Star. — London, England, 1818-03-11 00:00:00

~1;: of the public, existed, so far as the Brewers and that it was owing to the great in the metropolis that the price of Porter • kept NO 1()%V. He knew nothing of Mr. but he had fl•It himself bound to prove :he c harges he had brought forward were un -1!r. DICKENSON said, that much inconvenience r. 1.1 occur if certain private Bills before the House ...ot passed this evening, while the Lords were .ir s . Ile thirefore would move, that the debate on i'etition should he adjourned till to-morrow. \h. NV. SMITH was inclined 'to differ altogether ^!11 Cr' lionnralile Gentleman (Mr. Barclay), but ,co.-rt,,tl to the proposed adjournment of the ay. He sviihed the Petition to be referred to a u,ulL V LILT bowed to the wish of the House r pi.,,d adjournment. In his life he had veer iriii ' mtations more fake than were con ox,; this Petition. He hoped a Committee h ; :irpointtd to inquire into the merits of the , ie . tr) him appeared necessary, for the satis ic:ilr. of h^ Public, and for the public peace. Debate was then adjourned till to-morrow. REFORM. FRANCIS PURDETT said he had some Pe 'resent from Warrington for Annual Par ,7.ents and Universal Suffrage. The Attorney tt!,ass' :he last night had stated, that those who de- Annual Parliaments and Universal Suffrage ,::sign to overturn the Constitution. If these nS were conspirators, they had conspired in the d l y. It had been proved to demonstration, :Pati;nnients had for a long period of our histoof' , r, 'old once a year or oftener; there were new , aad lists of new names, for every Session— nmes two, sometimes three, and in a few in ices four Sessions within the year, for each of ich there sins a new election. The Statute, that a rli.tment slould be holden once a year or oftener, plied that a new election should take place every %4-1: and wl,en the nature of Parliamentary busi , wa , cuns id e red, that they could not then be cor ?:ed cr bribed, according to the fancy of the Crown, wa, r.itic:,al to suppose that the Members would 'icrrisse.l ai flon as the business for which they sent was done. Members did not then expect id or in.lke their fortunes in Parliament ; it was isk, to protect them Aiament was erected, tormed one duty for their anxious immediately to difficult to prove that though from the lan and from a variety of probable that some age exited. He should Ad Coronation Oath— according to the laws • pas vulgus elegeru." ing of the word vulgus, or historical records, indeed, that word had that when applied to could only be under ifrage. But this construe : when we considered the magnates, basorses, libsri Fat mach :ould not be perverted of universal suffrage. s doctrine could not tgant, or so contrary saints, as a Learned ght proper to describe to say upon this occa it any length into the, iversal suffrage, butt tinst the repetition of him to say so much, which had of late pre is of the people, not iuse. cred to lie on the table. 'olverhamptealagainst :0 lie on the table. up a lteport from the which was ordered ight Hon. Gentleman Thursday, for leave to Poor Laws. VSPENSION ACT. resent a Petition from in the neighbourhood Gentleman observed, the facts, he could not rents contained in the I had been said of the ught it proper to °b ut:re true, the parties to be redressed; while, uiers themselves were ever, any minor point .0 be unfounded or ex eason fur rejecting the substantially true. But ierits of those Petitions, he discussion to which ; for it was impossible inititute some inquiry Mary acts of injustice ior.: detailed. Revert held in his hand, the is disacquaintance with he felt it his duty to submitted to him, pro- 1 terms. This Petition the Petitioner was en ag a representation of >equer.ce of the want of 3 VIE - V 7 he met ly other n-dt.r to conclude upon ve it forwarded to the :y, who was the person ,tiat.d were in the habit x weavers had scarcely :or-Fiscal, Mr. Salmon, ipanied by constables, of them for papers.— but yet the Petitioner imitted to prison. Pe al hours in a dark cell, red to another cell in Here he was furnished mt blankets, which for- med his only covering. For four days he had no other food than could be furnished by his wife, who, with several children, were nearly starving before his committal. From this place Petitioner was taken se• veral times to be examined by Mr. Salmon and the Sheriff' Substitute, upon which examination Mr. Sal mon said, that which he (Mr. Brougham) observed, served to illustrate the probability of what was attri buted to this Salmon in the case of Campbell, namely, that if Petitioner denied what was imputed to him,' he would be hanged, as there was plenty of evidence to prove it. Petitioner still protested against the im putation, and demanded trial ; but this was refused, and Petitioner was still detained in close custody, being allowed to see his family for only five minutes at a rim?. Petitioner was at length, in consequence of the rigour of his confinement, afflicted with a dropsy, and his medical attendant:pronounced, that unless he was speedily liberated the disease would be fatal. Yet his liberation was refused unless such bail was procured as his prosecutors demanded.