Star. — London, England, 1821-03-08 00:00:00

. ~. ... • E(t . PROCEEDINGS. %, HOUSE OF COMMONS, MARCH 7. 4 l b ARMEE IN LANCASTER JAIL. Mr. JAMES presented a Petition from Nathan Broadhurst, now confined in Lancaster Jail. The Petitioner stated, that he had been first arrested on a charge of High Treason, but this chaise being abae aonecl; he saas'tried fora misdemeanouf, and being found guilty, was sentenced to two. years imprison ment. He stated, that all Newspapers were denied hitn.; that he was compelled to deliver all letters, written by him, unsealed into the hands of the jailor, and that the letters addressed to him were opened before delivered to him. He stated that the turnkey told him, that he must go into what was called " the ditch ;" he remonstrated with the aurnkey, and a struggle ensued; the turnkey struck him a blow, from the effects of which he suffered such pain that he was compelled to send for a surgeon. Being Awed in" the ditch," which is a low damp place, he was fettered, and waslonly relieved in consequence of the petition of his fellow-prisoners. He set forth, that being educated in the Unitarian principles, some of his - friends sent him some tracts to his prison, con sisting of some Numbers of the " Theological Repo sitory, which he was not allowed to retain in the prison. He further stated that he was obliged to work, in consequence of the orders of the jailor, or dispense with a proper allowance of provisions, al though when judgment was passed on him he ap plied to the Judge to know ily he was to be con-1 demned to labour, and the Judge expressly told him that he would not. The Petitioner'complained,that he applied to the visiting Magistiates for relief, but that they, upon examination, concluded that he was not entitled to any redress. The Honourable Mem ber said, that this unfortunate Petitioner had become the object of the hostility of these Magistiates, be cause he was like Mr. Pitt and Loid Castlereagh be fore their accession to power, namely, a Reformer ; anKI further, he thought *at this individual had in-' curred their especial dislike, for they were the very Magistrates who sanctioned the atrocities committed at,,Mauchester..[Mr. HORNEY--" No, no; not one, I can assure the House."J—The Ilonourable Member (Mr. James) said, he understood that they were the same, but he would rcract the assertion on the authority of the Honourable Gentleman. He wished to call the attention of the House particularly to the allegation in this Petition, that not only was the pri soner compelled to give his letters unsealed to thc iailor, but letters sent to him were broken open. But there was an aggravation of even this unjust and ille gal exercise of discretion, for the letter which the Petitioner sent to him (Mr. James), inclosing the Pe tition, was broken open and detained, and a copy of it only sent to him with the Petition. He believed that this amounted to a breach of privilege : he doubted very much if the Magistrates themselves bad the power of violating the sacredness of letters. He moved that the Petition be brought up. Mr. HORNBY said, that the rules now in opera tion in the prison, were made pursuant to the ZSlst of the late King, and sanctioned by the approbation of ,two Learned Judges. He was sure lie need say no more in favour of these regidations to satisfy the House of their propriety, than that they were deli berately revised, and sanctioned by that learned, hu mane, and constitutional Judge, Mr. Justice Bayley. With respect to the allegation respecting the opening of letters, lie was sure the House would see at once the necessity of trusting to the jailor the power of inspecting all communications to and from prisoiters. As to the exclusion of Papers, he could only say, that this was a rule most deliberately adopted by a majority of the Magistrates. There was, indeed, an opposition to it, and lie was botind to state, that he `voted in the minority. However, the sanction of the Judges, added to the sense of the majority of the Magistrates, induced him to give up his opinion en tirely. The House would next observe, that as a reward for general good conduct, a quant;ty of pro visions were allowed in addition to the jail allowance; and this allowance was withheld in no case where the conduct of the prisoner was such as to deserve it. He assured the House that no person was asked to labour in the jail, unless