VI. Thou shalt not sink:-nor hast thou ris'n e'en yet Of fame and far dominion shall be set. The clouds shall break in sunshine! Who that saw THE NEW MARRIAGE ACT, AND THE NEW THE two Acts here mentioned appear to be the most unfortunate attempts at legislation, which have been made during the year. Public opinion has already gone forth against them, and from that opinion we have no disposition to dissent. We too are anxious to enter our protest in open disapprobation of their provisions, before the commencement of the ensuing session of Parliament. The article, however, which we have prepared upon the former is too long and argumentative for our present purpose :—which is merely to invite the close attention of all competent persons to these unlucky Acts. Here we shall go no further, than to observe that, although we condemn the new enactments, we have no intention of saying that the old law stood in no need of alteration: moreover, that we are no friends to improvident marriages among the poor: that a premium upon such marriages, which is in fact offered by the present poor-laws, seems in our eyes the excess of legislative absurdity: that we regret, as all must regret, foolish and unsuitable marriages among the rich but we think, that it is the business of legislation neither to take active steps for the promotion of marriage, nor to throw irritating impediments in the way, where the parties are determined and agreed. : These things are better left to parents and relatives, or to the Lord Chancellor, as the guardian of those whose natural guardians are deceased, than to all the legislators under heaven. Laws, in such cases, can do nothing: moral and social restraints can be alone of efficacy. With the operation, too, of the late Act, Mr. Malthus himself can have little reason to be pleased; since its effect is not, we believe, and will not be, to diminish the aggregate number of improvident marriages: but simply to cause delay and vexation by creating frivolous obstacles, and occasioning unnecessary exposure. We object to the New Vagrant Act on these four specific grounds: first, because it has given very general offencesecondly, because many of its enactments are in themselves an infringement upon the personal liberty of the poor :-thirdly, because it invests justices of the peace with a dangerous, excessive, and almost unconstitutional power: fourthly, because it incites constables and police-officers to exceed their duty, and commit the grossest acts of petty tyranny, injustice, and oppression. We are aware, that it is entitled, and is in some measure, "An Act for consolidating into one Act, and amending the laws relating to idle and disorderly persons, rogues and vagabonds, incorrigible rogues, and other vagrants in England." It also purports "to simplify the same former laws." As however the folly of old laws cannot make the present wiser or better, we shall consider the new Vagrant Act as it stands, without reference to those which have preceded it. In the first place, then, a law which gives general offence, can hardly be good; and for the truth of the assertion, that it has occasioned an almost universal outcry of disapprobation through the country, we appeal to every man who has ever thought or conversed upon the subject. It has thus become too good a handle for the mischievous abettors of faction, the designing champions of radicalism. To frame such an Act is to play into their hands. It is to afford them a specious pretext for their most malignant insinuations; a real foundation for their superstructure of abuse upon the laws and legislators of the land; upon the despotism of the government, upon the encroachments of power, upon the oppression which is exercised by the men in authority and place over the poor, the unprotected, and the friendless. All their forces of invective are brought into action: all their epithets of contumely and reproach-" brutal," "stupid," "arbitrary," "tyrannical,' "iniquitous," "flagitious," "diabolical," and what not?—are heaped without mercy, upon the obnoxious provisions of the new Vagrant Act. This is an evil in itself; but it is a far worse misfortune, that there is some real cause of complaint. Can the more respectable portions of society, or the more constitutional writers of the day, at once refute and put down these imputations? can they cut up these censures by the root, by shewing them to be false and groundless from beginning to end? Alas! on some points they must be dumb. We come then to the second count in our indictment. Many of the provisions of this Act are in themselves infringements upon the inherent rights of the people, the personal liberty of the poor. As it is rather our wish to call attention to the subject, than to impose our own opinions dogmatically upon others, we shall only request members of Parliament, and all whom it may concern, carefully to read over the whole Act. Really, if all the clauses and provisions are acted upon to their utmost extent, the poor man never can be safe. He may find himself adjudged to be a rogue and vagabond-ay, an incorrigible rogue too-while he is thinking himself, in his unsuspicious ignorance, a very harmless subject, and a very honest fellow. If, indeed, it be something worse than folly to curtail and circumscribe the amusements and recreations of the poor, while it is felt necessary to wink at the follies and