Star. — London, England, 1818-01-30 00:00:00

I` ,1 11 it 4,1- , (1' 1 s day at a certaid place. Couldiny one say that these recognizances would hav4een required from the persons in question if the Aa of last Session had not passed ? Therefore it was plain the recognizances bowed from that Act. In all the cases in question, the recognizances had been given under t h e choice which he had mentioned. There was, indeed, a se-1 parste case which had not yet come before the House, but which soon would be ; he meant the cams of a London Justice, who had tad three personil arrested before the Act was p . But in every Other case, the recognizance' had been entered into under such a choice. In all other cases of arrest, the thing was not done in:the dark, and when the man was liberated, he might of course seek his remedy it I ow. But hetv the power was merely to detain per s ms, and therefore recognizances taken from persons detained under that power weiWtaken on different ' terms. Their leg ali ty or illegality was a question purely of law. What the House had to consider was, that they were entered into by choice, and un der certain conditions, and the question now was. whether the persons who had made the election ofl submitting to the conditions, should be, now when the Act was repealed, in a worse situation than those who had chosen the alternative of remaining under confinement ? Thinking that it would be most un just to have them remain subject to recognizances af ter the Act was repealed, he conceived it incumbent on the House to adopt the proposal of his Noble Friend. _ _ _ _ The SOLICITOR GENERAL thought the Hon. and Learned Gentleman, who -spoke. last, was mis taken as to the Act of last Session. Suppose that Act had not been passed, would it not have been com petent for the Secretary of Stars to commit persons m certain cases ? The question was whether this Act conferred a power on the Secretary of State to take recognizances from persons committed ? The Act conferred no such power. Its operation was merely to deprive the subject of his remedy in cases of committal. The House was now about to restore that remedy. What then was the proposal submitted for discussion ? It was (what was quite irrelevant) .to pronounce upon the legality of recognizances re specting which the Act about to be repealed had no operation whatever. The legality of these recogni zances was as much open to discussion as ever, whe ther the Sill now before the House passed or not.— This, therefore, was not the proper season for discus sing the validity of the recognizances, and as to the propoial which related to them, it was out of place, and could not rightly be adopted on this occasion. Sir W. BURROUGHS wished, with great sub mission, to observe, that the Honourable and Learned Gentleman (the Solicitor-General) had not answered his Honourable and Learned Friend (Mr. Brougham). The Secretary of State was armed with no power to demand recognizances ; and in taking them in this case he hat usurped a power which did not belong to him. The individuals detained ought either to have been released or brought to trial ; but the Secre tary of State ha t } thought fit on his own authority to annex conditions to the release. The Honourable and Learned Gentleman seemed to think that the Secre tary of State had a right by the common law to dis charge on recognizance. But this was not the case. When persons were arrested on a charge of high trea son, no Magistrate or authority, except the Court of King's Bench, had any cognizance, A Magistrate had no power in such a case to take any recogni zance or admit to bail. If an inferior Magistrate had not a right to take bail, then he had not a right to take any ,recognizarice ( Hear, hear.)—lt had been admitted that there was no serious ground for detain ing any of the individuals—but did it serve any tem porary purpose to take their recognizances? ( Hear, hear. )—lt served a party purpose to Government—it served their views—tt kept up an alarm in the country. Mr. LOCKHART was of opinion, that in taking these recognizances Ministers were acting in sub stance under the BilL Sir SAMUEL ROMILLY thinking the Suspension Actliid existed much too long, and that it would hovel:leen better if it had never existed at all, he should not certainly give any opposition to the repeal. They were pasting the Bill With great propriety, dis pensing with all forms. They did so because it was a matter of extreme injury that the suspension should nor be repealed immediately after it ceased to be ne cessary. Now how long had this extreme injury been allowed to continue? Was the Suspension Act neces sary last night—last week—a month—or two months ago ? ( Hear, hear, hear.) When the _ question was before the House last Session, it was proposed that the Bill should expire on the Ist of December ; that if it should still be found necessary to vest Ministers with these extraordinary powers, the judgMent of Parliament might be taken on the subject. If the Bill had only been in force to the Ist of December ? Parliament in all probability would 'not' have been called* to meet, and the Act would havebeen allowed to expire. By not advising Parliament to be called sooner than the 