opinion, that there were measures of moderation and wisdom, by the adoption of which the country might escape from its present embarrassments. Measures of moderation and wisdom were not, however, to be expected from his Majesty’s present ministers. He attributed the decay of trade, and the consequent ruin of the country, to the mistaken policy of ministers. The sufferings of the people were great. They were great in many parts of the county with which he was personally acquainted; but their forbearance was also great. He should vote against the bill, because he did not think it would effect what it pretended to.

§Mr. Courtenay begged leave to adopt the sentiments of the hon. gentleman who spoke first (Mr. Lamb.) He particularly selected that hon. gentleman’s speech, not only for its eloquence, but because all the other speakers for the Bill were opposers of the measures of an hon. and learned gentleman (sir S. Romilly) relative to the Criminal Laws, which measures Mr. C. was inclined to favour. But he thought the present an atrocious crime, worthy of the very highest punishment, and should therefore vote for the Bill.

§ The question that the Speaker do leave the chair was then put and carried; and the House went into a Committee, on the clause enacting capital punishment for 851 maliciously breaking the frames, machinery, &c. used in making lace.

Mr. C. W. Wynn observed, that as the clause stood, it would appear, that a person tossing an old woman’s lace cushion into the fire would constitute a capital offence. He asked whether it was to be so understood?

The Attorney General did not think that such an act as that instanced by his hon. and learned friend could be prosecuted to conviction, because the bench and the jury would both be of opinion that the malicious intent to destroy that trade would not have been sufficiently made out.

Sir S. Romilly said, that if the case supposed by his hon. and learned friend did not come within the meaning of the act, he conceived that it might still operate in a manner in which it was not intended to act. If an individual in a passion should damage or injure one of his master’s tools used in that trade, as the clause at present stood, such conduct would come within the meaning of the act. It might be that in such a case the law would not be executed, but was it for parliament to make laws so cruel in their operations, that persons convicted on them were suffered to escape on that account? He would submit it to the right hon. gentleman, whether it might not be better to alter it, by inserting the words “any three or more combining maliciously to break, &c.”

The Chancellor of the Exchequer thought, if the proposition of his bon. and learned friend were adopted, the mischief would not be put a stop to by this act, as the rioters at Nottingham had acted throughout with so much system and contrivance, that he had no doubt but if that amendment were made, they would evade the law, by sending into the different cottages one man only to destroy the frames. However they might regret that to which the letter of the law might by possibility lead, he thought they ought to proceed on the established principle of comprehending to a certainty, that which the law was intended to meet, at the risk of including what it was not designed to include.

Mr. Abercromby supported the amendment.

Mr. J. Smith objected to the generality of the word “damaged,” which he thought might be given up, as the Bill would be completely efficient without it.

§Mr. Simeon supported the clause as it stood, and was of opinion that the amendment 852 would destroy the effect of the Bill.

§Mr. Bathurst thought that if the object of the Bill was merely to increase the punishment, the former act ought to be fallowed up to the letter in every thing else.

Mr. Leigh Keck supported the clause.

The Attorney-General apprehended that the object of the rioters was to prevent the work from going forward, and therefore maintained it was of the utmost consequence to check them. No inconvenience could follow from leaving a discretion to the judges.

Sir S. Romilly declined pressing the amendment.

Mr. Lockhart proposed a clause for the purpose of allowing the prisoners who should be tried under this act, the benefit of counsel. It was agreed upon all hands that the crime was great; by some it was represented as approaching to high treason, a circumstance which must expose those who were accused of it to the indignation of the community; but it occurred to him, that for that very reason the person to be tried should be afforded the privilege intended by his clause. All he asked was, that they should be placed on the same footing with those charged with misdemeanors. He never could find upon what principle persons tried for their lives were refused this benefit. It was stated by some, that the judge was counsel for the prisoner; but the judge was bound to state what made against him as well as what made for him; and therefore in that sense could not be said to be his counsel. In the case of Patch, it was stated by Mr. Serjeant Best, that the principle upon which counsel was refused was, that the case should be so clear against the prisoner as not to render counsel necessary. A third principle stated, was, that it would occasion the delay of causes. But neither of them appeared to him to establish the necessity of such refusal in all cases: he therefore should propose the clause as he had already stated.

Mr. C. W. Wynn seconded the motion.

Mr. Secretary Ryder said his hon. and learned friend had not stated any thing to shew that this case differed from ordinary cases of felony. With respect to high treason, it was an offence sui generis, and the reason why counsel were allowed was, because it might be made an engine of political oppression. He quoted the 6th of George the 3rd, to shew that for the protection of the woollen and velvet manufactories, enactments had been made 853 similar to that which he had proposed in the present instance, and that no exception was made of the nature of that submitted by his hon. and learned friend.

§ The clause was rejected.

Mr. Secretary Ryder proposed an amendment, for the purpose of altering the preamble of the bill, so as to shew that it was framed to meet a particular occasion; which, after some desultory conversation, was agreed to. The report was then brought up, and ordered to be taken into further consideration tomorrow.