Star. — London, England, 1818-02-18 00:00:00

all those cases where the mischiefs to be provided m inst had led to the nesessity of putting extraordi -4.F powers into the hands of the Ministers of the rown , for the protection of the country and the biect. But did the Noble Lord suppose that his i s i e sty's Ministers wanted a Bill of Indemnity for l ying exercised those powers ? This, he would tell e House, was in no degree the situation of Mini . The case was, that they had been entrusted the greatest powers that ever could be imposed hem, that of interposing to issue State warrants apprehending persons suspected of Treason, and Bench was bound to take notice of the proceed ,. and to stand between the prisoners 'and the y. But he protested against its being believed' Ministers had committed any arbitrary acts.— nild positively deny that they had committed aduals to custody without satisfying themselves oa th of the circumstances which rendered their :tsion justifiable--(Hear, hear). He would deny that any person had been committed on evidence of the person who had made so much •in that House, or that his Noble Friend (the .tary of State) had done any thing except under a dvice of the Law Officers of the Crown—(hear). to the Suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act, the • had, by a great majority, recognised the mea and had thereby imposed on Minister s the task • had fulfilled ; and they would have been trai to their trust and to their country, if they had tated to put the law in force. The measure was to in consequence of the unanimous opinion two Secret Committees ; and the Noble Lord allow him to say, that there was not among Members of those Committees one dissentient as to there being a bold and organised conspi for the purpose of overthrowing both Church State; and that these conspiracies were basely ied on the distresses of the people, for the pur- of directing physical force against the Constitu and the Country—(hear, hear). This was the md, therefore, on which he would argue the ne itv of the measures that had been resorted to.— would go along with the Noble Lord in asserting all the substantial forms of law had been adher to ; and he would say, that if they had not been ided to, they would not have been defended as had been. But did the Noble Lord mean to that such persons were to be placed in the same inn as if no such Bill had been in operation ; where there was evidence, that there should be doubt whether it was to be considered or not? the Secretary of State were bound to give up to Leh all the evidence on which he had commit such persons to prison, the House must feel in t a perilous situation the country would be placed. would put a case. Suppose the Secretary of had received information of a plot of an alarm ,;ion, on condition only that nothing should them to give up the names of the persons who communicated the information, and that they nevertheless to be brought into a Court of Jus- Was he to be prevented from issuing his war ? And if it were not only necessary, but his den duty to do it, was he afterwards to be corn to justify in a Court of Law the evidence on the apprehension had taken place ? It was, alw - ays necessary to put between him' and ich of duty to individuals, a Bill of Indem- Such a Bill had always been wanted, or how 11 it be possible for the Ministers of the Crown ' means of protecting the country, if they were ung forward, in their own defence, the evidence whiLlt they had acted ? It was, therefore, not a for protecting Ministers, but one for protecting lives and persons of individuals who had come 'rd and given information upon oath, on coddi that their names should not be disclosed.-- then, these individuals must be protected, :h protection was of such importance m the!! that without it they would not have given their or the Ministers of the Crown must be , not to punish them for their own misdeeds, for refusing to give up those who had enabled to detect the conspirators. He therefore const , the B;11 not to favour Ministers, but to protect who had served the country, and had thereby their own lives in jeopardy. And now, with Terence to the Noble Lord, he should protest . the Committee of Inquiry, for their power s not competent t o b r in g c h arges , an d t h e indtvr , to be examined could not be upon oath, and would expose the Committee to the difficulty of 'ving verbal evidence from all the persons, on no proceeding could be founded. As to the sips those persons had undergone, he should the allegations a direct denial ; though he ap there would be nothing in the Bill of In to prevent any individual from bringing his before a Jury—(Hcar, hear).