they were desirous of having the County allowance, to which was annexed the condition of their labcniring for a specified time in the day. The Hon. Member concluded by eulo gizing the character for integrity, vigilance, and hu manity of the jailor of Lancaster Castle. The Petition was brought up and read ; and, upon the motion tkat the Petition be laid on Ihe table, Lord STANLEY said, he was anxious to bear tes timony to the character and conduct of the Keeper of the prison. This was not the first complaint which had been exhibited against him : inquiry had been instituted, and he had come out Of that inquiry with credit and honour to himself. If the present pro ceeding was to terminate here, he would not oppose the present motion for the Petition lying on the table; but as this motion would probably be followed by one for printing the Petition, he could not agree to it, as that would be to make the House a party to circulating libels and private slander. Mr. H.SUMNER, for the same reason, should op pose the Petition being laid on the table. Sir 'R. WILSON contended for the Petition being received, else how should the Members, not at present in the H ouse, know the complaints of t h e Petitioner ? _ _ Lord STANLEY said, tliat he was not in Lancas ter fof some time, but that he saw the assertion of the Surgeon who examined Broadhurst upon paper. Mr. Serjeant ONSLOW thought that the House ought to pause before it gave publicity to a paper 'which contained a mass of calumnies. No doubt the complaints of abuses, and especially such as were committed on an individual in the circumstance's of this'Petitioner, deserved the most serious considera tion of the House; but they ought not to forget that justice was also due at their hands to others ; and in the spirit of that justice it was 'that he now declared his, resolution of opposing the printing of the Petition. Sir ROBERT WILSON said, that tiovernor Aris was praised for his good character just before it was publicly established that he was guilty of many of the things imputed to him. Mr. HOBHOUSE said, that some time sincr a Pe tition stas.sent to him from this very jail, complaining 'of abuses committed by this jailor; but that the pre-, ieuting of this Petitibn was stopped, in consequence of a representation made to him by the Petitioners !Opt the grievances were put a stop tsh by the inter h . & ference of the visiting Magistrites. Tie stated this to show the House that the jailor was not exactly enti tled to all that praise so liberally: bestowed on him ; and next, that it was possible now that abuses might be in existence which sequired correction. Mr. LOCKHART thought that the Petition de served the attention of the House, and that the truth of its _allegations ought to be invired'info. Mr. WWN was far from thinking it the duty of the House to allow a Petition to remain on the table, containing statements _which, according to the evi dence of several MembeNs of the Hoiise, were false l and calumnious. He denied that the House of Com ' mons was the place for the Petitioner to apply to for redress, when it was in his power to have recourse to the inferior tribunals. Mr. BERNAL said, that the Noble Lord (Stanley) did not contradict the statements of the Petition from his own knowledge. Mr. WYNN stated, that he coupled the contradic tions given by the Noble Lord and the Honourable Magistrate (Mr. Hornby). Mr. HORNBY said, he coul3 contradict, of his .own knowledge, and that in the most decisive man ner, the representation that any of the cells were either damp or badly ventilated. With respect to the struggle between Broadhurst and the turnkey, he could only say, that the day after it took place; hav ing stated the facts in the presence of Broadhurst, as they were represented by the turnkey, he (Broadhurst) did not contradict the statement. Mr. JAMES thought it strange that the Honour able and Learned Gentleman (Serjeant Onslow) should declare upon his conscience that these statements were not true, since it was impossible he could know any thing of them. Mr. Serjeant ONSLOW rose to order. He said, that he uttered no such words. Mr. JAMES said, he was not aware of any defect to his auricular organs, but he thought he heard the words just repeated by him used by the Learned Gen tleman. At all events, he had not heard the princi pal facts in the Petition yet contradicted. Mr. LAMBTON wished