27th of January, the country had been existing in a state in which it oughenot whore been existing. Because Ministers had not thciught proper to advise the assembling of ParliaMent, the country had been exposed to tlae - misfprttallt7Of eslst ing under powers, for the continuance of, pihich there was no necessity. These powers had liven. actedion till within a very few weeks of the time when Minis-, ters knew that they would have to account for their comluct. The fact is, that no necessity existed for the Bill since the month of June last. lie has" not, since June, heard of any signs—he would not say of insur rection—but of dissatisfaction existing in any part of the country. In that month of June it was that the conduct of Missionaries employed by Government WAS exposed—(heir, hear.) As sons as their conduct was brought under notice, these persons were discon tinued in their employments, and since that time they had heard of no discontent—no dissatisfaction—no conspiracies —(hear, hear, hear). Mr. BRAGGE BATHURST said,. the Honour able and Learned Gentleman (Sir S. Romilly) had viewed it as a self-evident proposition, that if the Bill had continued in force only to the Ist of Dsceniber, Parliament would not have been assembled for the purpose of obtaining its continuance; but he pro tested against any such admission. In alluding to persons in the employment of Government, h e pre sumed the Honourable and Learned Gentleman natant the person of the name of Oliver. If he alluded to that person, he could only say that his conduct was such that it would bear the strictest investigation. He believed he had done no mischief in any ser se of the word, but on the contrary great service. He eras not an accomplice, but a person accidentally intro duced to a knowledge of circumstances, which, as was his duty, he communicated to the Government. If the Honourable and Learned Gentleman coupled the cessation of the troubles with the cessation of the employment of Oliver, he would tell him that there was no foundation for his assumption. The vigorous 1./measures adopted by Government were the cause and the real cause why they heard no more of disturbances. Sir SAMUEL ROMILLY wished to set the Right Hdnourable Gentleman right. He had taken it for granted that he alluded to the employment of Oliver. But he supposed Government employed several in struments of the same kind. It was stated in the last Report of the Secret Committee of the Lords, that persons had promoted treasons who were sent to detect them. He did not allude particularly to the miserable individual whose name had been mentioned by the Right Honourable Gentleman. Mr. TIERNEY said, after what had fallen from the Right Honourable Gentleman (Mr. B. Bathurst), they were to understand that a danger did exist up to the 28th of Jinuary, when the last person was discharged—a danger which rendered it unsafe tore-' peal the Suspension of the Habeas Corpus. That point Ministers were therefore pledged to make good —if the Suspension existed one single day beyond the necessity for it, the King's Ministers weve guilty of a crime against the liberty of the subject—(Hear)— According to the Right Honourable Gentleman, the Reports of both Houses of Parliament were wrong— it seemed the Spies had never, as stated in these Re ports, promoted any mischief—(Hear, hear),-*—He was to prove that the Spies employed by Govern ment were never, in one instance, the cause of mis chief. If the Report of the Committee established these two points, it would be a most valuable Report. The Bill then went through a Committee, the Re port was brought up, and taken into consideration. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER then moved the third reading. Lord FOLKESTONE believed that this was the proper time to propose his clause for vacating the recognizances. This clause was not to prevent the parties from obtaining a remedy in a Court of Law: it was only to relieve them from the recognizances, even supposing them legal. He then moved a clause to that effect. Lord CASTLEREAGH said, as there were a ♦a riety of facts stated in this clattse of which the Rouse could have no knowledge, the House could not with propriety legislate on them at present. Mr. TIERNEY—the House were bound to adopt the clause on a principle of humanity. Lord FOLKESTONE said, the clause scmtained no statement of facts, except of what were perFectly notorious. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said, that it was only the plea which the persons in question had set up, that they had objections in point of law against the recognizances, which had prevented him from moving that the recognizances be discharged. No tice had been sent to these persons that their attend ance would not be required, though he believed some of them had left their homes before the notice reached them. Some of them had applied to him (the At torr.ey-General) and he had given • them to under stand that their attendance was not then required, and would not be required--amf he thought he led given them to understand that their recognizances would be discharged. Some of them said they had legal objections to make; and he had then said, " let' nothing I have said deprive