Star. — London, England, 1818-05-22 00:00:00

would be' ountbd - This Session. had consi production Accounts "Lon- account- Chancery. but repose funds. IY geturable ' - a Hono stairs, pro- misalying B ridge there em- atprobatt the ,t the Surrey .. to were the some 'on- been Gentleman (therefore Jlect Corn- Petitioners arable Pe be Petitio nild be Orders any was the compe , the examine (MS. 113, 'U. al- the then of second red the pro- Lould Re- new country from tene rated con "dis- and the The of Assessed he of ;di the on tan they House corn parcel . and nothing )point the into ....g in negocia -..‘ for ' LORD SIDMOUTH ' S CIRCULAR Larriat. Gentleman below him, what dovernment iatended to do with respect to the importation of Rape Seed, under the Consolidation Act? Mr. ROBINSON said, that it was intended the di minution of the duty should not take place till those engaged in this article should have had full time to carry into effect the engagements in which they had embarked their capital. It was probable that the duty would not be made to take effect till the .sth of July, 1820. Sir S. ROMILLY brought up his Bill, which was read a first and second time. Mr. BENNET said, that the reason why he had delayed so long to bring the subject of these Petitions before the House was, that he had been anxious to ascertain the truth of the allegations. He had now inquired, and found them to be substantially true. If he had not found them true, he should not have troubled the House with any observations ; but, having found them true, he felt himself bound to lay before the House the state in which the country had been. With respect to Lord Sidmouth's letter, a letter never to be forgotten, he would not trouble the House with any opinion f its legality or illegality, especially as the opinions of Members on both sides of the House had already been given on that subject. But, as to one part of the circular, which affected the powers given to Magistrates, he could not hesi tate to give an opinion. One Chairman of the Quar ter Sessions had said,'" Don't let us be troubled with snch•trash as this." But the busy, active, intriguing men in the Magistracy, who cared not what the law was, but what the Minister wished, who lived in in significancy in other times, came forth, on this occa sion, like other animals which are drawn from their holes in a shower of rain. These were the men to whom it gave undue authority, while it diminished the power of honest and upright Magistrates. He who ran might read, and he who read must under stand that this was inconsistent with a fair and just administration of the laws. In the month of Fe bruary, 1817, this celebrated letter had been written. In the same month of the same year two persons were imprisoned upon a charge of selling libellous publications ; they were, Jonathan Butler Mellor and Samuel Pilling, in Warrington. A more illegal pro ceeding never took place. It was not enough that the individuals should have been arrested, but their houses were searched, in order, if possible, to dis cover there papers of a libellous tendency. This was an act, the illegality of which the House had so lemnly decided on. Books were taken out of Mel lor's house. Mellor and Pilling were'both sent, not to the county jail, which was the only jail to which they should have been committed, but to the House of Correction. They were ironed • they were forced to be the associates of felons, an d, with all, before ial, they were obliged to undergo hard labour. The labour was not, perhaps, as severe as if they bad been condemned, but the disgrace of it was the same. it was punishment, and that too, let it be for ever remembered, before it was ascertained whether they Ihad merited punishment or not—whether they were guilty or innocent—in one word, before trial—(hear, ' near)—lf they had even written the libels imputed to them, should this have been their penalty' That he might net be supposed to give any sanction to such publications, he begged to state, that in a moral view he held them in abhorrence, and the author of them, whoever he was, in contempt. But if 1.:71e in dividuals in quest on had been found guilty of a li bel, it was not in the power of the King's Bench to subject them to such punishment as that he had de scribed. That Court would have sent them to the King's Bench prison, where they would have had as associates, men who, whatever were their misfortunes, were, for the greater part, of good characters. But in the House of Correction, these individuals were condemned to felons' company, and to felons' fare— (hcar, hear)—For this he did not blame