Star. — London, England, 1818-03-18 00:00:00

PARLIAMENTARY PROCEEDINGS. • HOUSE OF LORDS, MARCH 17. The Ropttlitent Commission to the Mutiny Bill, •the.Musittylket Bill, the Royal Marine Mutiny B 11, the Indemnity Bi , the est India Indemnity Bill, the Office Indemnity Bill, the Madder Duties Bill, and others, in all thirty-three. The Commissioners vrcv the Loan Cmaxentos, the Earl of Semereasear, and Lord Viscount Dlstvatx. A private Bill was brought up from the House of Commons, by Lord Laseguas and other Members, and mad a first time. The Bath Gas Light Bill was, on the motion of the Earl of ROSSLYN, read a second time, and ordered to be eonsnakted. The Marquis of BathsLANDOWN presented a Petition, nurrie. musty laved, from ; and comprising, his Lordship stated, the signatures of most of the respectable inhabitants in favour of the Bill, which was ordered to be referred to the Committee. His Lordship also presented a Petition from Malden, in favour of the Chimney Sweepers' Regulation BM, which was ordered to be referred to the Committee on that Bill. The Scots Aqua Vitz Licenses Bill was read a third time and passed. The Greenland Fishery Oaths Bill was read a second time, the commitment negatived, and the Bill ordered to be read a third time to-morrow.—Adjourned till to-morrow (this day). HOUSE OF COMMONS. The SPEAKER communicated to the House that the Royal Auent had been given to certain Bills (vide Lords). Sir JAMES SHAW presented a Petition from the Debtors confined in the New Prison in the City, prayin,g the extension of the same privileges as to the day-rules, as were now enjoyed by prisoners confined for debt in the King's Bench and Fleet. — Ordered to be referred to the Committee on Prisons. The Coal and Culm, and Irish Cork Duty Bills, were read a first time, and ordered for second reading to-morrow. The R eport on the Longitude and Northern Passage Disco very Bill was brought up.—Ordered to be read a third time to-morrow. Mr. LAMBTON presented a Petition from the Inhabitant of Newcastle-upon-Tyne, against Sinecures, Extravagant Pen sions, and in favour of Parliamentary Reform.—Ordered to lie lin the table. Mr. Alderman WOOD presented a Petition from Rochdale, fur a Reform in Parliament, and the Impeachment of his Majesty's Ministers.—Ordered to Ile on the table, and to be Sir FRANCIS BURDETT presented Petitions from certain It.habitants of St. Matthew's, Bethnal-green, Ashton-under- Line, and about 20 other places, in favour of Parliamentary Re.form.—Ordered to lie on the table. Sir ROBERT HERON presented Petitions from the Cur rier& of Lowth and Gainsborough against the Leather Tax. On the motion of Mr. Alderman ATKI NS, the House re solved into a Committee, to take into consideration the Petitions . against Mock Auctions, when certain resolutions were agreed to. The House resumed. Mr. LYTTLETON wished to know from the Noble Secre tary at War, whether the Order which had recently been issued relative to the Pensions of Officers' Widows, was put in force? Lord PALMERSTON.—The Order alluded to has not yet born circulated. It is nod under consideration. Mr. LYTTLETON then said, that on Thursday, the ect of April, he would submit to the House a motion relative to this Order, if it was not revoked before that time. Sir F. BURDETT gave notice, that soon after the holidays, he would move that the Petition of Scholes, Lately presented, should be referred to a Committee. VISITING MAGISTRATES. Lord FOLKESTONE observed, that pursuant to his notice, he rose to move for leave to bring in a Bill to remove certain doubts, supposed to exist, as to the right of Magistrates to visit County or Sheriffs Gaols, under the Act of the 31st of the present reign. Whether, it was thought by some, that such a power , should exist in the Magistracy—whether it was thought, by others, that such power should not exist, or whether it should exist in some cases, and not in others ; all, he should suppc se, would agree as to the' propriety of having the law on the subject clear and' explicit, and no longer capable of doubtful or forced interpretation. As the object of his motion was to settle the question, he could not expect any opposi tion. Certainly the Bill which he would feel it his duty to introduce, would give to the Magistracy of the County the right to visit common gaols. But if the Gentlemen opposite did not wish to afford that right, or to limit its exercise in certain cases, it would be open to them in the Committee to submit enact ments to those purposes. That doubts now existed on the subject was undeniable, and his great object was to put an end to them. The House had in its recollection, that during the last Session, he had submitted a Motion to its consideration, relative to the refusal given to the .Magistrates of Bet kshire, who wished to visit the Sheriff's gaol. .That motion having been refused, he had preferred an indictment against the Gaoler of Reading. The verdict of a July had since acquitted him—(hear, hear.)