— This bail, however, some charitable persons were good enough to grant, and petitioner was liberated after an imprisonment of eleven weeks. Upon his liberation, petitioner being in the greatest distress, ap plied to a Magistrate for relief, but this the Magis trate loyally refused him any, because, truly, he had been a State prisoner, during which he had had the misfortune to lose two children. So that it appeared any man who had been a State prisoner, was to go forth into society with a stigma upon his character. Thus the tyranny of those by whom such a prisoner was unjustly imprisoned, was to operate not only daring his imprisonment but throughout his life. The ,petitioner concluded his statement with a prayer that the House would take his case into consideration— that at least no measure would be ado pted to prevent the petitioner from obtaining legal re dress. On the motion that the Petition should lie on the table, Mr. FINLAY rose and observed, that having had no opportunity to inquire, he could not speak to the entire character of this Petition. But he could state, from the confessions of those who assembled for the professed purpose of petitioning the Sheriff-substitute for relief, that they had another and a criminal ob ject really in view..—He could also state, that the re ports which had gone abroad with respect to the jailor of the prison alluded to, were quite incredible from the general character of that individual, as well as from the system for conducting the prison. Then as to the Magistrates of Glasgow and its vicinity, he never could believe that any one of them, all of whom he had the honour to know, could have uttered such an expression as that stated by the Petitioner. Sir FRANCIS BURDETT 'said, that he never heard such a decisive declaration upon the merits of a case from any Gentleman confessing that he had never inquired with respect to that case, as that of the Honourable Gentleman who had just sat down. The Hon. Gentleman was willing to acquit Gaolers and Magistrates upon presumption and by wholesale. To justify that acquittal, however, he hoped the Ho nourable Gentleman would not only inquire himself, but allow others to inquire also, and that the Hon. Gentleman himself would vote for a motion in that House to inquire into this, as well as into the other Petitions upon the table. Mr. BROUGHAM animadverted upon the ob servation of lir. Pithy, which-he thought nth& inconsistent with his Honourable Friends candour and good settee. The Petition was received, ordered to lie on the table, and to be printed • as was a Petition to the same effect from John Sheith, a cotton-spinner of Glasgow. Mr: BROUGHAM presented also a Petition from William Edgar, a schoolmaster of Glasgow, who was tried three times for the same offence and ac quitted. Yet the Petitioner was condemned to soli tary imprisonment for twenty weeks, and was hand cuffed and treated likie felon' when brought forth occasionally to submit to examinations and answer interrogatories upon charges which appeared to have been fabricated only by his persecutors. Mr. BOSWELL said that he did not rise to oppose the Petition being laid on the table, but to observe that the acts alluded to in this as well as in the two former Petitions, were not done it appeared under the Suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act, but ac cording to the ordinary course of law. Therefore if the Indemnity Bill were passed, the parties com plaining would not be precluded from redress for such acts, if the complaints were well founded. Mr. BROUGHAM observed, that the justice of the remark which he made last night, namely. that some Gentlemen were cheering the measure alluded to by the Honourable Gentleman, without being aware of the character and object of that measure, was fully illustrated by the observation which the House had just heard from that Honourable Gentle man. For the Honourable Gentleman professed to think that the Indemnity Bill did not propose to screen from any action at law such acts of oppresssitis . as the petitioners complained of, because such acts did not take place under the Suspension of the Habeas Cor pus ; whereas this Bill extended to all acts done with a view to what was called the preservation of the public peace, or the suppression of conspiracy, since the 26th of January, 1817. Therefore the Honour able Gentleman misunderstood this Bill, and upon that misunderstanding he should expect his vote against it in future. Mr. BOSW ELL said, that he did not support the Bill alluded to upon such specific grounds. He cer tainly was not aware that this Bill extended to the cases stated by the Petitioners ; but persuaded of the loyal zeal of the persons complained of by the peti tioners, he was glad to find that the Bill proceeded to such an extent as the Honourable Gentleman had stated, and he should the more readily vote for its adoption.