you of the benefit of your objections, if you have as It was op account of their objections, he su that the parties re mained in town, as they otherwise might haverne back to the places of their abode. It was the ~obit tp give persons notice of an intention to call them on their recognizances, when such an intention existed ; and notice had been actually given, though, as he had said, some of the persons had left the places of their abode to come to London before the notice had arrived. The recognizances, therefore, were not held over their heads to harass or distress them. He de cided also as a principle, that this Bill of Repeal was tom amend all that was done under the former Act. He denied that as a matter of course, because the Act of Suspension was repealed, all persons who had been arrested ought to have been liberated. It only left persons in confinement (if there had been any) in the same situation as if the Act had never passed. They had now their right of habeas mints —but the Minister night detain and bring to trial, in due course of law, persons who had been previously de tained, without it having been thought advisable to bring them to trial. He did not therefore think it necessary, either as to humanity or principle, that the clause proposed should be inserted in the Bill. Mr. BROUGHAM said, he imagined that the Attorney-General did not yet understand the plea on which the clause was offered to the House. It was I lly virtue of the Act of Suspension that the Sec r eta r y of State had been enabled to exact these recogni zances from the prisoners. The persons bound b these recognizances might go to the King's Ben c h and demand to be released from them. Bu t . might not the King's Bench 'say' that they had votenmer, and with their eyes open, entered into them ? Was it not likely they would say so? The Attorney-Ge neral then well knew they were without their remedy. But what was it that had enabled the Government to demand their recognizances in such a manner that the prisoners were compelled to comply ? The sus pension of the Habeas Corpus. It was then suspend ed, and at the time when their recognizances were entered into, no man knew how long it would remain suspended. Look then at the different situation of a prisoner, while the suspension continued, at the other Term. In common cases, when the Government had detained a man, they might offer him his discharge on his recognizance ; if he refused that, the alterna tive was that he mutt be brought to trial. But, on the other hand, during the suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act, if a prisoner refused to give his recog nizance:, the Government was not obliged to bring him to trial. He would in that case be compelled to remain in prison, as the right of suing out his writ of Habeas Corpus was denied. Was there no diffe rence between saying, give your recognizance or you shall be brought to trial, and saying, give your re cognizance and you shall remain in prison ? He re was the gist of the question. As the Bill before the House was to place the subject in the same situation I in which he stood before the passing of the Act, it was, therefore, not consistent that those from whom recognizances had been exacted under the Act should be excepted from its beneficial operation. The SOLFCITOK-GENERAL said, the question 1 for the Court of King's Bench to consider was, not whether the recognizances had been voluntarily en tered into, but whether the party which had taken ; them had power so to do? If the Magistrates had authority to take the recognizances, whether they had been entered into voluntarily, or by durestse, they Would be valid. The Act in question had conveyed 'no new power to the Secretary of State, or the Ma gistrate, on the subject of recognizances. Sir SAMUEL ROMILLY'said, that the Solicitor General had not fully stated the case. The Act of Parliament which gave the Secretary of State the power to detain persons in custody, gave him the power of discharging those persons out of custody,' and it necessarily gave him the power of compelling .such persons as wished to be discharged, to purchase their discharge by giving recognizances. Now this was in effect a power which he did not at other times possess. He had not in ordinary times the power of . sending to an individual, and telling him that a charge was exhibited against him, and that unless he entered into recognizances he should be kept in prison with out a trial. The persons bound might be said to have entered into their recognizances voltmtarily, but this was among those voluntary acts which were dolie to relieve the agents from a greater evil. The Soli citor General had, therefore, fallen into a fallacy, in saying that no new authority was conferred by the Act with respect to recognizances. The persons bound could only be relieved by the act of the Le-, gislature or of the Crown ; but if the Attorney Ge neral would state that he would discharge the recog nizances, perhaps his Noble Friend would withdraw the clause. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said, he was wil ling to apply for the discharge of the recognizances of those persons who did not wish to take the benefit of legal objections to them. Sir WILLIANI BURROUGHS.