to know if he Vas to un derstand from his - Noble Friend that he meant to per sist in his opposition? Lord STANLEY said, his own private opinion was, that the motion ought to be resisted—(llear). Farther than that he would not go. If the House wished, he should withdraw his opposition—(No, no). Mr. LANIBTON said, it was a monstrous princi ple to see carried into effect, that the testimonies of several Members to the good character of a jailor, should be sufficient to induce the House to turn away from the complaints of a prisoner, which charged that jailor with acts of cruelty and oppression. lie would vote for the printing of the Petition, because he thought that the doors of the Howse ought to be thrown open to the Petitions of the People. He knew nothing of the character of the Petitioner; but as Lord Chatham said of Mr. Wilkes, he would say, that he would pay no attention to the private vices or public errors of .a Petitioner, but look at him indif ferently, as the possessor of rights which the law alone could deprive him of. Mr. LUSHINGTON thought, that after the con tradiction given to the statements in the Petition, the House ought not to interfere. Mr. JAMES said, that the complaint with respect to the opening of letters was not attempted to be denied. He contended that the jailor had not the power—nay,even the Magistracy the mselves had not the power—of violating the sacredness of a letter. Mr. B. WILBRAHAM thought that this was not a case for the interference of the House. Mr. 1101011IY said he well recollected this tract ; it had been submitted to the Magistrates at Quarter. Sessions. It contained the grossest abuse of the whole body of the Clergy which he had ever read, and for that reason the Magistrates had ordered it to be excluded. Mr. MANSFIELD also objected to the Petition being received. Air. HUTCIIINSON thought the Douse should receive the Petition, and not be satisfied because an Hon. Member said its contents were not true. He would ask whether the principle was now to be esta blished, that if a Member for the County, and Chair man of the Quarter Sessions, being a Member of the House, should oppose the Petition being received, the House would reject it? He hoped it was not.— He thought it was better the House should rather err in receiving than rejecting the Petitions of the People—OM/O. Mr. CREEVEY was in favour of receiving the Petition. If it did injustice to the jailor, the testi mony of Members, to which he was ready to add his, did that individual ample justice. • Mr. BENNETT was also in favour of receiving the Petition. Mr. CALCRAFT, as a friend of the jailor, was in favour of the Petition being laid on the table, as the best mode of doing him justice. The House then divided, and the numbs were— For the Petition being received - - 33 Against it - - - 86 • Majority against it - - - —53 RILL FOR TOE RELIEF OF ROMAN CATHOLICS. Mr. PLUNKETT brought in a Bill for the remo val of-certain disqualifications and disabilities affect ing his Majesty's Roman Catholic subjects, which was read the first time, and ordered to be read the second time on Friday, the 16th of March.—Ordered to be printed. ' Mr. PLUNKETT brought in another Bill, to re-, gulate the intercourse and correspondence between persons in Holy Orders, of the Roman Catholic per tuasion, ' and the See of Rome. Read the first time, and ordered to be read the second tinge on Friday, the 16th of March.—Ordered to be printed.... •I •USINESS OP THE HiMSE. Mr. WYNN brought up the Report of the Select Committee appointed to consider of the most effec tual mode of expediting the introduction of Bills into that House; and the Committee had agreed to A Re solution, that it would be expedient that not rnore than 20 Orders of the Day should be appointed to be taken into consideration by the House on any one day. He said that he meant to lay this Resolution on the table, and have it printed; and after a short time, during which the House would have an oppor tunixy to take it into consideration; he would move ;last it be placed amongst the Standing Orders of the House. PARLIAMSNTARY RIItORIe. Mr. LAMBTON said, it w;s decidedly his inten+ don to bring an his motion on the subject of Palle 'minter). Remit on the 10th bf April. is object would, as last , year, be. the extension of the right of voting to all househailders _paying direct taxes, to abolish all decayed Boroughs, and to restore Trien nial Parliaments. - COMPLAINT AGAINST A LEARNED mum. Mr. HOBHOUSE said, he had now to present a Petition of - the greatest importance to the Public and to public justice. It was a Petition signed by 1,000 or 1,500 inhabitants of Westminster, and related to the power assumed by Judge's lately of fining defend ants whilst making their defence. This Petition was couched in most respectful terms; it complained of no Judges, it alluded to no act done, but merely to the power assumed by the Court; and therefore he hoped there would be no difficulty in the Petition tieing.