—The Petition was ordered to lie upon the table and to be printed. . I ,sign to overturn the Cor ns were conspirators, they h dst. It had been proved , • Paii;anients had for a long r r held once a year or often aad lists of new names, avames two, sometimes three ces four Sessions within the Rich there was a new election. 'aliament should be holden once .plied that a new election ghoul scion: and when the nature of I is was considered, that they cou pled or bribed, according to the sea; vatic:Jai to suppose that t: . dismissed ai ,00n as the basin :re sent was done. Members c mend or in.lke their fortunes in duty a:ld a personal iis T v.-Inch the privilege of Part .Lars soon as they had performe ,:i!acnts. they were not anti It would be more di -:y.rat Suffrage prevailed; the in all ancient writings, all documents, it was I It: veto like universal suffrage yante the words of the old • r.•: King should govern aci people may choose—" leges 5 apprehended that the meanin ; ' aced in our law books or nut be mistaken—that, bid ;.:rrive signification, and ti ri, , ,ht of popular election it ci C to imply universal suffrage mold not be questioned whe ,:i;,ttion of the words magnate e: consmusitates tottssi revs err Parliamentary records cou ay other meaning than that la argued therefore, that this teemed so novel, so extravag, r.:7 -ancient constitutional ha eina:, had last night though Thus much he felt it right to without meaning to enter at tc of the principle of univ a view only to protest agair . remark; as had induced If • to deprecate the practice wt ;n answering the petitions fsc: argument, but by alit' ^e' , everal Petitions were order A Pe...ion presented from Wrol Leather Tar, was ordered to M 7. S. BOURNE brought tal ...rint , ee upon the Poor Laws, he on the table, and the Rigl re of a motion for itz, in a till to amend the Pa tRVEITY UNDER TILE SI7SI Mr.Bitot GIIAM rose to pm es Robertson, a weaver, in Glasgow. The Learned G at having no knowledge of the fur the statemei atiu. But, as a ..,reat deal 1 tion, no t h e Table, he thotv, • e, that if these r "..plaiting ought obvinusly to Ley were false, the Petition f .wing of censure. If, hove' Petition should appear to erated, that would L no re t don altogether, if it were st 'odd not enter into the met t e would not anticipate the Petitions must give birth ; ▪ , the House could refuse to is • .te , pect to such caraordir, epprevion as those Petitior . t, the Pe . .ition which he h "tad Wrnber repeated his a ease; but observed, that hi tt! - .is, or any Petition su • " 4 r: 'as couched in correct °J,that FeLruary, ISI 7, , c; with others in preparini .xtremo di - trev., in co- e , • men.., ni d that with this :fit ... , .:c.-house, in or at :*- t.. and to hay( cf the county n . ed men in &JAI tr `7. 2 r r6ef. But these be I,!'on the P rocurator it . 'id • :!le room, accomp Ks "c .I t:, er a s ch each of , were found, bt ! re • were cnrrin pct .I;lned for cevc: at ep Pe stns trarisfcrrt )n- r. a, some light. Fl he e ac• two slip LIVERPOOL PETITION. Mr. BROUGHAM presented a Petition against the Indemnity Bill from the Merchants of Liverpool, who had applied in vain to the Mayor of that town to convene a public meetir.g upon the subject. This Petition he stated to be signed by several of the most respectable Merchants of Liverpool, and he would refer their names to the Members for that town for the confirmation of that statement. General GASCOYNE said, that he did not mean to question the statement of the Honourable Member, as to the respectability of those by whom it, was sub mitted, which indeed he could not undertake to do, as he had seen the driatures to the Petition, bat he would venture to say that the sentiments of the Pe titioners were in opposition to those of a great majo , rity of the merchants and inhabitants of Liverpool. Nlr. BIRCH bore testimony to the respec tability of the character of those who h signe d Peti tion, alleging that they comprehended the greatest part of the mostrespectable merchants of that town. In