Star. — London, England, 1820-07-12 00:00:00

.. ti marked upon the precedent cited by the Earl of Li verpool on the preceding evening, in the case of At-' terbury, Bishop of Rochester, and contended, that by taking into view the whole of the proceedings in that case, the particular point ought not to have the force of precedent. The Noble Earl had told them that Atterbury had applied for copies of cer tain depositions, but had been refined ; but then it was necessary to keep in view that the defendant, with respect to the proceeding against him. stood in the situation of having the whole mass of evidence before him for which he applied, because the Bill Lad gone through the Commons, and it was not likely that new Papers had been brought up. It was therefore necessary that the whole of the proceedings should be known, if any were, that the House might know how far a single point was applicable. The examination of precedents ought, if worth anything, to be comi.lete. The Hotise would not be dealing fairly by itself, if it allowed a citation of precedent which would be so confined as to deprive Noble Lords of the means of ascertaining the real value of the case from which the partial information was extracted. He must therefore give his vote against the motion. The Earl of LIVERPOOL urged the extreme in convenience of such au extensive inquiry, and its uselessness as to the point immediately under inquiry, respecting which, the only ,good that could be de rived would he, if a Committee was thought neces sary, a Report without delay. The Earl of LAUDERDALE worded his motion, for a search into precedents of Bills of Attainder and Bills of Pains and Penalties, with respect to the com munication to the accused of a list of witnesses. The Earl BATHURST moved to insert in the motion " of Impeachments." as the case would be still stronger, if it should be found that in cases of Impeachment, as well as the others, as, in fact, in all the judicial proceedings of the House there was no instance of the communication to the accused of a list of witnesses. Loid HOLLAND opposed the Amendment, upon the same principle that he objected to the original The Report might probably be, that there were no instances of the communication of a list. of witnesses ; but still this would make no difference with a view to the consideration of the present case. In all cases of the description ;dluded to, the House would be guided by the peculiar circumstances of each case; and whatever precedents there were, they could only be taken with reference to all the circum stances that accompanied each of them, and in each were different. Thus, therefore, he came to the same point—that the House ought to be guided by the substantial justice of the case, which, in his opi nion, under all the circumstances (without meaning now to anticipate the debate of Friday), in the pre sent instance, led irresistibly to the conclusion, that a list of witnesses ought to be communicated to the Queen—(Heur, bear)., The Earl o f; '-LAUDERDALE observed, that whatever might be the Report of the Committee, it.' would still be open to the House to adopt whatever course, in the present case, their Lordships might 1 deem expedient; but it would be satisfactory to know what course had been adopted by the House upon former occasions. Lord AUCKLAND agreed with his Noble Friend near him-(Lord Holland) in his view of the question, and would vote against the motion. He was sure their Lordships wished to do substantial justice, but they should not have commenced in a manner un precedented and anomalous, and then look for pre cedent. It was necessary that every information should be given to her Majesty which could serve to her defence ; an.l the means of information could not be complete unless a list of witnesses was com municated—(Wear, hear).—Their Lordships ought either to have one regular and preciSe mode of pro ceeding, which they could all understand and be bound by, or else they should be guided by the cir cumstances of the case, considering only how far the proceeding applied to them was compatible with the Spirit of just investigation. The question was then put upon the motion, as amended, when the numbers appeared to be—Con tents, 18—No Contents, 10--Majority, 8. Their 1•01 dsh ips then forwarded the remaining Bills upon the table, and adjourned till to-morrow. HOUSE OF COMMONS. . Colonel WODEHOUSE brought up the Report of the Se lect Committee appointed to inquire into the merits of a Pe tition. complaining of an undue Election for the Borough of Grantham, which stated, that James Hughes, Esq. was not duly returned. The Sex.sxxo was directed to issue a new Writ accordingly for that Borough. Colonel WODEHOUSE then brought up a special Report from the same Committee, which stated, that James Hughes, Esq. had been found guilty of treating, and had given several sums of money to voters, by way of indemnity