—With respect to that verdict, having himself attended most minutely to the trial, he must say, that if the charge of the Judge who presided, did not actually direct, it bore so strong to the one side as to lead to that verdict—Vicar, hear.) —He felt that he would not have done his duty, if he had not complained of what fully and solemnly struck him as the partiality of the Judge, not a personal partiality, but a marked partiality to one side of the question—(hear, hear.). Ills impression of his conduct, he felt at the time— he felt the stronger the more he considered it, as be ing demonstrated in the whole of the summing up. Though it was a question, on each side of which, it appeared to him, a great deal might be advanced— though it was a subject the most removed from any very decisive opinion, yet it was remarkable, that the Learned Judge who tried it, who confessedly had turned his attention to it, had consulted autho rities, yet could not find any one argument, but, what bore on the one side. That he verily believed, that on any question where the Government was the one party, and himself the other, that he should not stand a chance of a verdict—.(Hear, hear.) —The Noble Lord proceeded to read the preamble and the enacting clauses of the Act of the 31st of the pre sent Reign, and contended, that although a great proportion of the clauses referred to the regulations of Houses of Correction and Penitentiaries, yet some of the clauses especially adverted to the regulation of common prisons. There was one, for instance, to regulate the fees of the gaolers of Sheriff's prisons.- 4Zhere was another on the question, which ordered thbgaoler of common or Sheriff's prisons to make certain returns to the Court of Assize of the state of tl.e prison, which said returns were to be signed 11 one of the visiting Magistrates—(hear, hear.)—But this Act of. the 31st did not apply to common or Sheriff's gaols, why did the Legislature pass it? If these prisons were excluded, the Act was wholly un necessary. By the 24th of George the Third, Houses of Correction and other prisons of that character, were open to the Visiting Magistrates—so that as ap plicable to them, it was not wanting—(hear, hear.) The Noble Lord adverted to the proceedings at the trial at Reading, and of the appearance of the Lieu tenant of the Tower, with his portmantua stuffed with warrants, for the sole purpose of establishing the interpretation to be put on the terms, safe and close custody—(hear, hear.)—lle (Lord Folkestone) denied the propriety of the interpretation that had been put on these words, and instanced an Opinion of Ind Chief-Jusice Co ke to the contrary. In the common acceptation of the English language, the word close, did not bear the mean in g of- solitary— (hear, hear, hear.) —From the year 1791, when per sons awe imprisoned under the Suspen sion of the Habeas Corpus, down to 1801— no interpreta tion was put upon it. The Visiting Magistrates had always access, and indeed under the recent Suspen sion m various other counties, no such obstruction' as was given to the Berkshire Magistrates, took plat.. ( Hear, hear.)—But even if the usage had antiently been different, as was endeavoured to be established by the production of the warrants, at the trial, the Statute of the 6th of William the Third, which afforded access to the Counsel of prisoners detained on charges of Treason, violated it. The Act of the 31st, the one now under consideration, violated that usage still further, by extending the power of access to the Visiting Magistrates--( hear, hear.)—The House would feel that this Act was one of a series of Laws introduced at a time when the attention of Parliament was more directed, than it was hereto fore, to the correction of abuses in prisons. Should it now deprive the Magistrates of the County of the right of inspection over gaols, they would become nurseries of crime and abuse--(Hear, hear.)—He concluded with moving for leave to bring in a Bill, to explain certain doubts as to the Statute of the 31st of the King. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL expressed the asto nishment which he had felt at hearing the Noble Lord in the f!ouse of Commons accuse, in plain terms, the Learned Judge who had tried the cause in question, of partiality. It was impossible that any man, exeicising the functions of that high office in the State, could have a more serious charge brought against him, for it implied every thing that was base and unworthy. If an individual who had sworn to administer the law with strict impartiality lent him self to any purpose, political or otherwise, he did that which ought to subject him to universal repro bation. Although he (the Attorney-General) was not present at the trial, he had the most accurate in formation of all that had passed—of the patient and laborious attention, without any interruption on the part of the Judge, to the learned and inge nious, though fallacious statement of the Noble Lord's Counsel, and to the evidence in every point of the Noble Lord himself, (in which evidence there were certainly very extraordinary parts, although he had not the slightest idea of insinuating that they were not founded in truth), as well as the patient and laborious attention which he gave to the state ment on the part of the defendant. And this last he supposed the Noble Lord would not deny, that the Learned Judge was bound more especially to do, when a man was charged with a crime (whether by the Noble Lord or any one else) who had (he spoke it parenthetically) been punished already on exparl,e evidence, by the Magistrates of the county in which he was faithfully discharging the duties of his sta tion. If ever there was an individual entitled to call on a Learned Judge for protection from the preju dices excited against him, that was assuredly the man. When, therefore, the Noble Lord vented a charge of partiality against a Learned Judge, let him not be quite sure that he hirhself, at two suc cessive Quarter Sessions, did not exhibit great bias, partiality and prejudice; more especially when he and the other Magistrates voted this person guilty before he was tried—a person placed most un doubtedly in a situation of the greatest embarrass ment and difficulty, having the whole—no-, that would be an unjust accusation against the Magis-' tracy of Berkshire, but a large portion of the Magis trates of that county pressing him on one side, and the orders of the Sheriffs and the directions of the Se cretary of State pressing him on the other—a person too (he was sure there was no one who could con tradict the assertion), who, from the first moment of Ibis appointment to the situation which he held, and during the whole of his previous life, had borne the highest character, and who, in the exercise of the functions of his office, had never been exceeded by any of his predecessors in his claims to the approba tion of his superiors, to the respect of his equals, and to the gratitude of the unfortunate individuals who. were committed to his custody. So far, however, was the Learned Judge from having manifested any partiality towards the defendant in this case, that if he (the Attorney-General) might presume to furl any fault with his conduct, it was, that he had not stated the law quite so strongly against the prosecu tion, as, in his humble judgment, would have been warranted. The House would suppose, from the statement of the Noble Lord, that the question was, whether or not the Magistrates (visiting or other) had the right of entering the jail of Reading for the purpose of visiting it? No such thing ;—The Noble Lord himself had vis i ted it ; and was told he might visit it again. That, however, he himself said, was not his object. His object was to see if he had a right to hold communication with the State Priso ners confined there. Although he (the Attorney- General) admitted, that the Statute of the 31st of , the King was in some respects strongly constructed, yet, in his humble opinion, there was not the slightest doubt, that the clause in question had nothing like the meaning attached to it by the Noble Lord; nor was such a construction ever put upon it until the Noble Lord's time. If, indeed, it was actually liable I to such a construction, instead of opposing the Noble Lord's motion, he should feel it his duty to move for leave to bring in a Bill to 'repeal the Act. What! was it possible to suppose, that this or any other Statute gave to any and all the Magistrates the right of entering the King's jails, and holding communi cation when and how they pleased with the priso ners confined in those jails on charges of High Treason ! That all these common jails were the King's, for the benefit of the State, was established, or rather recognised (for the establishment was too remote to be traced) by the earliest statutes. The Sheriffs having been for a time dispossessed of their ward of these jails, the statute of Edward 111. re stored things to their ancient footing. In the reign of Henry VII. there was another statute of a similar description, in *hid' those jails were expressly termed " King's Jails." What evils might not result from admitting the interpretation given by the Noble