—The Suspension the Habeas Corpus did not authorize any power severity ; and with respect to all that class of Taints that related to imprisonment and hard he wished it to be understood, that there was necessity for any inquiry by the House, for the', its of Justice were completely open to the corn- ssnts. But this had long been the fertile source' declamation and misrepresentation, both in that 'se and. out of it. There had been affecting re -,tions of persons immured in dungeons, and Gentlemen went to examine these dungeons, found them suc h comfortable rooms as ev en t h e .e Lord himself; if he were obliged to be con could not reasonably object to--(lAnghter)-- : , .crefore, the issue of the question of hard treat 'ere to be tried at all, it ought not to be tried Eat Haute, which should neither waste its time degrade its functions by such an inquiry ; for t ;node, after all, could they adopt, on hearing 1e evidence, but to advise the parties to bring ase into some other Court ? But a Bill of In any had never been heard of in which the House rot been approached with Petitions as bold in r language, and as full of unjust complaints, as present, though the Gentlemen on the opposite were ready to vouch for what they believed to 'e truth of their contents--(//ear, hear, hear)_. that did not induce the House to swerve from duty on those occasions, nor would it on the \ith respect to F. Ward, he would say, never was a more flagrant instance of mis.' delation than the statements, in his Petition of part of his case. The Noble Lord had said the endings against him had been wrong, by his be attacked by the Magistrates. It was true that leer =t was by the '. l .lagistrates, but aot on . . • grounds sof high treason. He 'MB stetted on Oath of being engaged in the Luddite system in. 181 . 6, and ' a very feat ta - ys after he wat confined at Nottingham the warrant arrived to apprehend him lot high trea‘ son. He complained of being confined in the same morn with felons, when sent to prison a felon himself. Here the Noble Lord read an affidavit from the Jai lor of Nottingham, Philip Bailey, who stated that the cell in which Wil-1 was confined was one of the best in the prison —it had bed in it, a stone floor, and arched roof—the walls were dry, and the smell of which the petitioner complained arose from the fumi gation of the prison. Ward never made a complaint to the deponent, and apparently was not injured in his health—that no irons had been put on him.' He was shortly after removed to Oxford. To shew the temper in which the Petitions were presented, he should mention, that when he was at Oxford, Ward wrote to the Secretary of State to desire some changes to be made in his treatment, which were all granted, and he had written to Lord Sidmouth to express his gratitude. On the Ist of August, this person, in a letter which he wrote to his wife, complained that he suffered from being deprived the benefit of divine wor ship. Lord Sidmouth wrote to the jailer to know the rea son of this, who answered, that they had never de sired to go to the Chapel, otherwise he would have taken them (the State prisoners) into his own seat.— He had also the affidavits of Lavender and other Officers, who accompanied the petitioner to Oxford, that he never made any complaint to them. It was disagreeable to him to bring up private characters; hut he could not suffer the House to be trifled with, day after day, that these were men of irreproachable conduct. The Petitioner had described himself as a man who acted according to the rule laid down by linos Ctiatsr—to do unto others as he should wish to be done unto ; and also as a man possessed of all the finer feelings.. The confessions, however, of two who were executed at Leicesterrafor frame breaking at Loughborough, where two or three men were murdered, shewed that Ward urged them to go on that expedition, as there would be a deal of money got, for the L oughborugh men would give 100/. to have the factory burnt and Heathcote shot. Ward paid Mitchell (one of the unfortunate men who were hanged) 51- about a week after the mill was burnt down. Ward was Treasurer of the Luddite Committee. The House might think it fabulous that men should be paid for assassination ; but it was re gulated as systematically as if they had been fixing the price of stockings. Ward, according to this man's confession, offered 101. for murdering a laceman in Nottingham, and 51. for shooting his man. Ward also wished to have the Judge murdered at Leicester, and a number of persons were hired for that purpose. The deposition of a man named Thomas Savage, who was also executed, corroborated the confession of Mitchell as to the active