Star. — London, England, 1821-03-10 00:00:00

WO MO be allowed to say, he had misaken the li a bl e Lord's meaning at the time; and had ender ,oom a s reading a lecture to the People of Eng i d t o refrain from petitioning in future. H r , MONCK said, that as the Mover (Mr. S. W at l e y) on this occasion, had discovered the unfor.. tw ee paragraph in question to be " false,' and ;s ber had discovered it was " false, detestable, and w e d," he should not be surprised if the Attorney coral was to find out that it was also 46 blasphe -000 and seditious"—( Hear ).,--Now with regard to the para r r apb, acid the reflection it was said to con athe if Gentlemen would read it they vel wo w see that all the reflection was cast upon Lord css o ssee gh, and that the Hou* escaped free. He tses idered the whole as a political squib, and as such bought to be passed over. Lord CASTLEREAGH did not know whether the Honourable Member was here as Counsel for the se ,—(Spoke, spoke!)—The paragraph was par ticularly levelled at him, and he hoped in courtesy to pled indulgence. If the Hon. Member intended o ,aefend the paragraph, he should, against his in rgnation, be forced to support the motion which had been brought forward against the Printer. Mr. CLRWEN hoped the Motion would be with irawn. He had left the House the other night with efie same impression of the meaning of the Noble Lord as did the Honourable Member for Cork (Mr. Hutchinson). Ur. S. WORTLEY had no objection to withdraw ing the motion, if Gentlemen ceased to defend the paragraph; but he on his conscience believed the pa rlgniph affected even the safety of the House, and , whilst he saw any party or set of men in the House inclined to defendthe paragraph, he would divide the House, even though lie should go out alone. Mr. J. P. GRANT said, no Member could defend theparagraPh in question, in the view the Honour able Member seemed to intimate. Ile considered the paragraph as most indiscreet, and, as such, con demned tt. He trusted, however, the Honourable M em ber would withdraw his motion. Mr. HOBUOUSE did not know but lie might be regarded as a bad Counsellor for Mr. Lambert, but differed from every Ment6er who had spoken on the subject. It appeared to' him that the proper' gime of defence had not been taken by any of those the had preceded him. He was of opinion that that, Horse had not the power to commit, in a case like ;be present—( Cries of Order, order). The SPEAKER said, that no doubt could exist ithe power of the House to inquire into a gross' Watch of privilege. Mr. HOBHOtiFSE said, he must bow to the autlao- . rity* of the Chair ; but he must observe, that the Ho ;mumble Member for Yorkshire must not attempt to make a condition the ground of withdrawing his mo tion; for he coold not consent to say he considered this paragraph as improper. The Honaurable'Mover aid, be knew of nothing so calculated to injure the House as such publications as this ; he would tell the House what was much more mischievous— nmely, such motions as the present. The Noble Lord, last Session, had given what he (Mr. lob bone) considered a most discreet opinion on the sub ject of the Western Luminary. The Noble Lord said if they began to notice these things, it would be im possible to say where they would end ; so he would say now; for was there a day in which libels were not published reflecting on Gentlemen sitting on his side. tithe House? for himself in particular, was there a day in whiab he was not represented as a person de loth of overturning the Constitution? The Honour.. able Gentleman's friends might be obliged to him for his defence of them, especially when it was recol ked, that on one occasion he had voted them inca pable; but of that he did not complain, as some new lights might have broken in upon him since. Mr. S.WORTLEY declared, that consistent with his notion of duty he could not withdraw his motion. Mr. BARING opposed the motion. Mr. BATHURST thought the motion could not be withdrawn unconditionally; there must be some cen ser' expressed upon it. Colonel DAVIES spoke in favour of withdrawing ktk motions. Mr. H. G. BENNETT said he had no objection to withdrawing his motion, if the Hen. Member op posite would do the same by his. Mr. BAREAM complained that the motives of Gentlemen on his side of the House were misunder stood. They never affected to defend the doctrine that a printer was justified in slurring a majority or minority of that House ; but this did not appear to them to be a case of that nature. Mr. C. BATHURST denied that there could be ony.mistake, unless a wilful one, on the printer's part; for unless the question had been upon the Noble Lord's admonition, could the minority vote against it ?—(Hear, hear).—lf the lion. Member for York shire was correct in his view, he (Mr. Bathurst) did not see how he could give the motion up. He thought, however, with the explanation that no offence was intended against the House, the motion might be totally withdrawn. Sir R. FERGUSON said, thatjt was under an im pression that the Noble Lord had used the words, that he rose with some warmth to call for an expla nation at the time. The explanation of this night, by the Noble Lord was, however, entirely satisfac tory. He wished the Hon. Member for Yorkshire to withdraw his motion, for no man was more jealous of the privileges of the House, and yet he (Sir R. Terguson) saw no libel in the paragraph. There was to Member at that side who would countenance a libel on the House; but, in fact, they did not con ceive this to have been a libel. Lord CASTLEREAGH said, in explanation, that his complaint was not against the number of Peti tions coming there, but th a t t h e P et i t i oners pre f erre d tomplaints on subjects of which the House, in the discharge of its important functions, could not take cognizance—( Hear, hear). Mr. S. WORTLEY asked, was he to understand that the Hon. Member for Shrewsbory (Mr. Bennett) would avow the paragraph to be a libel—("No! no!' 1'..