the jailer, who, he believed, was a very humane man; but he blamed the Magistrates who committed them. What were Houses of Correction ? What their purpose ? The old statutes said that they were for thieves, vaga bonds, idle and disorderly persons, committed for crimes, not for which they were merely charged, but of which they were actually convicted—(Kear, hear) —He had, therefore, no hesitation in saying, that the commitment of these persons, before trial, to the House of Correction, was scandalous and illegal They suffered as it they were guilty. But although they were confined non con:tat, they might have been acquitted as Mr. Hone was, by three successive Lan cashire Juries. But that was not enough : they were ironed and handcuffed ; they were conveyed to the Quarter Sessions, where their Solicitor wished to have their trial brought on, but this was not allowed. A certiorari was obtained by the Attorney-General for removing their trials to the King's Bench. They were consequently summoned to appear there, and the result was, that they were discharged without either trial or bail. There were some facts stated in the Petitions, which, for his own part, he disbelieved. But these falsehoods, though they might lessen re spect for the individuals, could not shake the truth of the other parts of the statement, which he knew to be correct. He would now come to the Petition of Robert Swindell, of Macclesfield ; which stated, that in March, 1817, his house was entered violently by constables, Who immediately asked what number of persons were there. They tore open his cupboards, trunks, and boles, searching for papers. His wife was then gone eight months with child, and inconse quence of the fright she received, her delivery was hastened, and she died, as well as the child, in the ensuing month. He was himself imprisoned, and discharged without trial. Swindell was a seaman, having served in his Majesty's fleet eleven years. He assisted in the blockade of Brest. It was for the House to consider whether these three cases were wnrthy of its attention? He concluded with moving, " That a Committee be appointed t o e x ami ne th e P e . titions of Jonathan Mellor, Samuel Pilling, and Ro bert Swindell, and to report-thereon." Mr. DAVENPORT read a letter from the Mayor of Macclesfield, justifying the conduct pursued by ! the constables at the period in question. The town was in alarm, dangerous persons were suspected to be in the houses which had been entered, nor was any violence used towards their owners. The Ho nourable Member stated that he was acquainted per sonally with the Gentlemen who acted as constables on the occasion, and he did not know any men more benevolently disposed than they, Or lass capable of a cruel action. sfr. BLACKITCRN read a similar letter, contra dicting the treatment alleged to have been suffered by Mellor and Pilling. A pause then ensued, and no Member rising us speak , the question was put, and the Gallery was or to be cleared. Before that Was completed, The ATTORNEY GENERAL rose, and defended the line of conduct which had been pursued with re spect to these three individuals. He did not file an information er glficio against them, but he sent down an indictment to be presented to the Grand Jury of the Quarter Sessions, and a Bill was in consequence found against them. If they had then been at large he appealed to any man who knew the law, whether they might not have been apprehended as soon as the indictment was found by the Grand Jury? In having the certiorari moved for, his object was, not vexatious delay, but to have the matter tried before a higher tribunal. When he obtained the certiorari, he could, if he had so chosen, have detained them in prison. But he did not so detain them. He declared upon his honour, that as soon as he had the certiorari, he sent down an order that they should be discharged upon their own recognizances--(hear, hear.) If he was reproached with any thing, it should have been for relaxing the law so much in their favour. It was impossible that the Law Officers could have con ducted themselves with more lenity. It was stated, that the Magistrates had no right to commit them to the House of Correction. But there were twe statutes which expressly authorised Magistrates to commit to, the House of Correction persons charge% with offences, and in counties, where there was but one common jail, this power was very desirable. It was said, that the in dividuals in question were committed to hard labour. If that were so, he admitted it to be illegal. The 22d of George 111. provided that those committed to the county jail