•received ; it only prayed that the Petition should be referred to the Committee Of Justice. He (Mr. Hobhouse) entirely agreed with the Petitioners, that this House was the most proper place to make the complaint ; and though it vas no question of the Privilege of Parliament, it was, in fact, a question affecting the privileges of the People—filear)—it was idle to say the law was open to all. Horne Tooke, when he heard this, well said, " so was the London Tavern." The Courts of Law were, as Gold smith said of the sign— " Inviting the passing smatter who maid pay?" lie (Mr. Hobhouse) doubted much whether there was an appeal from the four Judges of the Court of King's Bench to the House of Lords, on a point of juris diction. Yet the power of fining summarily assemed by the Learned Judge was a frightful one. Mr. Harrington, in his Oreana, says, in his Parliament no lawyer should find a place, because, said he, " They are a set of men feathered and armed against the interests of the People." A few examples, per haps, would shew that they were at least not infalli ble. The great Lord Ellenborough, as he was called, once said, aye, and gravely too, " that anything Vas a libel which hurt the feelings of his Majesty s Mi nisters !"—(Laitgker.)—The Learned Judge certainly used the expression ; but perhaps his admirers, not thinking that so profound an observation suited well with the character of the Judge, caused the expres sion not to be much known.. In the Ring's Bench it was lately laid down, that writing alone made the crime of libel. He (Mr. Hobhouse) had once :he for tune to be obliged to appeal to the law, and he well remembered the answer which he received from the King's Bench. Mr. Justice Best did not hesitate to say, that a Habeas Corpus was not a writ of right, but of favour from the Court, and in support of this assertion he cited a case from Blackstone, When he (Mr. Ilobhouse) reached home—he would not say what that home was—(4 laugh)—he referred to the authority eited by Mr. Justice Best, and he found that the case was one of three sailors, and that the person to whom the Habeas Corpus was refused was a foreigner, and it was for that reason only it was not granted him—( Hear ).—The !lon. Member then proceeded to argue in support of this Petition, that a Judge sitting at Nisi Prins, whatever the Su preme Court might have, could not have this power of cominitting for contempt ; and be cited a variety of instances of gross insult offered to the Judges; yet never, until the case of Davison, had any Judge as sumed the power of fining for contempt. He parti cularly alluded to the cases of Eaton, Carlile, Hone, and others, in which neither Lord Ellenborough nor the present Lord Chief Justice had attempted to in flict fines for insults. If this doctrine had been adopted, we might have been deprived of some of the most powerful and eloquent appeals ever made by the Bar ; for in many of these the Advocate had used language ; which in these clays, and under this doctrine, might have been construed into contempt. He need only to allude to what bad passed between Lord Erskine and Lord Mansfield, in.a case in which -the Counsel, then Mr. Erskine, mentioning Lord Sandwich, was told by Lord Mansfield to refrain, as Lord Sandwich was not before the Court. Mr. Er-' skine replied, " True, my Lord, and therefore I wish' , to bring him before it." And on another occasion, when. Mr. Justice Buller threatened to commit. Mr. l Erskine, that eminent man said, his Lordship might commit, but he would not be *vented doing his duty. He also alluded r,-the cafe of Mr. Hunt, of The Examiner, lately tried before Chief Justice Ab bott. The defence of 11.6. Hunt might be construed 'as aggravation of the offence; and a passionate or positive Judge might have made it out to be a series of contempt', and might have inflicted fine after fine without limit. He (Mr. Hobhouse) had no hesi tation in saying that Judges were often made and promoted from political considerations. When lawyer distinguished himself at the Bar, and some times in that Ilouse, in favour of popular rights, there was current price for him. What was corn moldy called the rat-trap, the Chief Justiceship of Chester was given to him, and then he defended everything, right or wrong, done by Ministers. The Chief Justice of,the King's Bench was often promoted from the Bench to that place; and could he forget his creators in the day of his power ?