for expenses, which incapacitated him, according to the Statute of William 111. from serving in Pa rliament, such a practice being subver sive of the freedom of election. Dr. PHI LLIMORE gave notice of a Resolution on the Re pc+rt, tor to-morrow (this day). Sir JA3117.S MAGKIS'fOSII presented a Petition from Mr. Robert Gourlay, a Scotch Gentleman, who had for some time been settled in the province of Upper Canada, complaining that be had been imprisoned and otherwise oppressed, because he had not immediately conformed with an order for the re moval of strangers from the country at the will of the Autho ri:ies. The Petition prayed for redress generally ; and the Ho noorable and Learned Member observed, that he would pro bahly take some future occasion to CA the attention of the I louse to some of the allegations it contained.—Ordered to lie on the table. Sir JAMES MACKINTOSH, in moving for the printing of the Petition presented in the course of the last Sessiou-froin Mr. Darell, relative to certain Claims on the East India Com pany, expressed his hope that the subject would be taken into consideration in the pauper quarter. The Balms of Mr. Darell were such as deserved to meet with due attention from the East .India Company. Loral BINNING said, that the subject was not lost sight of; it was now ender consideration.—Motion agreed to. Mr. BEN NETT complained of a misrepresentation in the 3funt i as p ro rsiefe, of the speech delivered on the preceding night by the Honourabk Member fur Cork (Mr. Hutchinson), relative to the opthahnic cures in the Army. The Honourable mem b er s aid, that what he had uttered on the subject was en tirely InkrePriseatedi as adverted to in the speech in question, not one word of vrislch was true. lIIMACH 01 PRIVILIIGE. Mr. MARTIN (of Galvray) was sorry to take up the time of the House with a matter that was personal to himself, but he felt it to be necessary on this occasion. On a former day he had noticed a breach of privilege which had taken place. At that time the Gentleman who had undertaken to report what he said, had put his speech in such a manner that it appeared quite ridiculous. He was asked by the Speaker if he proposed to make any motion on the subject? Ills answer was •' No; but ho hoped the raper would do him the honour nos-to men tion luta again.' Afterwards he had seen the Reporter, and on speaking to him co the subject, me net- with the reploalbat he was ready to be accountable for bisection; that he find calved tboeducalos of a Gentleman, and so forth. Ile /bran) certainly haithen said,, that he did not proposet i : k to the issue of " trial by hattk".(2ffsai;gh).—The Gen t then told him, that 61 future, care would be taken that a lllk odd he ad cause for comolaint, 44 For (said be) we vnll lay down our pens —we will lay down our pens, and nothing thati you may say shall be reported." This day, however, in the Tee. per alluded to, he was made to say what could tall from no man but the inmate of an asylum for lunitics. Ile felt cwU4 that this had been done on purpose, and would therefore subadt a motion to the House, " That the Printer and Publish, that Paper should be called to the Bar." The Clerk then read the following paragraph from the Paper complained of : • " Mr. Martin, of Galaxy, compared the Opposition Gentle. men to a big-bellied hackney-coachman, whom he once met in Perla, who spoke in the most disrespectful terms of the King of France, and said he himself would make a better King if put in', his place :" He then moved, " That John J. Robeson and E. P. Glassing ton, the Printer and Publisher, should be ordered to attend the House on Friday."—The motion was agreed to. PETITION OF JOHN MAACK 6. Mr. BENNF.TT presented a Petition from John Drake, complaining of certain hardships imposed upon him by the Go vernor of New South Wales, and praying for relief. The Peti tioner had been the Captain of a vessel employed in taking nut convicts to. New South Wales. Upon a late occasion, while taking out a number of convicts from Cork, he was obliged to ire upon them in his own defence, in consequence of their haver ing mutinied, and thr e atened t o seize the ship. Twelve of the convicts were killed, and thirteen wounded. Upon his arrival at New South Wales, Governor Macquarrie, at the suggestion of his Secretary, had hint apprehended, and sent home to account for his conduct. Three of the convicts were sent to England at the same time, to appear as witnesses against him upon his trial. The Judges, however, had seen no ground of charge against him; and the prosecution consequently failed. It would be suf ficient, to account for the character of the witnesses, to say, that one of them bad since been hanged, and the two others trans. ported. The Petitioner did not complain of the Government at home, but he complained bitterly of Governor Macquarrie, who ' had treated him with the greatest severity, and