Lord, to the statute of the 31st of the King ? There had been, and there might again be, times of treason and rebellion, in u - hicji, on the question of a disputed succession, or on other topics, there might be a very divided opinion among the better orders of the com munity. What would be the consequence if the whole safety of the means which the law had pro vided for the custody of persons accused of High Treason, were in such times to be beaten down, because by the existing statute the Magistrates had the power to visit the jails, in order to see that they were in good repair and well conducted, and nothing further, and by no means to bold such communications as those to which the Noble Lord imagined they were entitled ? The ancient warrants for commitment to gaols, in the difference of terms which they exhibited, proved the distinction between persons imprisoned for other crimes, and persons imprisoned for High Treason. In the one they were ordered to be kept safe, in the other to be kept close. Even in modern times, so lately as 1794 or 1796 (he did not remem ber which) a person was committed by the Court of King's Bench on a charge of High Treason and other offences, and the warrant directed that he should be kept safe and close as to the treason with which he was charged ; and as to the other matters with which he was charged, that he should be kept safe. The object of this close confinement was to cut off that communication with others which might promote the purposes of a conspiracy detrimental to - the State. He (the Attorney-General) humbly contended—nay, he confidently contended, that the Learned Judge was perfectly right in • his construction of the law. Were he not so, he repeated that the Statute ought to be repealed. He had the highest respect for the Magistracy of the country. He was perfectly aware of the importance of their duties, and of the exem plary manner in which those duties were generally discharged ; but to say that because a man happened to be in the Commission of the Peace, he had there ' fore a right to do that which would be destructive of the rerogative of the Crown, and dangerous to the safety of the State, was to advance a proposition' which never ought to be, and he was persuaded never would be, listened to by Parliament. The Noble Lord said, that previous to the Statute of the 31st of the King, there were Statutes empowering the Ma gistrates to go to the Jails. Yes, but for what pur pose ? One Statute gave the Magistrates the power of whitewashing the Jails once a year. Another gave them the power of repairing them, &c. But could any man contend that such Statutes as these vested in the Magistrates the power of destroying the pre rogative possessed by the Crown, of keeping priso ners charged with high treason in the way specified in the warrants for their apprehension? He objected to the Bill proposed by the Noble Lord on two grounds. If it was meant to say that there were any doubts as to the rights of the Magistrates to visit the Jails for the limited purposes he bad described, he denied that there was the slightest foundation for those doubts ; and in that point of view, therefore, the Bill was unnecessary. If it was intended to carry the measure a jot further, and say that the Magis trates should be allowed to do what the Noble Lord tried to do, he contended that the Bill would be most detrimental. He wished to call to the Noble Lord's recollection, that"the unfortunate defendant in the cause, about which so much had been said (for un fortunate he must call him, standing in the predica ment in which he had been placed), had told the Noble Lord, that if he would converse with the pri soners in his presence, he would not refuse to allow bim to do so. On this, however, the Noble Lord himself called to that person's recollection the orders he had received, not to admit the Magistrates gene rally ; and he then receded from his offer. Why did he state this ? To spew that the Noble Lord's ob , ject (it might be a meritorious one in is ow opi ' nion) was not to exercise the power wh ich was actu ally vested in the Magistrates by the Statute of visit- ineg the Jails, for the purposes therein distinctly sire-, ciged ; but to assert the right of the Magistrates to destroy the prerogative of the Crown to keep in safe custody persons charged with high treason—to assert the right of the Magistrates to access, intercourse, and communication with persons so committed to safe custody : a construction of the Statute of which, until the Noble Lord fancied that it bore it, no one had ever thought it capable, or at least had ever ac ted as if he thought so. On these grounds he felt it his duty to give his decided vote against the motion. Mr. STURGES