might be put to labour ; and, upon their being discharged, they were to het half their earn ings. He knew there was an opinion that this Statute applied to persons committed for trial, but he had a doubt whether it did so apply--(Hear, hear). It was no wonder, however, that the Country Magistrates should have fallen into an error as to the meaning of the Statute, since professional persons differed about it. The 31st of George 111. enacted, that pri soners sent to County jails for trial, might be put to work, in order that, as they were supported at the expense of the County, they might contribute, as far as possible, to lighten that expense by the produce s of their labours ; but these labours were merely to pick cotton—no very hard work, it most be admit ted. As to Swindell, he was an active circulator of these publications. An information er officio was filed against him. No warrant of a Judge or a Ma gistrate was issued in consequence of it, but only a subpoena, with the usual penalty of 1001. if he did not appear. He was summoned for the 6th of June —in thirteen days afterwards he did not appear, and as a matter of course, an attachment was issued from the Crown Office, upon which he was arrested by the Sheriff. When arrested, he was told that the attach ment only compelled him to appear; that the mo• ment he did so he would have gone quit, and that no recognizances even would he demanded. He re , fused to appear ; he remained in custody ; it was then offered him to have his appearance entered gratis ; and at length he did appear, and he pleaded, and the moment he did so he was discharged. No rigour was used towards him. Nay, the law was relaxed, that he might not be kept in custody—(hear, hear). When he (the Attorney-General) received an account that Swindell circulated these papers, he declared he knew nothing of his house having been entered on the 10th of March, or of the misfortnnes under which he suffered—(Hear, hear). But it should be recollected, that on that day the town of Macclesfield was one scene of confusion ; and it was with great difficulty the Magistrates were enabled to keep the peace. It was entered, towards evening, by one thousand persons from Manchester, and the Ma gistrates received accounts that some of those persons were in Swindell's house, in consequence of which it was entered. Some political papers, he believed, were taken away. lie did not contend that this was a legal act, but the Magistrates thought it their duty, under the circumstances, to provide every security for the public peace. As to Swindell's wife, she had been in ill health for a long time before the 10th of March, and the day after it she was employed at her usual occupations. There were affidavits, stating that neither one nor the other ever complained to any person of any injury received on the night in question. Swindell stated that he could not have medical assistance for his wife. But there was, in contradiction of that statement, the affidavit of a Surgeon who attended her. Seeing, therefore, that the facts of the several cases were so distorted, and so amply contradicted, he did not think there was any necessity for a Committee. Sir S. ROMILLY thought the present a most im portant qrstion, for it involved the freedom of the press, and the liberty of the subject. His view of it differed widely from that of his Hon. and Learned Friend, who appeared to him not to have touched at all upon the principal points. Although he was in+ some measure accustomed to see questions of the highest consideration passed over without discussion by his Majesty's Ministers, yet he confessed he was not prepared to see that upon which the House was now engaged, just going to the division without a single word from the other side, in justification of the conduct of the country Magistrates—(No, no, from the Miklisterial Benches.) Certainly the gallery was nearly cleared, and the question was put, before his Hon. and Learned Friend had risen. But the charge contained in the Petition was not against the At torney-General. Nothing was to be complained of on his part, except the removal of the trial by cer tiorari. Even to correct the mischief, which was said to have been caused by these publications, a speedy trial was necessary. But the main charge, and the important question for the House to consider was, whether it was or was not legal, that these in dividuals should have been put in irons?