exertions of Ward in the depredations and excesses committed by the Luddites. He (Lord Castlereagh) trusted the House could no longer e nertain any rational doubt as to the true character of Ward, from the dying confession of his associates. Whether Government had any evidence to put Ward on his trial or not, was not now the question. Ward was apprehended on a charge of high treason, on the oaths of three or four credible persons. He trusted he had said enough to prevent the House frombeing run away with by Mr. Ward's ex-park statement as to his moral character ; and he hoped he had shewn the-necessity of arming the Go vernment with extraordinary powers. He trusted, too, that the Report of the Committee would shew that Government had exercised no unnecessary rigour on any individual who had been confined under the Suspension Act. If they deprived Government of the means of obtaining secret information, conspira tors would not come forwar I, fot fear of their lives; especially when, as he had shewn, assassination was as well organized, and paid for, as any branch of ordinary labour. Mr. JOHN SMITH said, that if the Noble Lord's motion had been confined to Ward's case alone, he would have opposed it. He had detected falsehoods in Ward's Petition, and therefore had a right to sus pect the whole of it. He appealed to Government, whether any Magistrates had done their duty with less rigour than those of Nottingham ? Ward's house was searched for arms, in consequence of an infor mation, on oath, that arms were concealed there.— The Magistrates had also information that Ward was perhaps the instigator of that horrible murder at Loughborough. Mitchel gave the same information to a Professional Man previous to his trial, as was contained in his dying confession. But although Ward was an unworthy man, that was not to induce him to refuse redress to others. He could not help suspecting that there had been some undue severity exercised towards those who were confined under the Suspension Act. He was astonished that nothing had been done to bring Oliver to punishment. Mr. GOLDING defended the conduct of the Gaoler of Reading as to the treatment of the State Prisoners in that gaol ; and read a letter from the Gaoler, shewing that he afforded them comfortable rooms to sleep in, with fire places, and good feather beds and bedding complete. Two of those men, Sellers and Hulton, had joined in a letter to the Ma gistrates of Berkshire, in praise of the conduct of Eastaff, the gaoler ; but Knight, the third prisoner, did not. Sir W. LEMON said, there was not a man, whom he should less suspect of undue severity than the Home Secretary ; but he had a paramount duty to perform, which was to afford the Petitioners every proper redress. Mr. GORDON defended the conduct of the gaoler of Gloucester, who had been complained of in Bagu ley's Petition. So far was he from having been put into a cistern of cold water, he was directed to go into a warm bath to refresh him after travelling from London. He was allowed one guinea a week for pro visions had a good bed, and was allowed to walk out every day in the yard. But for all this the gaoler was anxious for investigation ; and indeed, if all the Petitions were false, that could be no reason for pre venting investigation--(a laugh). Sir W. GUISE also bore testimony to the kind treat ment Baguley received from the Gaoler of Gloucester. Sir FRANCIS BURDETT said, that he did not pretend to have a mind so unbiassed upon subjects of this nature as the Gentlemen who preceded him in the debate ; for he could not forget, at the time when he moved for an inquiry into the condu6t of the Jai -1 for of Coldbathfields prison, how ready several Mem bers of that House were to bear testimony to his good itOaduct, and to 'Produce statements and documents of the same description with those which had been quoted to-night. He had said upon that occasion, that he was prepared with evidence to prove the facts which he alleged; but a *umber of Gentlemen, who he had no doubt were imposed upon, rose in defence of Governor Aris, represented him as a model of hu manity—as a person in whom the milk of human kindnesi abounded to an extent almost approaching to weakness. He particularly remembered that the Honourable Member for York had spoken in this strain of panegyric ; he had represented him as a man almost too goad for his situation. But what was the fact with respect to his conduct ? that story, which Ras only to be paralleled by the story of the prisoner confined in the Bastile, was connected with his name. The unfortunate person in the Bastile, suffering ender the miseries of solitary confinement, had attached himself to a