reply to a question from General Onscolows, Mt', BIRCH repeated his declaration as to the supe rior commercial consequence of thcse by whom the Petition was signed. The Petition was ordered to lie on the table. SALT DUTICS. Mr. CALCRAFT said, that understanding there ' was no intention to oppose the motion of which he had given notice upon this subject, he should merely move for the appointment of a Committee, for the purpose of considering the Salt Ddties, and the best means of providing a remedy for the inconvenience resulting t Mr. CCRWEN congratulated the House and the country upon the benefits likely to result from the appointment of this Committee. Messrs. Eclearox and DAVENPORT concurred in the sentiments of the last speaker, and expressed their thanks to the Chancellor of the Exchequer for con ceding to the motion. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER ex pressed his acquiescence in the motion, while he telt the importance of the large proportion of revenue to which the object of that motion referred. Mr. CALCRAFT said, that while it was proposed by this motion to interfere with such an amount of an nual revenue as one million and a half, it would be absurd to suppose, that in the present circumstances of the country especially, such a revenue could be done away without providing some substitute--(hear, hear, from Lord Cartkreagh and the Chancellor cy:the Exchequer.)—But those points would be taken, into the consideration of the proposed Committee. The Committee was appointed. The several Pe titions presented with regard to the Sale Tax, the Re port of the Committee upon the Salt Duties, in 1801, and the- Pam: laid on the Table respecting the Salt Tax, last Session, were, together with the Report of the Committee of last Session, upon Rock Salt, re ferred thereto. Mr. CAMPBELL moved for leave t 9 bring in a Bill to repeal so much of the Election Laws as related to the Land Tax Assessment—Granted. INDEMNITIC SILL. The ATMRNEY-GENERAL moved the Order of the Day for the second reading of the Indem nity Bill. Mr. LAMBTON suggested the propriety of pro ceeding with the other Orders of the Day that were yet undisposed of ; they would not take up much time ; and after what passed last night, many,Mem bers did not expect that the Indemnity Bill, if pro ceeded in, would be brought on so early. Sir W. BURROUGHS said, that if the House would calmly consider the provisions of the proposed Bill, it would feel it impossible to proceed thus hastily, or indeed without obtaining most necessary information. The Bill comprehended three new heads, on which inquiry was absolutely essential, and on which the Reports of the Secret Committees were *holly silent, although the present Bill was supposed $ emanate From their recommendation. These were, the seiztire of arms by entering the houses of the King's subjects, the seizure of papers, and the seizure of persons found in tumultuous assemblies. A Bill demanding indemnity for proceedings of that charac ter, took the House by surprise. No man, from read ing the Reports of the Secret Committees, could have been led to expect such provisions of indemnification. They were to include, not alone Magistrates and con stables, but private persons who might have entered the houses ipf•people without proper authority.- -This was an abuse of power not contemplated in any precious discussion of the measure. He put it, therefore, to the candour of the Noble Lord (Castle reagh) to say, whether it was not due to the House to obtain information before it was called upon to pass provisions of that extraordinary character ? No injury could arise to any party from the delay, as the Bill of Indemnity had a re:rospective operation, and as no legal process could be acted upon during the existing vacation before the next Term. Lord CASTLEREAGH observed, that the argu ments of the Honourable and Learned Gentleman, though applicable to the Bill in Committee, did not bear upon the principle of the mew-tire on the second reading. Mr.'FIERNEY said it was impossible to discuss the principle of a Bill, the one half of whose provi sions had reference to transactions, of which the House had not the slightest knowledge. But the truth was, his Honourable and Learned Friend and the Noble Lord could not agree, for die best of all reasons, that they sought different objects. The Noble Lord wanted to have the Bill passed, without the information—while his Honourable and Learned Friend wished to have the information before the Bill was passed. The observations of his Honourable and Learned Friend were both unanswerable and unan swered. Were not Ministers bound to shew that these searching of houses and arbitrary seizure of papers