°" 1 the Oppositku).,— Then he would kress it to a i evasion. !Jr. DENMAN would venture to ask any Mem kr, supposing that the Honourable Mover was cork tea in the view which he took of the question of pri /liege• whether he was justified in persisting in his 11 . 1 ution, merely upon t h e groun d t h at some indivi duals differed w ith I s i m in opinion upon the subjecta. could not conscientiously admit hit interpretation, to In their atm—(Hear, Near.)--He h6iieci that the motion and the amendment would both be with drawn.- He, howeter, was not sorry that this ques tion had be e n ' agitated, because he looked upon it as one illustration of the mischief which must iuevitably result from rejecting the Petitions of aggrieved per sons without reading them.—(Hear, Hear.) ' The House then divided on the question of ad journment, when the numbers were— For adjourning - - Against it - 34 - 155 Majority against the Amendment - —l2l ' Some discussion now took place with closed doors. Upon thp return of strangers to the Gallery, Mr: LAUISTOW was as his legs, moving the previous question; on the original motion. Mr. BENNETT entreated the Honourable Mem -1 ber for Yorkshire to withdraw his motion, as it occu pied the time of the House whilst so much pressing business was coming on. Mr. STUART WORTLEY would not consent to withdraw his motion, unless on the conditions he had stated. He understood these were not to be ac ceded to—(" No, no,"from the Opposition). Lord CASTLEREAGH conceived the only ques tion was, whether the offence complained of was a breach of privilege which ought to be followed up by calling the Printer of the Morning Chronicle to the Bar of the House? For his own part, he thought it a subject that might be very easily accommo dated—(Hear, hear). As there appeared no disposi tion on the part of the House to press a measure of punishment, he hoped the Honourable Gentleman would withdraw his motion—(Cries of " Hear," and 44 No, no"), Lord A. HAMILTON contended that, previous to calling a printer to the Bar of that House, it had been uniformly the practice to establish some ground for such a measure. If the printer should be brought to the Bar on Nlonday, he (Lord A. Hamilton) would ask foi what had he been brought there? The pro position had been made by the Honourable Gentle man who sat nest the Noble Lord, solely because the printer had provoked that Honourable Gentleman's displeasure. He trusted he was not giving an unne cessary opinion. Could the Noble Lord say whether it was on the g round, as it now stands, the 'printer ought to be called to the Bar, or because his (Lord A. Hamilton's) friends at that side of the House would not recant their opinions ?—(Cheers). If the Honourable Gentleman had conducted himself as is usual in such cases, he ought to have stated the act of criminality, and called for the decision of the House upon that question. The Honourable Gentle man ought not to have committed the House to a measure so obnoxious—(Hear, hear). He trusted the Noble Lord and his friends would negative the ques tion, on the ground that no necessity for The motion had been stated, and then would come the question whether the Printer" had been guilty of a breach of privilege or not? He contended that no case had been made out which required that the Printer should be called to the Bar. Mr. STUART WORTLEY insisted that the usual. mode was to read the paper containing the alleged breach of privilege, after which the supposed offender was called to the Bar of the House, before the ques tion, whether the matter was or was not a breach of privilege, kad been decided. The SPEAKER declared the Honourable f.searis- j man who spoke last was perfectly correct in bh planation of the usages of the House. Dr. LUSHINGTON trusted the Honourable Gen tleman (Mr. S. Wortley) had gained his object, and hoped he would, therefore, withdraw his motion. Mr. STUART WORTLEY, after a few words, declared his readiness to comply with the with of the House. He hoped that, in the warmth with which he had spoken during the discussion, no lan guage had fallen from him which had given offence to any Honourable Gentleman. Mr. LAUBTON then withdrew his amendment, and the House proceeded on other business. ILCHFAXIIR JAIL. Alderman WOOD hoped the Right Honourable the Chancellor of the Exchequer would excuse his calling his attention, and that of the Lords of the Treasury, to the case of Charles Hill, whose Pe tition to the House he held in his band. He had de layed presenting that Petition in order to afford the Honourable Member for Somerset an opportunity to ascertain if anything contained in the Petition was false. The Petitioner stated, that he was and had been a prisoner in the jail of Ilchester for fifteen years; that from the year 1796 to 1806 the Peti tioner had been Collector of Assessed Taxes, at which date (1806) he was charged with a deficiency of £617 ; by sale of property and other means he had made up that' sum, except thirty-four pounds only, so that that unfortunate man had been confined for fifteen years