loathiome bloated animal, a spider, and. when deprived by the gaoler of that his only com panion, was represented to have felt as if he had lost his dearest friend. The person so eulogised had acted in the same way. This prisoner was also kept in solitary confinement. He Sir Francis) should re peat a circumstance he had before mentioned in that House. A poor bird, a robin, which fled by acci dent into the window of the prisoner, was his only companion —he fed it—he amused himself with it— he became attached to it—but Gosernor Aris coming one day into his cell, seised the bird, and crushed at lin his hand. He (Sir Francis) well recollected at that moment what agony the prisoner expressed on de scribing this circumstance. Such was the conduct adopted by the humane Mr. Aris, the worthy Gover nor of Cold Bath-fields Prison, who had so many and such respectable vouchers for the purity and ten dernessof his disposition, and whose fault was stated to be that of relaxing the rules of the prison, instead of resorting to any unnecessary rigour-- - -(hear, hear.) He mentioned this to thew why he was not convinced by the statements that were now made, when there was so much room for deception, and when solitary confine ment was become so general throughout the country. The Member for Nottingham (Mr. J. Smith) must excuse him for saying that all his observations re specting Mr. Ward's character had nothing to do with the question. Mr. Ward might be a very bad man, he might'be any thing he pleased to represent him, the murderer who committed the late atrocious act at Greenwich if he pleased, but the only ques tion now was, whether he was legally committed for High Treason ?—(hear.) What could be more absurd than to say, that the House would not even inquire into such grievances as were complained of? (Hear, hear.) The Noble Lord (Castlereagh) had said so little on the real subject, that little could he said in reply to him. He did not think . it at all neces sary to grapple with the legal part of the question— no, there he was to be secured by a Bill of Indem • ; but he had represented it as a waste of the time of the House to appoint a Committee of In quiry upon these Petitions.. It was not so under all circumstances ; for when the same Noble Lord was anxious to protect Jailers and their Officers—when he was anxious to guard his own conduct, it was' then no waste of the time of the Noose to appoint a Committee—(leer, hear.) The Petitioners were said to have acknowledged that the jaolers behaved welL That might possibly have been the case; but the Noble 'Lord should have recollected the words of the rat " &Idotn is steel or gaoler the friend of man!" Abuses might arise under the authority of such per sons; they were stated to have arisen. If the Noble Lord was ignorant of them, the more was his shame, and the greater the call for investigation. The maxim Qusfacit per alias facit per se"—was founded in our Constitution. But, whether it was or not, the Noble Lord's character had been made use of in passing the Bills which invested him with such ex traordinary power ; and was it fair to withdraw it now, when the acts which had taken place wider their operation came to be considered ? (Hear, hear, hear.)—lt was stated that the gaolers had used iron bolts in cases where they were unnecessary, when persons were confined in these infernal solitary cells, from which escape was impossible. He should like to know, was that the fact?—(Hear.) It was stated that a man of the name of Ogden, aged 74, was loaded with irons, so heavy as to cause a fracture— he wished to know if that was true?—(Hear.) It was also stated that two men were chained together in the same bed ; were those correct representations ? The statements of Gentlemen that such or such a gaoler was a humane individual, would not satisfy the country, as an answer to such charges—(hear).— The assertion that it was a warm bath, instead of a cold bath, was not a satisfactory reply to cases of such a nature as were imputed to the agents of Go vernment. His Honourable Friend behind him had said the gaoler thought the bath was comfortable, but the man who was placed in it differed from him in opinion, and thought it was not so. Was this an answer to his complaint ? He was glad to find it acknowledged that the gaolers in general acted with humanity towards the prisoners. The Noble Lord had said that there was no truth in the Petitions, and had expressed a hope that the House would be of the same opinion ; but he (Sir F. Burdett) would call upon the House to recollect how the Ministers had paraded their responsibility at the time when the Habea! Corpus Act was about to be suspended—(hear.) He would ask them to recollect how unwilling the' ' Noble Lord declared himself to be to undertake the serious charge, which, however, he was induced to' do for the good of the country—( Near, heart .