were justified by necessity ? If they did not, he had a right to believe, and he did believe, that they were capriciously, maliciously, and improperly exercised. Sir C. MONCK said, that if any proposition had been made to Parliament to legalize the searching of houses for arms, it would have been received with considerable distrust. It was a constitutional duty with every Englishman to keep arms in his house in defence of his property and family. The man who did not keep them was deficient in his public duty. Let the House then consider the time in which these searches took place. Why, the very troublesome period in which men should have arms in their pos-- session. It was with astonishment he read these pro- visions of indemnification, when he first received the Bill. The house of a British subject could not be entered without a warrant. nor a door forced but at the suit of the King: The House should pause before it passed a law of this extent, without the information on which alone a judgment could be formed. If it acted otherwise—there was no necessity for further delay—it would be more consistent at once to get rid of the discussion—it could not be considered a real Parliamentary proceeding, but a mere mockery. Mr. BATHURST contended that the objections Were premature. When the Bill was in Committee, it was open for the liottse to discuss theground; on which the provisions in the Bill thut alluded to weft ,founded. The Order of the Day for the second reading of Ithe Indemnity Bill being read, Mr. GRENFELL expressed his anxiety not to give a silent vote on the question. He had twice last Ses sion voted for the Suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act, in the fullest reliance on the statements com municated in the Reports of the Committees of both Houses of Parlltament, and to which Reports were 1 1 appended the names of a Noble Lord (Milton), not then in his place, the late Mr. Ponsonby, and other constitutional authorities. When to these Reports hb - added the state of the country, and particularly the metropolis—the distresses of the manufacturers and labourers in the year 1816—the manner in whichthe House was assailed last Session with petitions, at once a compound of folly and mischief, and which, under the colourable pretext of Reform looked to revolution, he could not regret the vote he had given. Under the influence of that feeling of justice, which, similarly circumstanced, he would himself expect, l.e could not withhold his assent from the indemnity. Lord LASCELLES defended the character of Mr. Stavely, the jailor of York, from the imputations cast upon him, in the Petition of Mr. Lee, who had been there imprisoned, under the Suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act. The Noble Lord read the copy of a letter from the jailor to Lord Sidmouth, in which he stated that Mr. Lee had trequendy ex pressed his gratitude for the treatment he received to prison, and his contrition for the offences that led to his imprisonment. The Noble Lord also produced the affidavit of a fellow prisoner of Lee's, named. Carter, that contradicted the allegation in the Petition, which stated, that Lee was obliged to remove from his cell the congealed blood of an unfortunate man of the name of Reilly, who had cut his throat during the time he was imprisoned under the Suspension Act. It was true that he had been confined for five days with a felon, who was afterwards executed, but he was removed as soon as he could be accommodated elsewhere. With regard to the case of Riley, and the assertion that his death had proceeded from ill ness caused by his confinement, it was here stated, that Riley was deranged before fie was confined. He thought it necessary to call the attention of the House to these facts, not for the purpose of caitiog blame on those gentlemen who presented such petitions, but merely in justice to the character of the jailer, who had meritoriously discharged the duties of his office for a period of twenty-six years. Sir FRANCIS BURDETT observed, that he did not intend to enter into a detailed discussion at pre sent on the Indemnity Bill, particularly as it was his intention to deliver his opinion on it after it came out of the Committee, ou the third reading. He was anxious to offer an observation on the statement just made by the Noble Lord : he did not mean to imply, that the person of whom the Noble Lurd spoke did not deserve the character, at the same time that he could not help adverting to the singular knit! of phraseology with which he introduced the office of a jailor ; as if, indeed, he was speaking of the Vice- Chancellor of the University of • Oxford. Nothing could be more unsatisfactory to the country than the custom of producing in that House, letters from jailors to answer grave charges of oppression, brought by men who suffered, against them. To such state ments, or even to the depositions of prisoners who were under their controul or courted their favour, lie oould pay no attention. What he himself witnessed in the investigation at Cold-bath-fields had convinced him that no dependence whatever should be placed on these very partial representations. The House should not entertain them—(Cries 9f hcar, hear.)