—(hear, hear) That men charged only with a libel, should have been committed to prison, and ironed, was a thing so monstrous, that a few years ago, it would not have been credited. Of the fact, however , there was no , doubt. It was sworn on one side, and not denied on the other—(hear, hear). H e agreed, that these pub lications were highly reprehensible; but he could not admit, that they were blasphemous. To make use of the form of a particular prayer, in order to express ones detestation of certain corrupt practices, was certainty very improper. But it was got a blasphemy. This was an alms of words. it might have been disrespect to the established religion ; it was n et blasphemy. He was surprised that the commi ttregi of men in irons, did not even strike his H0n0t,414 and Learned Friend as a novelty. It would at : , at have had that effect upon him in the early par, life, when he professed to entertain liberal prin t s*, and opinions. When the individuals in t asked the constables who apprehended them For avi r warrants, the latter produced handcuffs. which we e soon turned into fetters, and thus ircac.l, th ey ... en brought before the Magistrates. The, .1% ere in an open cart—and they, let it be , remem!, e .a . were men charged only vrith a libel. It should be also remembered, that the opinions of mei a rm , very much as to what was, and was not a libeL The respectful Petition of the Bishops, in the tim e James 11. was considered by the Lau Officers Kit e Crown as a libel, and any publication might ke calks! a blasphemy which gave offence to persons in pr at -shear, hear). In what situatmu would the ii, n , e place itself, if it passed over such a violation of th e liberty of the subject as this? Were men to be p m in irons, because they were c h arged with (Dear, heard Mr. BLACKBURN begged the Honourable Learned Gentleman's pardon, but he be:ie:-cd t::4 was contradicted. The Honourable Member • : looked over the letter which he had before read, 4; 4 at length read the folloising words--" They se c e placed in a large room by d e f:rc siie, and securid by a chain to their legs - -(lfear, and lausikt) Sir SAMUEL ROMILLY—" 1 am quite sureth i t the letter stated, they were sent to the House die rection at Preston, " with the usual precaution.- Mr. BLACKBURN—" I be l ieve so." ( h „,ar and laughter). Sir SANIUEL ROMILLY—" That is just v'•,:4 stated--(/fear, hear, hear).-11:e usual precat!l,-1, was, however, nothing mare or less thin iron (hear, hear). It mattered very I:ttle, shether thr wete put by the fire tide or not. All idea ci tem . :4 was lost, when they we:.e in chains--threr, Lea Then, as to the search for papers, the Alt,-,e -Ge neral said, he would nut undertake to inintaiii it ai legal. Here all were agreed at lelst, and melt th e House could not pass it over, if they had 32 . •;:e. gard for the liberty of the subject, and the secUriti of . property. In consequence of the circular let ter, warrants were issued—the house of one ci these individuals was entered, and the constable tux{ away Rollin's Ancient History, Lee's Holy Ce The Erangelical Magazine, and a LirereoJ Mc.-- eury—( Loud cries of hear, hear, sal lareter;— It was often said, noseiter a sodis, and if in this cue the libellous paper was among thee hooks, he did not think it was much to their honour. 11 this search was allowed, no man could hcredter write, like Al gernon Sydney, in his closet, upon political subjects (hear, hear!) It was said that the statement or the petitioners was contradicted; hut as much credit uas due to one party, at least, as to the other. It sheiltl be recollected, that one of the affidavits brou,At against the petitions had the boldness to assert, that neither Swindell or his wife ever complained to ary one !—(hear, hear.) There was another pan of the case in which great hardship had been practised. It appeared, that the publication on which the prosecu tion was founded against Mellor was bought fr.= him in February, and though the Quaver 5ft1 4 07.1 was sitting, proceedings were not taken against h.m till they were over, in order, as it would appear, coat he might be kept a longer time in prison. With suck facts as these cases contained, he could not think that there would be any considerable number of Members in that House who would say there was no pad for inquiry. Mr. B. BATHURST contended that the allegt• dons in the Petitions were exaggerated, and tint the different persons whose cases were before the House, were sent to the House of Correction, in stead of a County prison, because such uas the prac tice in Lancashire, as a matter of convenience. UPI the whole he, was of opinion, that no great hardship had been suffered, and as all the circumstiaices sure before the House, there was no necessity for the AF• pointment of a