--When the dangerous consequences of such powers were in sisted on, the answer was, that the character of Lord Sidmouth rendered those fears unnecessary. All that might be very true, but it should be carried to the proof. Those men were taken up for breaking the law ; they said they were anxious for inquiry —inno cence was naturally anxious for inquiry—(/fear).— The jailers themselves were said to be anxious for in quiry—but the Ministers were above it. They who should be the most anxious for inquiry, disdained to submit. Such was the principle of our now consti tution as developed by the Noble Lord. 'Abe Noble Lord was a Proteus in argument. 11'hen he wanted a Bill of Indemnity, there was nothing like a Com mittee of Secrecy—a Committee appointed by him self—(hear, hear, hear).—But when another Commit , tee was required for a different purpose, from which Flacemen and Pensioners were, he hoped, to be ex . eluded, it was then beneath the dignity of Parlia . meat to inquire. The Noble Lord had said he did not wait a bill of Indemnity. No, he wanted it for Mr.. Oliver—for his Spies and IntorMets. U'hat was it possible - that in England, when a man was accu• ard, he should not know who was his accuser? When Gentlemen voted such a dreadful power, they were bound for their own sakes to take care how it was used. • He hoped the Noble Lord would not quash the inquiry in the way attempted. He quoted Magna Charta and the Petition of Right, and concluded with observing, that if their provisions were to be sus• pended, he would rather such a power was vested exclusively in the Crown, than that it should be ev ercised by the Representativei of the People, to whom alone they could apply for Mr. WILBERFORCE acknowledged having re. presented Mr. Ails as a man of humanity, and gave, as his authority, Mr. Owen, the Chaplain-General.-- He h op ed the Honourable-Baronet would deal as candidly with him, and give his authority' for the story of the bird. There were, he confessed, some money transactions in which Mr. Aria wet concerned which justified his removal, but he did not recollect that any act was proved against him which amount ed to an impeachment of his humanity. With regard, to the question, he observed that it was not upon all cases that they should enter into inquiry, and he submitted whether there could be a stronger pre• sumption against any cases than those which were just stated to the House? If there were any thing in 'any of the cases that r equi r ed i nvest i gat i on , their supporters could not adopt a worse mode than by coupling them with others for which. there was no foundation. Let Gentlemen of character inquire into their merits, and if they would state on their own responsibility that they were Important, the House would no doubt feel disposed to entertain them. Sir FRANCIS BURDETT, in explanation, said, that the story of the bird originated with Mr. berforce Bird. Sir SAMUEL ROMILLY said, that though Bills of Indemnity were passed before in such cases, they never wire passed orr the mere report of a Commit lee. They were bound to inquire whether the alle gations of the Petitions were founded in fact. The Noble Lord had said, that an Act of Indemnity would not protect persons who had conirnitted abuses under the Act ; but he had alluded to the Bill of 1801, which was taken as the precedent for this; and that Bill' provided, that all personal actions brought against individuals, for offences of such a nature, should be discharged and made void. The Learned Gentleman expressed his surprise that those who were acquainted with this Act, which was to be taken as a precedent; could still assert that actions could be maintained against the jailors and others com plained of by the Petitioners. He did not mean to say that some acts described by The Petitioners were ille gal, although they were grossly unjust and inhuman,' for certain Statutes legalized solitary imprisonment. But who could justify, upon any principle, the trans fer of a prisoner from one prison to another without any appearance of necessity. The Noble Lord (Cas tlereagh) had, it appeared, made 'some preparation to meet the debate of this evening, but his prepara• non was evidently imperfect, for the Noble Lord's statements applied only to two or three cases, while it was known that there werenoless than eleven Pe titions before the House. But surely it wouldisot be admitted that the falsification of the statements of these Petitioners should exclude the others from the firtt tcrelatm theuttenticnfof the House. Bach a doctrine would not, he presumed to think, be main tained by any just or rational man. For instance, why should the fallacy of other Petitioners be allow ed to prejudice the case of that poor man Ogden, upon whose hands, at the advanced age of seventy four years, 301 b. weiglir of iron were placed, while he was suffering from a rupture, as appeared from the statement of the humane surgeon of the prison.