prevented his getting the certificate which would entitle him to the allowance usually granted topersons in his capacity. This conduct on the part of the Governor had rendered the present application ne cessary, and the Petitioner trusted that the House would eatend tfi him such relief as to their judgment should seem meet. Mr. WYNN thought that the Petition could mein received, as it contained an allegation, stating the claims of the Petitioner to pecuniary remuneration. Mr. GOULBURN said, that it was perfectly true that the Petitioner had commanded a convict ship. In the course of the vflyage, circumstances occurred that had caused the guards to fire on the convicts, and that not merely once, but on two or three occasions. In consequence of this, by the time the ship had concluded her voyage, there had been twelve convicts killed, and thirteen wounded, besides two sailors. The Governor then, very properly, caused an inquiry to be set on foot, and the deci sion finally come to was not founded, as the Petitioner sup posed, on the evidence of convicts, but on the evidence of con victs and sailors. A fairer course could not have been taken; and the Honourable Gentleman, placed in such a situation him self, could not have come to any other decision than that which had been taken. It was complained, that the Petitioner had not received a sum oc money which was usually given to those who landed their convicts in good order. Did the Honourable Gen tleman think, that because the Captain was acqtfitted of murder, that it followed, as a matter of course, that be must have landed those entrusted to his care in good order? He might be quite innocent of the murder, and yet not entitled to the reward. It might, for instance, appear that the disorders which had occurred had in the first instance been created by his own improper con duct, by denying the prisoners the customary recreations, or withholding the usual allowances. Mr. BEN NEIT reminded the House, that the Judge had thought it unnecessary to go into the &fence, conceiving that , there was not a tittle of evidence against him. The SPEAKER said, that the Petition could not be objected to, as informal, if it was the opinion of the House that the usual allowance had been withheld from the Petitioner in consequence I of baying been refused the necessary certificate. Au allegation of this nature'would form a ground of charge. of which it was ' competent to the Petitioner to complain. Lord CASTLEREAGH had no objection that the most fa vourable construction should be put upon the Petition: Mr. WY NN was of opinion, that the subject ought rather to be referred to a Court of Law than to Parliament. He was de cidedly opposed to charges being brought against the Governors of Colonies, unless they could be satisfactorily proved, which did not appear to be the case in the present instance. Lord CASTLEREAGH though disposed to put the most fa vourable construction on the Petition, yet concurred entirely with the Honourable Member who sp oke last, as to the impro prietiof making allegations against persons holding responsible situations, unless they could be duly authenticated. After a few words from Mr. Liaantm, the Petition was read, and ordered tp lie on the table. BREACU OF PRIVILEGE. Dr. PHILLIMORE presented a Petition from Richard Armstrong Jarvis, expressing his contrition for having Incau tiously disobeyed the order of the Home, when ordered to at tend as a witness, and praying that the indulgence of the House might be extended to•hinL Mr. BANKES did not rise to oppose the prayer of the Peti tion; but thought that a longer confinement ought to be awarded to persons offending In such cases. Dlr. W YNN instanced a case where a paean under similar circumstances had been confined six weeks. On the motiun of Dr. PUILLIOIOII4 Richaid Armstrong Jarvis was ordered to be brought to the Bar of the House to-morrow, in order to be discharged. TUE QUEEN'S COUNSEL. Mr. BROUGHAM said, that there were two Stand ing Orders of the House, which prohibited the attend ance of its Members as Counsel in the House of Lords. One of them prohibited the attendance of Members at the Bar of the House of Lords on Appeals and Writs of Error ; the second referred to Bills in pro gress through the Upper House. Ever since 1710, the Standing Order, as faisas respected law proceed ings, had been disregarded, as Members of the House were constantly in the habit of attending on suchbu-' siness at the Bar of the other House. With respect to Bills in progress in the other House, the practice had been different ; the Standing Order of the House had been attended to. It was manifestly a great con venience to the Members of that House, that they should not be liable to be called upon to attend on all Bills, as they might be if they attended on any Bill, as, by the etiquette so essential to the mainte nance of justice, no man could refuse a brief