BOURNE, after the able speech of the Honourable and Learned Gentleman, would not argue the law of the case ; but would confine himself to the statement of a few facts. The Noble Lord had told the House that he went to the jail at Reading with a view to gain admission to the state prisoners confined there, and that having been re fused admission, he indicted the jailer in conse quence. But the Noble Lord had not told the House another circumstance, which, if true, was a most im portant feature in the case. And here he would ob-, serve, that that evening was the first time since he had sat in that House that he had heard an attack on a Learned Judge, not in the shape of a charge which that Learned Judge could answer, but in a speech which he could not answer, of the most serious description, imputing to that Learned Judge direct and gross partiality, nay, farther, declaring that if lie had a cause in which Government were the other party, he was convinced that, whatever might be the merits of the case, the verdict would be given against him. Now when such an accusation as this was preferred against an individual filling so high an office in the State, it was worth while to inquire whether or rot the accuser himself stood on fair grounds. The Noble Lord had not stated what he (Mr. S. Bourne) under stood had occurred, although he could not believe it—namely, that at the Quarter Sessions fur Berk shire the Noble Lord persuaded the majority of the Magistrates to punish a man first by turning him out of the office which he held, and then to bring a prosecution against him. Nor was that all. Ile lied been told, that the Noble Lord and his associates were not content with the usual publication o the Resolutions of the Quarter Sessions, with the names of the Magistrates passing them ; but, while the trlal of the individual in question was pending, caused the insertion of the Resolutions of the Magisxates of Berkshire, pronouncing him . guilty of the charge on which he was about to be t ried, in the County News paper. Nor was that all. He had been told, that to those Resolutions were attached, not only the names of seventeen Magistrates who voted for them, but the names of thirteen other Magistrates who voted against them : and this he repeated, pending the trial of the person charged. He hoped that the Noble Lord would say that he had been raibiaformed, I f E I On t solved 1 • •Pinst The I - Mr. tary at relative Lon born ci Mr. April, Order, Sir he wol should Lo • his ni i I I Bill t II ' 1 to th' Gaol 1 1 , . Whe shout thoul Or VIJ ! other prop ; expli inter settle tion. duty the 1 the I right be o men on ti was • reco • subr the who havi ag.ti I i Jut; recp min of tl, it b , ver4 I, 1 hay levb of t par rhi .. . he I ing /\ , The aPi ''. i.. tho ver the lea( riti wh i I tha OM I ' sta I N I° en. en. i set prl Of 1 ' 1 of f I of rel `:i , I tb ' cc th i !I S 0:: th I th r... 1 of I l l VI I pl ~ , , t 11 i I , tri i 1 tel ' i th i ,•., 1 - •,.,.. ~.•. 1 .. ~• . P 4- and that all this sc-as not so; for, he must; complete an instance of partial and pr t i u , ceeding no man ought to believe, unk o , stated in that House, and not contradicted. ever, it should turn out, that such Lad act the case ; if the Noble Lord had really b eta to the acts which he had described ; the ' might make what speeches he pleased in o the subject of liberty, his conduct complete answer to th.•:•.n all, Sir FRANCIS BURDETT was not well with the merits of the case, but wished t words on the question. As to what had the Honourable Gentleman who had ji vented so freely on his Noble Friend, he h that when his Noble Friend came to rep' answer the Honotirable Gentleman's stat• satisfactorily : for he was so confident of t fair dealing, and good sense of his Noble although comparatively ignorant of the persuaded that he would entirely C 7 ,1 from the Honourable Gentkmah's Honourable Gentleman said, that the punished, as he termed it, before triaL (Sir F. Burdett) could collect the r.atun it was this :—The Magistrates of the u. dering the jailer their servant with resp ticular part of the jail, and he having (y perhaps—that was not the point) di:ohel structions, they, not with a vindictive ft try the question, suspended him from t.'; office which related to the Penitentiary, stilt of the trial should ascertain the stare He did not apprehend that by this pp jailer had experienced much inconveri proceedings did not appear to origin.. . ing of hostility or animosity. The cue was, whether or not Magistrates had the every part of these jails? With respe,t rants for keeping prisoners in safe and c it was to be observed, that according tice of the country, and the opinion of greatest lawyers, the common law con