dissipations of the wealthy, what shall we say, when a man can hardly play at bowls in his own paddock, without being liable to an examination before the magistrate, and a sentence of hard labour in the house of correction? We have no room to enter into details :—but it will be amply sufficient to give two or three instances of the harshness and cruelty of this Act, collected at random from the public papers. The first shall relate to "theatrical captions," as they have been styled. On the 31st of October, the actors and audience were brought up from a theatre in Manning'splace, Old Kent-road, to Union Hall: and some of the captives were committed to the house of correction for one month, In November, 200 persons were taken to the police office from the Camden theatre, Regent's-park, and very narrowly escaped the same punishment. But these things may be defended. Let us proceed. Of gaming and gamesters we have said enough; nor shall we add one word about the unfortunate women, who are guilty of walking in the streets at night, farther, than that we still think the severity with which they are treated, and the mode of that severity, instances of mistaken and miserable legislation. But let us look at the following cases. John George Marquis, a half-pay officer, represented as "good looking, and rather genteelly drest," was seized for begging-rudely and importunately, it is truehandcuffed by Mason the officer, and sentenced by the magistrate to three months' hard labour in the house of correction! On November 5th, twenty-two vagrants were committed to the house of correction, and the tread-mill; ten found gambling at the Star in Wentworth-street, and twelve others sleeping in a brick-kiln. To borrow the emphatic language of Burke-" these things are unfit;-they are intolerable." If we were disposed to laugh on such a subject, we might produce some excellent jests upon the wording of this Act. We might attempt a joke or two upon the ridiculous appella¬ tions "vagabond" and "vagrant," as applied to half the persons punishable under the statute.-to the keepers of gambling-houses, for instance, who hardly stir out of their own street once in the twelvemonth. But vagrant, or vagabond, or rogue, or idle and disorderly person, is not enough. Many of the luckless offenders are to be "deemed incorrigible rogues." They are declared incapable of amendment, and never to be retrieved from error, by Act of Parliament! The poor ignorant wretched culprit is seized, tried, convicted, sentenced. Charity might endeavour to do some good, but the new Vagrant Act forbids all benevolence, and precludes all chance of the delinquent's amelioration. Common sense might hope to reclaim him, and make him an honest man; but the law adjudges him an incorrigible rogue. But the folly thickens: the consummation of absurdity is behind. For what is the next thing which the law does? Why, it sends the incorrigible rogue for six months to the house of correction. Mr. Chetwynd, or whoever may be the framer of the new Vagrant Act, thou art immortal !-But we have not finished even yet. When he has been for the stated time in the house of correction, which the Act of Parliament declares is unable to correct him, the incorrigible rogue is again turned loose upon society, with all his incorrigibleness upon his head. Was there ever such a mass of blunders, incongruity, and nonsense? And this is part of a law enacted by the imperial · legislature of Great Britain in the year of our lord, eighteen hundred and twenty-two! And we are yet doubting whether the new Vagrant Act ought to be repealed. Et dubitamus adhuc ! But the spirit of this Act is so obnoxious, so contrary to the general tenour of English law, that we need pay little attention to the letter. It is impossible to shut our eyes to the inquisitorial examination, the arbitrary interference, which it allows. All persons are brought within its penalties "who threaten to run away" (what can be here meant by "threatening to run away!")" and leave their wives and children chargeable to any parish, township, or place:"-" all petty chapmen and pedlars, wandering abroad, not being duly licensed, or otherwise authorized by law"-" all persons, wandering abroad, and lodging in ale-houses, &c. and not giving a good account of themselves," as if there was any crime, or probable suspicion of crime, in "wandering abroad, and lodging in an ale-house"-" all persons who shall frequent any river, canal, or navigable stream, dock, or basin, &c. or any place of public resort with intent to commit felony." How is this intention to be proved? Why, the onus of proof is always laid upon the supposed culprit. He must give an account of himself, which the magistrate deems satisfactory, or he must be committed to prison, and hard labour :-he is to be punished, not for the offence, which he has committed, but for the offence, which the justice of peace, on looking in his face, and hearing his story, thinks him likely to commit! Thirdly, we are here naturally carried by our train of thought to the exorbitant and enormous power, which is conferred upon the magistrate. Any justice of the peace may send to the house of correction and hard labour the person whom he chooses to adjudge a rogue, or vagabond, or incorrigible rogue ;-with whose account of himself, in short, he happens to be dissatisfied-in some cases for one month, in some |