in the Court in which he practised, and the Order was fur ther useful as excluding one mode of influencing the opinion of Members as to Private Bills, the door being, in the opinion of many, quite wide enough open to that kind of influence. The proposition he had now to make was in respect to the case of a Bill now pending in the Lords. He should propose that an exception should be made from the Standing Or der with respect to this Bill, in behalf of the Queen's two Law Officers. This application was rendered necessary by the situation in which her Majesty was placed by the introduction of the Bill into the other House, where she had no Law Officers, and no Of ficer of her Household, the effect-of the ,Bill at the same time being to prevent her from ever having an Household. The other high party concerned had in that House his Ministers and the Officers of his Household, while her Majesty had no one in the si tuation of Nominee in an Election Committee, partly Advocate, partly Judge. He should move, there fore, that the Queen's Attorney and Solicitor-Gen e . rah be allowed to attend the House of Lords on the Bill now pending respecting her Majesty. He had to state, that if that happened, which he could not . for . lbject in their minds. Mr. BROUGHAM said, he had imagined this ap plication would' have been - treated as a matter. of course. Indeed, if it was not, no Member could at tend the Lords on Writs of Enos, which was equally contrary to the Standing Order. If his application. were refused, he should move that Standing Order in the case Of all Counsel, Members of the House. M'r. WYNN said, there was a difference in the two original Resolutions containing the Standing 05lers; one of them prohibiting Members from attending the House of Lords without leave, the other contain ing a prohibition without any mention of leave. He thought, under all the circumstances of the present case, the application should be granted. Mr. BROUGHAM hoped he should 'tot be re quired to postpone his motion bey and to-morrow.' After a iew words between Mr. WYNN and Mr. BpouonAM, Lord - CASTLEREAGH said, he wished to be un derstood that he saw no objection to the application, but wished time to consider it, as the Standing Or ders were quite new to him.—Notice for to-morrow. Sir FRANCIS BURDETT observed, that the King's Attorney-General, who had been ordered to attend the Lords, was in the same situation as the Queen% Counsel. to guard against its repetition. But ' e . that such a proceeding would meet due tr : version. The course which he thought it pi.o.,er ', with a view to bring this affair regnlatly consideration of the House, was to mo e— le Head of the Barrack Department sh Fi),l the Bar of the House, in order to be as to the authority under which he had uh_ dertaken to commence or proceed in the erectiol the Barracks alluded to."—The Honourable Ge:-Ale- mall moved accordingly. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER s that the building of these Barracks was of course der the controul of Parliament, by which alone the means of defraying the expense could be furni ih(A. The Barrack Department must be fully aware of th's in any erection which they undertook, and would no doubt proceed with due caution. But in order zr , •afford an opportunity for inquiry upon the subjcv, he expressed a wish that the Honourable Mein!..,: would postpone his motion.. Mr. CALCH AFT thought it incumbent upon ti:t House to 'proncunce some decision upon this aff.tir, as it involved a direct attempt to supersede its func tions. But having no disposition whatever to act harshly towards the Head of the Barrack Department, be had no objection to comply with the Bight [Jon. Gentleman's wish to postpone - his motion. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said, he understood that the Inspector of the Barrack De partment had had some communications with the Lords'of the Treasury, with respect to the consttuc- Lion of the Barracks alluded to. Notice was entered of 31r. CALCIL%PfS Motion for to-morrow. at stall antieipste, that the Bill shoved annealing% fail be taken I that "lips*, they (thi9ueen4 Cionselrwsiuld have trusted 6; at to request not to be parnlittetl4 vete an it. He tared triativersio m the permission to attend the Lords to be limited to to pursue, re [bp-particular , arid iiccompanied with a declara- unifier the l a T t that it shditld in tiowise be drawn into precededt. 4 , That till Lord CASTLEREAGH suggested that notice Attend at t m add be given of the motion, that time might be rogated a to 'id for Members to turn the subject in their minds. dertaken t EDUCATION BILL. Mr. BROUGHAM brought up the Education Bill, which was read a first time. On moving that it be read a second time, Mr. 13rougham said that he wished to have the blanks filled up before the ' discussion was taken on the principle of the Bill.