-- If they wished to enquire into the truth or falsehood, they should have the question fully before them in a regular Parliamentary shape. Having said thus much on the Noble Lord's statement, he could not sit down without expressing his surprise at the reason given by an Honourable Member near him (Mr. Grenfell) for his assent to the present Bill. That 110. nourable Gentleman was induced, he said, to vote fur the suspension of the I labeas Corpus Act on the au, thority of the I:tte Mr. Ponsonby. This was at least irreconcilable, because Mr. Ponsnn'iy voted against the suspension. But then the country was in a state of distress, and that was another reason. So that because you could not give the starving people bread, you were justified in taking away the pent nal pro tection of every man in the kingdom—(hear, hear). — Another Honourable Member (Colonel Stanhope) had attributed the necessity of the Act of Suspen sion to the writings of Mr. Cobbett. So powertelly had that Gentleman written on the question of Parliamentary Retinm, that s% ith all the talent the Government Ii id at its command—with all their Anti-Jacobin friends at their service—with a daily press, with few exceptions, hired to uphold the sys tern of corruption—they could xast get these efficient partizans to club their talents for the purpose of put ting down what they called " the two-penny trash of Mr. Cobbett," without having recourse to a-violation of the Constitution, by suspending the personal se curity of every man in the country. He certainly thought Mr. Cobbett a powerful writer, but he had never imagined that he possessed the degree of in fluence now attributed to him. The only conspiracy that he (Sir Francis) knew of, Vas the conspiracy of the Government against the rights of the people cf England. The only treason that Government feared was the treason of a Reform in the corruption of their own supporters—(kar, hear ).—lt was to uphold the corruptions of that House that upon miserable subterfuges and on scandalous pretences, the crimi 'lA suspension of the law Was last Session carried by that H.ouse—(hear, hear. hear;. Sir SAMUEL 110 MILLY, adverting to the pre sent state of the House, which fully proved that Ole debate was not expected so early, expressed his de termination, in the event of the other business which stood for to-morrow being put off, to state his reasons on this most important measure, by opposing the motion for the Speaker leaving the Chair to proceed into a Committee. Lord FOLKESTONE was ready to postpone his motion which stood for tc.nsorrow. He also wished to know whether the Noble Lord opposite wouid specifically accept the challenge he had giv , n as to the applicability of the precedents, to wliich the Noble Lord adverted on a frsrmer occaskn ? Lord CASTLEKEAGH thought t! , c mig'lt be discussed on any future stage of the Fl,l. _;b 'louse then divided on the question, flat Cnis dill 6e . : ' I • . On . i . " t . . ' I of 1 : ii .. ve es QS it 1 , tn- , i ith 1 )11 i t ' !re at /a , ' 4. I ier hb , • he .4. ; rid '! he 1 at . t r, .1 k: . , I :11, ' . ' to • , :h, • he . is 2 , • I of ms t. 1 ad , ~ le , l py in ex- . r red led 1 •,, s i • :ed. led. 1 1 —1 Of on, , OM . tan 1, i • I ing : I ~ t 1 let. • • i •ays he I I zed tad , d ill- ted, Ile I • , • use , i , , ime i • ' 4 ,ns, ler, . I his - • a did . me I / . ' - 1 ! I his i 1 line I was t 1 t .' just : 1 ply, I did 4 . i he iof . ' .. fa 1 .'t . i • '' ke- . l ' - ring . 1 1/j i the . 14 rom telt lls ' ate- 1 1. ! • who A: v 7, he ssed a iced • I iced / 1 • onse ' ood, : ' .i • ma 1, thus ,• 1 i f t. , l not ,i' t. t s It 7 . anon 1 • • V (Mr. A 4 6 110- .14 0 ' $ k e for . • 1 au, least 4 tie' t il State • that .A, j rad, ..': • • i pro- ).— j • t ; lope) i . 1 telly !!•:,1, 1,4 n of the ),...1 # ~1 their i l l( i ' i • laity al 1 .....y., 1, i+ • t ‘ C lent .I f 1 (1) i t ." 4 . tt l, put- I I:;, • 'ls sh of nion • • 4 l se- • linly • . I • 1 • I had I ' I ' fin- 1, t. racy• 7 o; e c , f ii :ared n of . • hold I - able imi- .• i 1.1 • i by' it 4 pre- . i 1 I t Ole s cle- I I 1 hidl I Beni i the , • . . need 4 t, .• e .•:s fished i t i ouid as to r . . the • lig'lt 4 ill lie .4