—(Cheers).—ln any ease between A. apd B. the English Judges were the best in the world ; but when the Government had a purpose to effect, commend him only occasionally to the Judges of England. In cases of great politi cal feeling the bias and leaning of Judges to the side of Government had been so obvious, and so unde niable, that no man could pretend ignorance of it. In such cases the clearest rules of law, and the ut most vigilance of the constitutional guardians of li berty, to protect the subjects from errors which were perhaps unavoidable in a Judge, were of no avail— Quas aut Incuria fudit, • Aut humans parum cavit natura." Mr. Serjeant ONSLOW should not follo'w the Ho- nourable Gentle Man through his wide argument, but confine himself to that part of the argument which related to the fining for contempt. The Hon. Mem ber did not deny- the power of Judges to commit for 1 contempt, but only their power of fining. Now, ise should have thought the fining was the lesser punish ment. It was said that was a new case, but he de nied it; cases of fine were not new : in the case of Mr. Stone, tried for High Treason, 'a person was I fined for improperly expressing his feelings ; and other simflar instances existed on record. The Learned Serjeant contended, that it was necessary the Court should possess this power of fining : they did possess it ;. and Mr. Justice Best had exercised the power most properly. Mr. C. WYNN complained, Au the Hon. Mem-. ber had, ia bringing forward this Petition, brought .. • forward charges alsd against "octet living a n d d ell; whilst the Judges still living were absent, an d not able to defend themselves ; nor could their fire r & who.were not aware such charges were to be br 01 54 for;tard, be prepared to defend them. The Petition was then brought up and mad. It expressed the regret of the Petitioner s for a f,,, tlet , decision of the House ; and stated, that, by suc h av _ duct, the House would lose whatever respect %ta ig a felt for it by the People. • Mr. HOI3HOUSE said, the committal w as cm? sedeate curia to remove a present observ a tion. H e had made no invidious charges against the and only stated what was on reco r d. St% Mr: Serjeant ONSLOW explAined.-o" ht (Low tion that the Petition should lie on th e ta b le, Mr..C. WYNN thought Cie Petitio n could Ret let received. The SPEAKER cited a similar case, iri ‘t-1 1 ; ( )+ 4 Petition had not been allowed to lie on the (Alt the House could not allow what had taken I,t4ct there to be canvassed elsewhere. Mr. HOLIHOUSE would withdraw the and introduce an amended one without the ebjecti,,,, able matter. Mr. DENNIAN stated, that no former eri v e had occurred, of a Petition t espect fully rejected unread. The former Peution \tits oi:e nr.l worthy of the attention of the . House. The pr.!...tk e of fining was so novel as to call for inquir; on t i t part of the House. The intimidation of th e p o i., boner might prevent him from doing jittl.ti:e to bi t cause. He lamented that the former Pctitit,r, 1,1 been rejected ; and hoped a new and unoNectica4:e one wouldbepreented.____ Lord CASTLEREAGH adhered to the rinp r i tt , of the decision of the I lothe ola a former nioa: . 