thing custody that ever so slightly infn berry of the subject, even when the Pisa fided to the care of his friend , ,. But wh; sent day was con.idere,l close castody, confinement. No person was permkte, the prisoner. It was true, that the ptit King's, but they were the King": to delis ners over to that constitutional otcer who was liable to actions fcr redress if felt themselves aggrieved. Doubts hat this subject, it was fitting that they sht rest. The Attorney• General had by no fed him on the subject ; and there were lawyers, who were decidedly opposed able and Learned Gentleman in opinion should therefore vote for his Noble Frit The SOLICITOR-GENERAL cbser solitary ground on which the Noble forward his Motion, was the acquittal of Reading, on an indictment chargi having violated the Statute in questio had determined, that by the statute of King, Magistrates had not the pow communication with persons imprison of High Treason. If, therefore, sud was the House prepared to say that altered ? The Honourable Baronet sal Eastaffe had sustained no punishment punishment, that, aot having done at ever in his office as keeper of the Penh respecting which not a scintilla of chari against him, he was nevertheless dismi office, because in another office he' which it subsequently appeared he doing ? With all his respect for the must say, that the charge of pun: Learned Judge, came was a bad gra( who, while he admitted that he consid, in question as of doubtful interpretat punishing a man before his trial, on was acquitted, by depriving him of which he had not in any manner charged with misconduct. Lord FOLKESTONE, in reply, s. never before heard that there were n. subject. On the contrary, he had belier were very prevalent upon it, and it I pose of removing those doubts that hi present motion. As the Attorney-Ger opinion he entertained great respect, there were no doubts on the subject foolish enough to wish to introduce doubts which did not exist. His condi in question had been called in questit once or twice from the Honourabl Gentleman, that he (Lord Folkeston e establish the right of the Magistrates secret communication with suspect( had no such object. He thought he visit them, and he went to try that that after he had been in the first i admission, the jailer offered to It: would previously stipulate what he in. This he refused, as unbecomir and he had told the jailer, that s him on those terms he would not sa Folkestone), and might offend those tory orders he had received on the s( wished to know what there was imps An Honourable Gentleman had bet that he had stated only parts of the whole. The fact was, that he had n( of the case. He had not alluded t proceedings before the Quarter Sets now state the whole story :--On the went to visit the jail, accompanied gistrates. They had a good deal of di jailer, who refused to admit them.- observe, without having the least at dividual, that the discovery of his taken place since the recent occurre (Lord F.) had no reason to believe th gies bestowed on him were perfectl• He attempted to persuade the line ing illegally. To which he replied, with you ; 1 believe I have no right but I am ordered by my superiors must obey." On the 14th of June he xi : the Jail ; but the Jailer persisted in hi, icy: mit him. At the ensuing Quarter Session'r e t Folkestone) attended, made a formal compla!fl..,_ conduct of the Jailer, and moved a set d tioos, oue of which WAS ) that. the i‘lasistratcs ;sae. fat 116 lass it p d. allallg aPd i ds c t lt, ma p that rd 66 e 2 a Kate d,.. 4 sew~ p ro , 6 thet• - ' 4 :tlitz : tat par: until I t re of tl weedi rt . 16.7... e, se. * ::. AZ! 2 esti , 7: tt. • • ti•C wile 1 4 41"...T ha.; • r - a• tc isons Vt. ! 'hver the TS 'er the iset if the Ficu aring stir • hould be set no mews na e °there= to the Horn on upon i • riencrs moist erred, thz • Lord kr:: I of the J..! ring him a~ ion. 1 1 :2:::".1 the 31st el , • Vef of hol:i? h led on a t :h was the 1 it ought:. said, thr e> any i nitentian• lk • irgewat brns; - • nissed trot had dose 4 was just i Noble • iality agics ace from tar, ilered the= anon, assiteli in which mite If a sirnaz:z • whatever •••• said, that 'al no 'lodate , iered that deel was for eF he had razt:; eneral, told hs ect, he sca';' a Bill to TV !duct in Nis ion. It h:.11:6: 1 >le and Lea le; had es to go a:a . r e d ca:trs., r had a T.: right. He sirce ir.staLce :r.. e weta saT az o g a were he to s atisfy L. se wliose subject. 141 ; pro per een p,e.ko• case . a•...d lot stated '11." to any • :ions.Hey , l e 10th cf. l s- 4 by !re r t.,": , disc - as:••••;'• - •,• ,Hr? • e. gre at • rences. that the ly we • 'er tLat d , 6. } ivae It to keep Y°' rs to tio s"), a ng • he Attli" it hi; ier.::.6l to