— Any proof of the falsehood of other Petitioners would not, he wished to believe, persuade the House to re ject the consideration of such an extraordinary in stance of:cruelty. But there were other cases, parti cularly thosil•frith regard to the sufferings at. the prisons of Gloucester and Lincoln, which were not at all impeached by the statement of the Noble Lord, who seetned to'have made his arrangements to meet the case of - Wafd.' alone. The Noble Lord's mode, however, of Meeting that case was not such as could avail in any Court of Justice. For in what Court would it avail for the acquittal of the accused, that he himself denied the truth of the accusation.? . Yet such was the meaning of the argument adduced by the Noble Lord and' others,- Who had supported his cause in the course of the evening. His Learned Friend (Mr. Wilberforce) had alluded to the conduct of Aris in such terms as clearly shewed that he (Mr. Wilberforce) was very much imposbd upon with respect to that Gaoler ; and when an intelligent mind was thus deluded, such delusion furnished a strong argument to justify doubt •as to the state ments of Gaolers, and to warrant the proposition for inquiry into the case before the House. His Honourable Friend had observed, that if a Member of that House should himself inquire into the alleged misconduct of a gaol, he would think any statement with regard to such misconduct entitled to attention. Yet when his Noble Friend, who brought forward the present motion, submitted a motion for inquiry, with respect to the conduct of Reading Jail, into which his Noble Friend had himself particularly en quired, the Honourable Gentleman had thought pro per to vote against it—(hear, hear, hear.) But he hoped his Honourable Friend would feel the pro priety of retreading his steps, and accede to the peri sent motion, which proposed only to inquire•into the grOunds of the Petition. Ile could not, indeed, sup pose it rational to resist inquiry upon such an oc casion, or to maintain that, because a Member of that House could not be found to vouch for the truth and accuracy of every statement contained in the pe tition, the Petitioner should, therefore, be refused the opportunity of proving his case. If the Petitioner were guilty of the charge fur which he was impri soned, why, he would ask, was that Petitioner net brought to trial ; and when he complained of prose cution in his prison, upon what ground should his complaint be rejected, because the person upon ”horn he charged the prosecution denied its truth—or why should the Petitioner be wholly discredited, while his jailer was implicitly believed ?—(hear.) But according to the Noble Lord true-, it was un worthy of that House, and degrading to its func tions, to enquire into cases ct this nature. What, was it unbecoming the duty and dignity of that House to moire into the most serious elnr:Tes of ininstice and cruslty ? (1/(:,, He' believed that tht: Inc the grea them, tl apprehent Bench w, s. and tc u.ntry. Bu t ginister , e would pa .•viduals tc oath of I prehension .• deny th evidence •ise in that rotary of e advice of to the Su ouse had, I re, and ha •v had ful s to their itated to .orted to i two Seci d allow Member sce as to t v for the d State ; nded on I of dire( and th und, the .situ of th would g t all the to ; and ; ended to, yr had bec , that suc tinn as • where ti doubt v the Secret Bench all such pers at a penlo would j e had rec • descriptic ce them commui neverthi Was hi :? And Iden duty led to justi ch the al ore, al , breach of Such .d it be y ind means bring fora which the I for prote lives and and and that th er, then, ich protei that wi iation, sed, not for refus to dete the B' who h; ced their deference • t the not co •is to be would *ving v ch no dships I the all • ended nity t o • before • the Habl severity plaints ps, he w necessit • ..rts of .1 inants. declama use and sentatior Gent !found Lord r d, couli g t'u7efor g 'ere . .at Hor degra E t mode e evid ° case it '47 ha, rat be y r iangm present, were e truth 1 that di duty c • t. v a there n tati •, part eedings ttackec V Lim arr • • ; 46: 1 1 ' • ' r . l e • • f • i• t , . ; I • EI .•► I A I s" .1 , , • ' 1. ifi • I • 1 14 • t* . t • I 11