-If, as was evi• dent from what had been said, these recognizances were not intended to be acted upon, why had they been demanded at all—(Hear)?—lt was casting a stain upon the characters of the persons so discharged, wantonly, and giving the world to understand that there was some charge still hanging over them, while in fact it was never intended to call on them. This was an abuse of power for which the Secretary of State was responsible--( Hear). Lord FOLKESTONE said, that if the Attorney- General was ready entirely to discharge these recog nizances (hot merely to assure the men that, they would not be called upon), he would withdraw his clause. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said, the recog, ni zances were not required in the knowledge that they would not be acted upon. They were required to se cure the appearance of the parties, and might or 1 1 might not be found necessary. He was willing to move the Court for the discharge of all the record zances, unless in the case of those persons who mis,ht wish to take legal objections to them. Lord FOLKESTONE withdrew his clause, and the Bill was read a third time, and passed. GRIEVANCES ENDURED UNDER TILE susPE:cmicrtt OT THE HABEAS Coßrus. Lord FOLKESTONE said he held a Petition in his hand, which was perhaps too long, and not so worded as he could wish, but which was entitled to the serious attention of the House. The Petition con tained nothing disrespectful to the House. It was from one of the prisoners whose case had now been under diicnssion. The petition was ordered to be brought up, and to be read. The Clerk began to read: " It was from Francis Ward, lace-maker, In Nottingham. He had a wife and four children, and a mother 90 years of age, all depending on his support. Lawson, a police officer, had come' to his house, in order to search. He called for his warrant. Lawson held a paper in his hand which he said was his warrant, but he refused either io thew it or to read it. Another officer at this instant came up, and both violently entered the Noose, eaarniacd a canister with much eagerness, but after along search declared that they had found nothing of the description they searched for. He had opposed their entrance into his house, not with a view to frustrate the objects of law and justice, but from respect to a rule laid down by no less a personage than Jests CIIIIST, which prescribed that ' in doing well he should feel no fear. He had applied to Mr. Enfield for redress in vain ;* he was told he had no right .to complain. He went to the police office in order to see Alderman Swaine. Another Alderman came in, and ordered him into custody. A third Alderman came, and advised him to proceed no further in that matter, but to take good care what he was about. He was goon afterwards brought before the Magistrates, and then sent into a vile dungeon, where he had a damp bed, and was almost suffocated by the sulphureosis While this Petition was read, as there was much noise in the House, Lord FOLKESTONE aid, that as the House did not seem disposed to attend to the Petition, which was a long one, he should state the object. It was not of his detention in common with others that the Peti tioner complained : it was the treatment he had met with, unauthorised by the Suspension Act. That Act, it was well known, authorised no other kind of treat ment than was law ful: before. The Petitioner's house had been searched without the production of the war rant—an act which he would hate been authorited in resisting. Mr. OSBORNE rose to order, and said that k was irregular to interrupt the reading of a Petition, in or der to make a statement of its contents. Lord FOLKESTONE said he had only done so for the convenience of the House, as it did' not seem to be attended to. It was his intention to move that it be printed. Mr. B. BATHURST observed, that as the Noble Lord had assured them that there was nothing im proper in it, there could be no objection to print it. The Clerk, after standing for some minutes to hear the sense of the House, resumed the readini, of the Petition ; but .when he had read a few lines further, he was desired to state the Prayer of the Petition, which entreated the consideration of the •House to the hardships the Petitioner had endured. Lord FOLKESTONE, in moving that the Petition be printed, said, that the House would be guilty of a great dereliction of duty, if they did not inquire into the grievances set forth in it. He meant, there fore, to move the appointment of a Committee to in quire- into the grounds of complaint. If no objection was made to the measure, he would move now. If any objection should be made, he would give notice on a future day. Mr. BENNET thought it 'would be much mere convenieg to give uotice, -as many ether parsons had stifered in precisely the same way as man. Ile had occasion to know. and 1 bring forward proofs, that the mint and inhuman treatment was exe: ,tion of the Suspension Act: such a, ' impure cells, loading with ity - ,ns, and ot.y:' the same kinJ. As the representathc . liament, they were bound to inquire —as i.: they must feel bound to induire—i..o ° e grievances of Engli , limen—(hear, hew ro Lord CASTLEREAGH hoped - 1- lat Lord would give due notice of hi . Ldid FOLKESTONE rate r;tlle.l on the same subject. It Wa , I . mrn crve.