11! . c mode in which the Petition had becsa 'nese:Ac t ' was one cause of its rejection. I.le had not uneerol that any remedial measure wakto be founded on tt, ll Petition, else he should not have objected to there. ception of it. It the Petition should be breaghrbact ' free from objetlion, he shottld not °vase its rem. tion. Ile only objccte4 to the Petition ciarasii e . .. the administration-of the'haw. Mr. C. WiiNN hoped, that more parts than one.:( the Petition would beomitted when it 410;4,1 be• AgA i l brought up. In. 17Si, two similar Petitions had be;:a negatived, ram. .con.. Mr. SCAR Liciv said, that in the ease of col!. tempt, the Court above could not rake cognizance ot the Court below. Parliament W 144 the only tribunal to which an appeal could lie. The ATTORNEY-GgNERAL stated, ;liar tlir Court of King's Bench had decided that the•corduct of the Judge was legal, and that the defendaat had. not been impeded in his defence. Mr. SC A Rum explained; and the Petition was . then withdrawn. AGRICULTURAL DISTREsS. Mr. CURNVEN presented a Petition irons Ite Nam tml Occupiers of Land in the Parish of Ilarringtori,Countyofe6m berland, complaining of Agricultural Dratrese.--Laid on thetahl: and ordered to be printed. Mr. CU ItTElSpresented a Petition from certain Landholders in the neighbourhood of lloriam, in Suuex, oa the subject at Agrict.tural Di , ,tre;s :7 l.2id on the — Mr. LOCKE! A ItT pre%ritcd a Petition hem 116 Otterien of Land at Northampton ; and another, signed by Po eventy copiers of Land near Pserboroag:i, complaining siAgricaltand Distress.—Laid on the table. Mr. WESTERN preseEted a reition from the Amish of Ding:e, in Essex, on the same sub;ect.-I.nd onthe table. Mr. GOOCH rose, pursuant to notice, to myelin. a Committee on the Agricultural Distress; and he hoped the Committee would have full power to in. quire into the cause of that distress, and to point oat the remedies. It was one consolation that the case had never called forth any political or party feeling. All the great sources of the prosperity of the country were involved in each other; Uralic must thinkthat Agriculture was the basis of the prosperity of the country. The Petitioners were 100,000 in nurrkr, and formed the heart's blood of the country. A No ble Lord, in another place, had ascribed the preset state of things to a superabundant crop; but hoer that opinion- he differed, as 'a superabundance had not generally been the case. He disapproved of the system of the Corn Laws, and especially of that part that related to the warehousing. A great . quantity of grain was thrown into the market, and the pries necessarily fell. The sum total paid to the Property Tax by the land, had been six millions ; while the other classes paid only two millions. Things could not go on as they did at present, and he hoped the House would do its duty freely and manfully. CP less the question was met fairly, a Committee ea only be a delusion ; but he thought something might be done to preserve the country from total ruM. Ike Honourable Gentleman concluded by moving Me the several Petitions on the subject of the Agricalts• ral Distress, should be referred to a Select Cole mittee, to inquire into the causes of the existing dis• tress, and to report upon. them to the House. Sir E. KNATCHBULL seconded the motion. Al that was asked by the Petitioners was inquiry, and not to interfere with the principles of political er . 'noresy. Ile hoped the House would look to a rani' cal result, as by that alone could the country behest` fited. The object was to do what was for the g of the Public. He must distinctly disclaim ani teution to raise the price of bread. The case os brought before the House from absolute and irafe; rious necessity. The general distress was Pre"' from the increase of pauperism, and the accumto tion of the Poor Rates. He was afraid that maul tradesmen of the metropolis had not received that prompt payment of their bills which the interests , , commerce required. If, for the last five years, thel farmer had received the average price of 711 s. gear ter, he would admit that he - had no case to mak . j, out. In five parishes near him, 3,000 acres 111 , either been given up to the landlord, or thrown el., of cultivation. In 1818, 1819, and MO, the case 0 . the farmer had been growing worse and worse. farmer had been compelled to bring his corn at," early time to the market, and hence the price 0 " been low. The great quantity of corn in the I D !: ket, from 1818, had been constantly a ffecting b.• price of provisions. ShoUld the price rise to the ports would he thrown open, and the coal, would be inundated with foreign corn ; that 7, affect the price of provisions for three years. in the Bill for the Resumption of Cash Payments been first introduced, it had been regarded as doubtful policy. But after the progress that . been made, and a recent notice of the (; hander the Vachequer, he thought it would be isasPe' 1.••• U of Lai 94 to t