for the petty sum of £34 ! (Hear, hear). About four years ago he (Hill) had petitioned this House, immediately after which his boxes were broken open and the contents had never been restored to him. The Petition complained of a damp cell and other sufferings and privations. His (Alderman Wood's) object in presenting the Petition was not to complain of the jailor, but to entreat the sympathy of that House for the poor Petitioner, aged 74 years, who had suffered such long imprisonment for so tri fling a sum, whilst great defaulters to the amount of hundreds of thousands, were allowed to escape with impunity. The Petitioner complained also of being locked up from five o'clock in the evening till seven o'clock next morning. Amongst others confined in that prison, was a young Quaker Lady—young in deed, for she was only 22 years of age. She was con fined for debt incurred by joining her brother in se curity, and was, nttessarily, attended by the turnkey, there being no female attendant in the prison. Mr. Henry Hunt was also confined there, and who, du ring the shrievalty of Sir Charles Bampfield had been treated with great kindness, but he found the con trary was the ease at present. However as he (Al derman Wood) intended in a few days to call the at tention of the House to the state of Ilchester Jail, he would net press that part of the subject further now. Mr. CItEEVEY knew nothing of the Petitioner, Ibut from the Petition, which stated that the poor man had been confined for fifteen years, for a debt of £34, and the Petitioner was now at the advanced age of 74.. If that statement were true, he was worse treated than his betters. Mr. Geor;e Villiers was in debted to Government in a sum of LlOO,OOO, and yet he rides about in full enjoyment of liberty. Ile did not mention this to call for persecution of Mr. Vil liers, but to express his hope that it would be proved there was not one law for Ow poor and mother for the rich—(l-Year, hear). The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said, that in this ease the Treasury hid no power to inter fere. The case lay entirely between the individual and the Parish. Mr. DICKENSON thought the sum was greater than 1:54. The individual might have formerly been liberated, had he consented to give up certain pro- perty. He understood that he acted as an attorney in the jail, and remained there from his own inclina tion. He was ready to meet the Hon. Member in the Committee he intended to move. He had heard that the worthy Alderman bad made a Report on the state of the Jail from a printed book, and that he had never entered the walls. Sir T. LETHBRIDGE courted inquiry into the management of the jail, and defended the conduct of the Magistrates. Dr. LUSHINGTON said, as Member for 'ldles ter, he had been asked to support the Petition. Much of the Petition was true, but the facts, if examined, would assume a different face. The Petitioner had been confined for a much larger sum than had been stated, and would have been released, had he chosen to execute a certain deed. That he had at first refused, but, four years ago, he had expressed a willingness to do so. The sum at stake between him and the Parish was £7O. Though the Magistrates were un able to do all they wished, much had seen done within the last fifteen years. The jailor had been found a va luable man in the hands of the Magistrates. Sir ISAAC COFFIN bore testimony to the good character of the jailor. Alderman WOOD, in explanation, said he had only stated the jailor had not shewn indulgence to the prisoners, and which he was ready to prove, when ever a proper occasion offered. Petitioner was an attorney, and had, for a number of years, managed the schedules of his fellow-prisoners; but on the Pe tition,four years ago, he had been prevented continu ing to do so. The on. Member had said, that he (Alderman Wood) had not gone inside the prison, and yet had made a report of its state. That the Hon. Gentleman should charge him with such conduct was most extraordinary. In fact, he had been asso ciated in the inquiry with two other Gentlemen, and they had spent some hours in the investigation, and signed the book kept in the jail—(lfter).—He was sure the Hon. Gentleman must have been misinformed, or he would not have made such a statement. Mr. BARING recollected a pilgrimage sent from the City of London, to inquire into . the state of the Jails of the Kingdom, composed of two Aldermen, the Surveyor, and rown Clerk. They made their visita tion at Ilchester, and in real City style, ordered a good dinner, which detained them so long, that they had not time to inspect the prison —(Loud laughter). They made their statement of that jail from a printed book, describing accurately the situation of the stairs, windows, pump, &c.; but, unfortananely, those things had been changed two years before—(Loud laughter). This was the mode in which Deputations from the City of London made their inspections—(Laugker). • Mr. DICKENSON said, that since he came into the House, he heard from another Gentleman that the Deputation had not entered the prison of Ilches ter—(Hear, hear). Mr. WILMOT wished to ask the Hon. Alderman, was the Report anade from a printed book, or from an actual visitation ? Mr. BERNAL rose to order. He contended it was improper to ask questions of any Hon. Member after such Member had made an assertion—(Hear). Mr. BUXTON had also heard that the worthy Al derman and his friends came to the town (Ilchester), ordered an excellent dinner, sent for the jailor, and 'asked