— He wished now to rectify some mistakes which had got abroad, as to the objects of his Bill, among two highly respectable bodies, the Roman Catholics and the Protestant Dissenters. In consequence of the connection in the Bill between the Schools and the Ecclesiastical Establishment, some members of these bodies had so far taken alarm, that he had been ap plied to by their Agents, and even Counsel of the Ca tholics, to know whether he intended to force Roman Catholics to send their children to Protestant schools; ,and by Dissenters, to know whether he intended «to root out the last remains of religious liberty ?" For the mistake of the Roman Catholics there was no foundation. As to religious liberty he begged to say, that he had always 'hewn his opinions on that subject by his votes on the Catholic and Test ques tions, that he was an enemy to all tests not abso lutely necessary for the safety of the establishment • and, especially, *as the la s t man to a d vocate t he maintenance of the tests as they now were. He had in the Bill, as it was now framed, omitted the sacra mental test for schoolmasters, which even some members of the establishment objected to. The Hon. Member declared, that nothing could be farther from his intention than to infringe the rights or offend the feelings of that respectable, and by him, infinitely respected body, the Dissenters of England, who were long known to be among the most ardent friends of civil and religious liberty, while their Moral habits, and loyal disposition towards-the Con ,stitution of the country, entitled any with they en tertained to 'the most attentive consideration. He hoped that those estimable persons would feel satis fied with the alteration which he had made in the Bill before the House. Mr. WM. SMITH concurred with his Honourable Friend who had just sat down, in the surprise which he had expressed upon the apprehension which some Catholics professed to entertain, that it was. mallet through this Bill to erect .schools to which Catholic parents should be obliged to send their children to, learn Protestantism. But be must say, that a great alarm prevailed among the Dissenters in conse-! quence of the construction of his Honourable Friend's , Bill. He did not -mean that they thought this Bill , was calculated, as his Honourable Friend had ex pressed it, to extinguish the last spark oT religions liberty that remained in this country. No ; their apprehensions did not go to such an extent. But - as he was about, in a few days, to present a Petition r from agreat body of Dissenters, praying for the total repeal of the Test Act, he must naturally object to the proposition of the Honourable Gentleman's Bill to extend the -test still farther. The fact was, that the Dissenters were much alarmed by that part of this measure which proposed that the Sacrament should be administered to every schoolmaster ap pointed under the Act. According to his conviction, which was sustained by the opinion of every friend to religious liberty with whom he had conversed or communicated upon the :abject, this Bill should not be allowed to pass in its present shape, or without undergoing a very material modification. Without such inodihcation, indeed, neither he himself, nor the great body of the. Dissenters of England, could ever be reconciled to its adoption.—The Bill was read a first, and ordered to be read a second time-to-morrow. -NEW BARRACKS IN TIM REGENT'S PARK. Mr. CALCRAFT said, that he felt it his duty to call the attention of the House to a matter which very much affected its functions. It appeared, from what the Chancellor of the Exchequer said last night, that he did not know the Barracks in the Regent's Park, to which his proposition referred, were ac tually building; but he (Mr. Calcraft) was enabled to state that the building of these commenced some two or three weeks ago ac least, as the stable walls were already nearly completed. Now as that House was constitutionally understood to hold the purse-suing of the public money, it was necessary to inquire by whose authority the expenditure of that money had been entered into without its sanction? This, indeed, was a point much more material to be considered than even the sum of L 70,000 which it was said the erection of these Barracks would cost the country for it appeared that some person had undertaken to; upend the public money, not only without the sanction of Parliament, but eve n without the sanc..l tion of the Board of Treasury=-(Hcar, hear, hear). — It would be recollected that the Finance Committee had remarked upon the expenditure of no less than eight millions of=the public money at different times, without due reference to the authority of Parliament, and that such a practice was deprecated as quite un constitutional, K hope being expressed that care Would ilMiffiii Slit MANASSEIf LOPEZ. Lord JOIIN RUSSELL lose, pursuant to notice, to move an Address to the Crown for shortening the