Their service was without limit: they might be slaves for life.'

Enlistment

since the peace.

Throughout the war, these sacrifices of liberty were exacted for the public safety. But when the land was once more blessed with peace, it was asked if they would be endured again. The evils of impressment were repeatedly discussed in Parliament, and schemes of voluntary enlistment proposed by Mr. Hume' and others. Ministers and Parliament were no less alive to the dangerous principles on which recruiting for the navy had hitherto been conducted; and devised new expedients more consistent with the national defences of a free country. Higher wages, larger bounties, shorter periods of service, and a reserve volunteer force, such have been the means by which the navy has been strengthened and popularised. During the Russian war great fleets were manned for the Baltic and the Mediterranean by volunteers. Impressment,-not yet formally renounced by law, has been condemned by the general sentiment of the country; and we may hope that modern statesmanship has, at length, provided for the efficiency of the fleet, by measures consistent with the liberty of the subject.

135 Geo. III. c. 34.

June 10th, 1824; Hans. Deb., 2nd Ser., xi. 1171; June 9th, 1825; Ibid., xiii. 1097.

Mr. Buckingham, Aug. 15th, 1833; March 4th, 1834; Hans. Deb., 3rd Ser., xx. 691; xxi. 1061; Earl of Durham, March 3rd, 1834; Ibid., xxi. 992; Capt. Harris, May 23rd, 1850; Ibid., cxi. 279. 45 & 6 Will. IV. c. 24; Hans. Deb., 3rd Ser., xxvi. 1120; xcii. 10, 729; 16 & 17 Vict. c. 69; 17 and 18 Vict. c. 18.

The able commission on manning the navy, in 1859, reported the evidence of the witnesses, with scarcely an exception, shows that the system of naval impressment, as practised in former wars, could not now be successfully enforced.'-p. xi.

The personal liberty of British subjects has further suffered from rigours and abuses of Revenue the law. The supervision necessary for the Laws. collection of taxes, and especially of the excise, --has been frequently observed upon, as a restraint upon the natural freedom of the subject. The visits of revenue officers, throughout the processes of manufacture, the summary procedure by which penalties are enforced,—and the encouragement given to informers, have been among the most popular arguments against duties of excise.' The repeal of many of these duties, under an improved fiscal policy, has contributed as well to the liberties of the people, as to their material welfare.

But restraints and vexations were not the worst incident of the revenue laws. An onerous Crown and complicated system of taxation in- debtors. volved numerous breaches of the law. Many were punished with fines, which, if not paid, were followed by imprisonment. It was right that the law should be vindicated: but while other offences escaped with limited terms of imprisonment, the luckless debtors of the crown, if too poor to pay their fees and costs, might suffer imprisonment for life. Even when the legislature at length took pity upon other debtors, this class of prisoners were excepted from its merciful care. But they have since shared in the milder policy of our laws; and

2

1 Adam Smith, speaking of the frequent visits and odious examination of the tax-gatherers,' says: Dealers have no respite from the continual visits and examination of the excise efficers.'-Book v. c. 2.-Blackstone says: "The rigour, and arbitrary proceedings of excise laws, seem hardly compatible with the temper of a free nation.' —Comm., i. 308 (Kerr's ed.).

2 Hans. Deb., 2nd Ser., viii. 808. 3 53 Geo. III. c. 102, § 51.

have received ample indulgence from the Treasury and the Court of Exchequer.1

While Parliament continued to wield its power

Vindictive exercise of privileges by Parliament,

another encroach

ment upon

of

commitment capriciously and vindictively, -not in vindication of its own just authority, but for the punishment of libels, and other offences cognisable by the law, liberty. -it was scarcely less dangerous than those arbitrary acts of prerogative which the law had already condemned, as repugnant to liberty. Its abuses, however, survived but for a few years after the accession of George III.2

Commitments for contempt.

But another power, of like character, continued to impose-and still occasionally permits -the most cruel restraints upon personal liberty. A court of equity can only enforce obedience to its authority, by imprisonment. If obedience be refused, commitment for contempt must follow. The authority of the court would otherwise be defied, and its jurisdiction rendered nugatory. But out of this necessary judicial process, grew up gross abuses and oppression. Ordinary offences are purged by certain terms of imprisonment; men suffer punishment and are free again. And, on this principle, persons committed for disrespect or other contempt to the court itself, were released after a reasonable time, upon their apology and submission.3 But no such mercy was shown to those who failed to obey the decrees of the court, in any suit. Their

17 Geo. IV. c. 57, § 74; 1 & 2 Vict. c. 110, § 103, 104.

2 Supra, Chap. VII.; and see Townsend's Mem. of the House of Commons, passim.

3 Hans. Deb., 2nd Ser., viii. 808.

imprisonment was indefinite, if not perpetual. Their contempt was only to be purged by obedience, -perhaps wholly beyond their power. For such prisoners there was no relief but death. Some persisted in their contempt from obstinacy, sullenness, and litigious hate: but many suffered for no offence but ignorance and poverty. Humble suitors, dragged into court by richer litigants, were sometimes too poor to obtain professional advice, or even to procure copies of the bills filed against them. Lord Eldon himself, to his honour be it said, had charitably assisted such men to put in answers in his own court. Others, again, unable to pay money and costs decreed against them, suffered imprisonment for life. This latter class, however, at length became entitled to relief as insolvent debtors.2 the complaints of other wretched men, to whom the law brought no relief, were often heard. In 1817, Mr. Bennet, in presenting a petition from one of these prisoners, thus stated his own experience: 'Last year,' he said, 'Thomas Williams had been in confinement for thirty-one years by an order of the Court of Chancery. He had visited him in his wretched house of bondage, where he had found him sinking under all the miseries that can afflict humanity, and on the following day he died. At this time,' he added, there were in the same prison with the petitioner, a woman who had been in confinement twenty-eight years, and two other persons

6

1 Hans. Deb., 2nd Ser., xiv. 1178.

But

2 49 Geo. III. c. 6; 53 Geo. III. c. 102, § 47; Hans. Deb., 2nd Ser., xiv. 1178.

who had been there seventeen years."1 .1 In the next year, Mr. Bennet presented another petition from prisoners confined for contempt of court, complainApril 22nd, ing that nothing had been done to relieve 1818. them, though they had followed all the instructions of their lawyers. The petitioners had witnessed the death of six persons, in the same condition as themselves, one of whom had been confined four, another eighteen, and another thirtyfour years.2

Aug. 31st, 1820.

In 1820, Lord Althorp presented another petition; and among the petitioners was a woman, eighty-one years old, who had been imprisoned for thirty-one years.3 In the eight years preceding 1820, twenty prisoners had died while under confinement for contempt, some of whom had been in prison for upwards of thirty years. Even so late as 1856, Lord St. Leonards presented a petition, complaining of continued hardships upon prisoners for contempt; and a statement of the Lord Chancellor revealed the difficulty and painfulness of such cases. 'A man who had been confined in the early days of Lord Eldon's Chancellorship for refusing to disclose certain facts, remained in prison, obstinately declining to make any statement upon the subject, until his death a few months ago.'s

16th May, 1817; Hans. Deb., 1st Ser., xxxvi. 158. Mr. Bennet had made a statement on the same subject in 1816; Ibid., xxxiv. 1099.

2 Hans. Deb., 1st Ser., xxxviii. 284.

3 Hans. Deb., 2nd Ser., i. 693.

4 Ibid., xiv. 1178; Mr. Hume's Return, Parl. Paper, 1820 (302). 5 Hans. Deb., 3rd Ser., cxlii. 1570. In another recent case, a lad