-„, of Nottingham, ncighbo•irs and eri l l , oe-• cis Ward, who stated ; ‘'• sober, hard-working mil, very re,i-ect..h•_ to his situation in life, :rid by ird enter into any schemes h. the injurious to the peace acid good order e! ( praying that relief might be grantA h;n, steps might be taken to prevent the for the future.—Ordered m he prirtel. • Lord FOLKESTONE then zare nnti day se'naight of a motion to Teter the Petitiv specting Ward to a Committee. To the r., mittee he should move to refer any same nature which should be mean time nir: tr .. REFORM 01 SICOTCO SOROUCTIc Lard A. HAMILTON, in giving nn t i rt would on the 12th of February move for 6 e pn tion of papers connected with the reform f s Boroughs, begged that the House w,H,i alarmed at the word - reform," for it a, case necessarily connected vith the reo•i--. : , House. He gave notice that on the move for the production of the pap._:., in t sion of Government respro . ing the P,.,:o t i t trose, in which the work ofietorm E.;clC% Lord C A STLE E AGM rxt being the subject, could not sa whir2ier tioned could b.: Foduced. Lord A. HAMILTON hared no objection to their prduck.ii. 0:+ AND :u't PaY , r.•.T Mr. V. FITZGERALD rn..v:!.l in a Bill to suipc:ld the opera:. , !. A !ast Session re,i7e:7t;ng Grand Jury ('- Ireland. He (+served th it tl-e Surveyors) had r.. - 1 yet many candidates for new Act no Presentrneit suing Spring Assizes, as veyors was necessary. sez i • arise from the merits at these Assizes, .4:.l posed to suspend tile:tt ..e r z.e of Mr. ABEkCROILY t!: ..; the Right Hon. Gemi.2m.ir. iird r.r.t don to propose any sub,titute heproposed to suspe:‘,!. Ti. v.-n 3 t the more, as the system cf Irish i ments was on all . harals corm_.. loadly for same Legislative reme.!: Reports from two cerarel Commie been laid before the Hee-- man who heard him tnust be imps., eessity for - such a measure. He ceuls'. sincerity of the Right Hon. Mover, who le ginil author of the Act which he now p Stipend, nor the disposition of rho Irish Governs: tQ Cary it into execution ; but it seemee. -Aran, that where there were places to dispose land,there should not I.e found a sufficient mere: candidates. Yet the difficulty of finding S 2 Survr! - .1 was one of the main causes alleged f..r this m for the other cause, namely. the limitation ei grant of presentments to the Summer Assizes. e., be easily removed without suspending the present Mr. VESEY FITZGERALD assured the ft: and the HonourableGentleman, that he felt eirre anxious for the success of this measure ; but so many difficulties in the way of its execution. • the Government consequently embarrassed. be then,' himself bound in candour to propose its susp-re which, however, it was to be observed, was ord-F... continue during the present Session, within• period he hoped that a more practicable meae. would be devised. The Honourable Gentleman r.: rely that he was not disposed to withdraw from '• principle of the measure to which his MotiJn refe:v: but to render tl.at principle effective, he must ea for the support of other Gentlemen who felt an . rest in the concerns of Ireland. Mr. PEEL vindicated the conduct of the Government, who were decidedly anxious ice Principle of this measure; but to render that muse! effective, thirty-two fully competent Serreyon necessary. In order then to ascertain the compee-e of the candidates for this office, three respeaei Commissioners were appoiated, and the rcia.: their examination was most discouraging ; tiaer:7! it was found necessary to suspend this trita.s . 2-'r. hp.hoped that the disposition of Government ce-I hardly be questior.ed, when it was recollected abandoning the measure it abandoned the pat:a... - .7 of appointing 32 Officers, some with 9001. and with 600/. a year each. After an explanation from Mr. Antimony. Sir HENRY PARNELL agreed in the pr •;'" of the proposed Suspension. not so much for t..: sons stated by the Right Hen. mover, as from considerations. But he hoped that another an,: efficient measure would be brought forward by one connected with the Government, for 'if it from any other quarter, its success would be pr ' matical. He trusted that such a measure speedily proposed, for if delayed until a late r.: - the Session, he foresaw that it would fail. As; :" difficulty of providing eompetent surveyors. L. 7•• lieved that several could be easily found in !I, try. This he was hal to ceaclutle trom the far. the surveyor who superintended the eper.t . ,:v.L of the great road to liolyhead had for tu o 1.501. a-year. Surely then, this pet stn, : - such could be found in England, would • -• willing to go to Ireland upon salaries of Jr - to six hundred pounds a-year. But the Oran ' system in Ireland was nateriouslv so • corruption, fraud, ar.d par;urv, that the . could not, without a gross desertion ~:'slut such a system to go on. Under this srstem r • ... 1 than half a millior. was annually levied in le and the error of Parliament heretofore had b,,.: :•••. it thought too much of those who imposed ea t. • and too little cif those who paid it. The systca: - ;n4.Nn ;:x