imprisonment of Sir M. Lopez. The Noble Lord, in proposing to recommend the extension of mercy .to this Gentleman, on the ground that he had already suffered quite enough to answer the ends of justice, disclaimed any, intention whatever to impeach the sentence, or to cast any imputation on the Judges. From the nature of the laws, indeed, which Pat iia meat had enacted against bribery and corruption at elections, the Judges must naturally consider it us their duty to visit any offence of that descriptioa which was brought before them with Fectiliar rity. It was not for the Judges to lock to anythi;:g but that which regularly came before them in cr. dence. There were, however, some considerations ia this case which formed a strong appeal to mercy. Yet this was a case in which, perhaps, it would not be so becoming - in his Majesty's Ministers to advi •the exercise of the Royal Prerogative of mercy, zs 'the prisoner had usually supported Ministerial me.!- sures, and as the prosecution against hi m h a d is-- 'nateci with that House. For-these reasons it aprea proper that the House should interpose, in order least to do away any idea of corrupt motives on tLe part of.Ministeks in this instance. The consikie:atiens - which pleaded for a mitigation of the sentence were these: Sir M. Lopez was now far advanced in lift, :being about 64 yeari of age, and imprisonment icr such a period as two years must be deemed a very severe infliction upon such a man, comprehending, as it did, at least one-fifth of the time that he could naturally be expected to remain in existence. Sir M. Lopez had also paid ten thousand pounds fine. —lt was also to be considered that this Gentleman might have been ignorant of the magnitude of his offence. For, from the general practice of the Corn wall Boroughs, as well As from the (harmer in which that practice was talked of in that House, which ought never to be mentioned but with detest . t tion, i t was not improbable that t h e p r i s oner did not regard his conduct in the proper light. The practice bribery at elections was indeed spoken of in such terms by all parties in that House, as well as by those of no party, that it was not matter of surprise that the prisoners judgment should have been misled, and that instead of being deemed more guilty, he should rather be considered as less guilty than others.— Having then been already nearly twelve mouths in 'prison, he submitted, that on the grounds he had stated, the prisoner was a proper object for the cle mency of the Crown. 'Therefore, he felt it his duty to bring forward the motion with which he meant to conclude, and particularly in consequence of the part which he had taken with respect to the corruptions at Grampound. After stating that he meant, early in the next Session, again to bring forward the proyo sition for disfranchising Grampound, the prosecution of which, he had, - from cei tain unfortunate dreier, •stances, been under the necessity of declining in the present Session, the Noble Lord concluded with moving " An Address to the Throne, praying that hi; Majesty would be graciously pleased to shorten the period of Sir Manasseh Lopez's imprisonment, in sue:: manner, and at such time, as his Majesty may think proper." Mr. W. WYNN could not agree to this motion.— He thought the House were too ready to interfere with the Executive. The present case was one of tl:e last-in which the House should interfere. The Crowa had the full exercise of its function of mercy in this case as much as it would have in any case, and ought not to be interfered with. Lord CASTLEREAGH strongly opposed tl:e motion. It was the first time such an interferet:re with the Crown had been sue sted ; and he trusted it would not be repeated, as it must be attended wi;:i great inconvenience to have the House of Commas interfering in the administration of justice. Tie Noble laird had now expressed his opinion ; he hoped .his Lordship would now withdraw his motion, and he might be satisfied that the individual referred would not be by this discussion placed on a less ad vantageous footing than he stood before. Sir T. ACLANI) saw no reason why the House, which had in this case been the prosecutor, should not, as in other cases the prosecutor frequently did, recommend the offender to mercy ; big an whatever manner this motion should be disposed of, he con , !- dered the path to be, rendered much mote open and unembairassed than it was before his Noble Friend brought forward his motion. Mr. 11. GURNEY supported the motion, and ex pressed his desire that Mr. Swami's name should be added to that of Sir M. 'Ape; • Sir JOSEPH YORKE also urged the mitigatioa of the sentence against Mr, SIV3II r., whose delinquency was light indeed compared to that of Sir M. Lore"- Yet the' Noble Mover thought proper to prefer ;,:e goose to the Swann —( Lar r y • • ;141. .:.., , r)—intustn c ; th e c i INICii -o-:;=.. :;;r.. ~;