Committee. Mr. LOCKHART considered the explanation of the Attorney Genesal as perfectly satisfactory, as far time, he he himself was concerned. But, at the same he thought that the practice, which seemed to be growing into general use, of putting mess into irocs before trial, deserved the serious attention of the could n ot o a t s b i e t ju w st as ified agai by nst the the re l: n w ce of o tli t : on to:La:a ct On these grounds he should vote for the inquiry. (hear.) Mr. BENNET expressed a hope, that if the mock* was negatived, the country would bear in mind, that one of the last acts of this House of Commons watt* refuse inquiry in a case of admitted oppres sion. . The House then divided—Ayes, l7—Noes, 75 Majority a g ainst the Motion, 56. Mr. MARSH moved for the appointment of a Select Cap mitt!! to inquire into the claims of certain creditors of the bob of the Carnatie. Mr. CANNING thought it highly improbable that . sb?or Gentlemen could go on advancing money to one of the Non Princes in ignorance of the Act of 1797. He had no objectAi to the appointment of the Committee, but wi.hed to guard lin - self against any pledge as to the measure they might motional After a few words from Mr. Gassy, Mr. Sericant Owste ,, , Mr. W. Salm, and Mr. ?ilia's, the plotion was agrod w, and the Committee appointed. The Saving Banks Bill was read a third time and prsol. The Irish Assessed Taxes Bill and the Duke of heri s Ar nuity Bill went through the Committees, and the Report, were ordered to be received to-morrow. The Lottery Bill and the Irish Bank Restriction Bill were read each a second time ; to be committed to.morrotv. The other Orders of the Day were then disposed of, after which the House adjourned at Two.% AJAX& The following is an Abstract of the Bill intre duced by the LORD CHANCELLOR on Tuesday int'D the House of Peers, intituled—" An Act to yarr certain of the provisions of an Act passed in the 514 year of his Majesty's rein, intituled an Act to pro vide for the Administration of the Royal Authori ty, and for the care of his Majesty's Royal Person din in g ' the continuance of his Majesty's illness: and for the resumption of the Exercise of the Royal Author i t y by his Majesty :" The first clause provides and enacts, that, as due attention!' the care of her Majesty's health may require her occasioral -b. sence from his Majesty's Ozer of residence, and as it is ear . dient that at such times one or more Members of her :Ma s len!' Council should personally attend at the King's plAcr of reshiet : ots her Most Excellent Majoaty may, by any insuument in writiv, revocable at her will and pleasure, nominate and appoint ' 3 ` l. tional Members for her Corinth a tlic (Arc of 131: • a ditbeer, and the House wankd be counted out. Thi was merely a trick to spin out the rest of the Session Mr. BENNET said he was one of those who hat voted for the production of the City Accounts; bu • he had been betrayed into a vote. on grounds whirl be had since found were not tenable. Neither of th two Members for the City had stated what he consi dered the strongest argument against the productio of the Accounts. The Funds to which those Account related were the private property of the City of Lon don, and, with respect to them; they were account able not to that House but to the Court of Chancel-, There was not a Member of the• City of London bu could go to the Court of Chancery for the purpos of stopping any improper expenditure of.these fund: In making this Order he considered the House t have got into a scrape ; and it could only get out c it by complying with the motion of the Honourabl Baronet. If they went into a Committee up stairs they would then see what the nature of the pro ; pert was. wzs. r. A lderman WOOD said, when the Honourabl ,Member..fbr Surrey (Mr. H. Sumner) charged th City of London with embezzling and misapplyini 53,0001. he supposed him to allude to the Bridg House Estate. But he would maintain that then was not- one penny of the funds of that Estate em ployed by the City of London for its own purposes The City had lent the money, indeed, to the Com missioners of Sewers for the County to which chi Honourable Member belonged, with his approbation and when that money should be wanted it would b repaid. The Honourable Alderman vindicated the conduct of the City of London, which, in comini forward for an additional grant of 54,000/. acte. only agreeably to the wishes of a Committee of the House, of which the Honourable Membei for Surre: was a Member. Mr. WYNNE supported the right of the House t call for any accounts, provided a sufficient case wer made out. But with respect to London, the origins intention of calling for money 'had, he believed, bee abandoned ; the right of the House was confined t the necessity of the case, as it did not sit like th Court of Chancery, to c all for accounts, unless som great instance of abuse were made out. He cor cluled with a remark respecting the hearing c Counsel, as made by the Right Hon. the Speaker, g the commencement of the arguments. The SPEAKER apprehended he had not bee heard or understood by the Honourable Gentlema in the few words he had offered ; he should thereto' repeat them. The motion was for a Select Con mittee to consider the Petition. The Petitions prayed to be heard by Counsel ; and an Honourabl Member had said he thought it best to refer the Pi tition to a Committee, as being more convenient.- . What he had said was, that he conceived that to it precisely the place in which the prayer of the Petitic mrs could not be complied with, as it would t hearing Counsel in a Cenunittee against the Orden of the House. lie did not mean that there was an objection to the motion in point of term, as it wi for the appointment of a Committee to consider th Petition, Now such a Committee would be comps tent to examine legal men, that they might have th benefit of their information ; but they must examio them as witnesses, and not as Counsel. Mr. WYNN explained. Some further conversation ensued between Messr N. CALVERT, CALCRAFT, S. THORNTON, LAMI BRAND,. and Sir J. GRAHAM. The result was, a ITr tual unckrstanding to put an end to the business a: together, instead of coming to a division. Serjeant ONSLOW thea withdrew his motion ft the previous question. Sir WAL CURTIS withdrew his motion for th appointmmt of a Committee on the Petition ; he the moved, that the Bill before the House (for a grant c 54,0001. to finish the New Prison) be read a secon • time this day six months ; and Mr. H. SuNturn move the discharge of the Order for the production of th Accounts ot the Corporation, all of which were agree to. The general understanding seemed to be, that the City declined to press for More money from th public, the House had no right to make them prc duce their accounts. REFORM IN PARLIAMSNT. Sir F. BURDETT presented twenty-three Petition from various parts of the kingdom, praying for Reform in Parliament ; which were read and ordere to lie on the table. Sir F. BURDETT then gave notice, that he shoul shortly bring forward a motion on the subject of RI form in Parliament. new ASSESSMkNT ON WINDOWS. Lord LASCELLES rose to call the attention c 1 the House to the very severe operation of the nei assessment on windows, on tenements of poor countr shopkeepers. By the new survey, under orders froi the Tax Office, the whole shop, and the small tent anent attached to it in various parts, had been rate et the rack rent, and the assessment has been so cot aiderably raised, that even the Commissioners of tricts were of opinion relief ought to be granted, an had sent to the Tax Office for instructions ; but tl answer was that they could not grant relief. Ti ) 1 Commissioners bad desired to bave a Committee I s the House to take into consideration the Assesse Taxes, relating to shop windows ; and for this f t • was about to move. It was also a grave subject • complaint, and it appeared to him very extraord nary, that the Crown Surveyors went about th country, to the distance of SO miles in a district, c idle reports of persons having more windows tha they paid for, or renting houses cheaper than the ought to bt, and assessing the tenants for the How Tax at such a rent as they chose to-fix. Another con plaint was, that children seen carrying a small pare for their parents who kept shops, were put down an charged as servants. He was aware that nothin effectual could be dean this Session, but the appoin meat of the Committee would be an earnest to th public that their complaints would be inquired int as soon as passible. The motion was agreed to without any oppositiot and the Committee appointed. NZOOTIAMILS SECURITITS. Sir S. ROMILLY, after a very few words on th importance of the subject, obtained leave to bring i a Bill to afford relief to bons fide holders of negocia ble securities, without notice that they were given fo usurious considerations. RAPE sian. Lord LASCFLIAES -wished to ask an Honourabl • 4 ., A.O„. sis• 010 0 ' absi egu 111 moo sad 1 so' Si Ni Tb 'The , . fu Pr' As port TWA publh as Co Th Conti lion. has IN out of CaT Of cot sold Berlit 8 pf, ' from and p wets sth ) those finest shool! f srnall mi zt. e; vast 'chic e'er. 111 I t tak St: tioc tia de.] tra, An con doe lint a 1 at