him for his book ; he also spoke in favourable terms of the jailor. Mr. Alderman WOOD hoped the House would bear him in explanation. After he and two brother Aldermen (Sir. John Perring, then a Member of that House, and Mr. Birch), with the Surveyor and Town Clerk, had spent two hours inspecting the jails, was he to be told that they had sent for the jailor, and took their Report from him? Was he to be told so after, he (Alderman Wood) had asserted the contrary? (Hear, hear). —In reply to the sneer about dinner, he would only say, they had not dined there at all— (LOud cheering). Did it make any material difference if the debt of this unhappy Petitioner were £7O in stead of .C. 34 ? For this he had been confined fifteen years, during part of which time a typhus fever of such virulence raged within the jail, that the Judges of Assize refused to try the prisoners. It any obstruc tion were thrown in the way of this Petition, whilst so many great defaulters were at large, he should follow it up by some motion on a future day. -- Mr. C. HUTCHINSON thought the House ought to make common cause with the Honourable Alder. man (Wood), who had spent so many years as an active and useful Magistrate—(Hear, hear). As to what had been said of the Honourable Alderman not having examined the interior of IlchesterJail, he per ceived that that statement rested on the authority of the jailor himself. He knew nothing more of the case than he had just heard, but could not help feel ing that the Honourable Alderman had been Severely and unjustly attacked. If Petitions, and those who presented them, were to be thus treated, he feared that some of the most valuable privileges of the sub ject would be endangered. Mr. BARING said, that as the worthy Alderman had said he had been within the walls of the prison, he must suppose he had been misinformed—(Hear, hear). But the account of the state of the prison re ferred to what it had formerly been. Dr. LUSHINGTON.wished to know if the Chan cellor of the Exchequer would consent to the release of the Petitioner ? The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER must be guided by an examination of the facts of the case. COMMITTER OP SUPPLY. The C HANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER moved' the Order of the Day for the House resolving itself into a Committee of Supply. Mr. CREEVEY must oppose the motion. Nu merous Petitions had been presented to that House, complaining of distress, and yet the only two motions, those - of the Member for Abingdon (Mr. Maber ley) and the Member for Cumberland (Mr. Curwen), with a view to alleviate that distress, had been nega tived by the House.• - There were seventy Members of that House who had 4.150,000 a-year among them. There were seventy Distributors of Stamps in Eng land and Wales, and %seventy Collectors of the Land i Tax. all given to the reittionc and dependents c thes. i Ilouse There were alio many other sources of la- Sverige in the Customs and the Excise; nor could he shut his eyes to India, the Colonies, and even the E.h. limates on the table of the House. He should mot* as an Amendment, that the House should take ban -its consideration the cireUmstance of Members of that House holding offices under the Crown ) and thet to the amount of E 150,000, and should move a Resole. 'tion, that an independent House of Commons was ei sential to the redress of the grievances of the People. Lord PALMERSTON thought that the Hon. Ge ntleman had made this motion to obstruct the ybole march and machinery of the Government. Thell'ouse would consider that the Mutiny Act expired on the 244 h of this month ; and, uolets the number of men were voted, the Mutiny Bill mutt be Stopped. He considered this as a record of the Hon: Gentleman't opinion, which he held eleven years ago, of the cessity for Parliamentary Reform. Colonel DAVIES wished to know whether the Hon. Member intended his motion for a bar to the granting a supply altogether ? Mr. CREEVEY said, be should divide the House on the subject. Mr. H. G. BENNETT assented to the proposition of his Hon. F. lend ; he hoped that he would bring in this motion on every occasion when Supplies were to be granted. Mr. CALCItAFT could not assent to this motion; for, hostile as he was to the present Administration, he could not consent to clog the wheels of Goveni4 meet, for he knew the Mutiny Bill must be renewed. Still he could not agree with the Noble Lord oppos site (Palmerston) that the Mutiny Bill must soon expire; for he might pass a short Mutiny Bill till the Ist of May, and then the Mutiny Bill might be rei newed every Ist of May. Sir .1. NEWPORT said, he should vote against this motion, because it would interrupt public business& Mr. HUSKISSON spoke to the same effect: Mr. MONCK saw no reason for opposing the mos tion of his Honourable Friend (Mr. Creevey) espe• cially in a motion which would tend to relieve the country from' considerable embarrassments, under which it laboured at the present moment. The House then divided— tor the Motion of Mr. Creevey - 38 Against it . - - - - I't2 Majority - . - Lord PALMERSTON then moved that the Hot** should go into the Committee. Mr. HUME did not rise to oppose the business of the House needlessly; but he meant to submit a mo-; tion that the Military Establishment of the country was too great; and, therefore, he was induced to re commend economy on this the first of the regular Estimates. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had said that the Estimates of this year would be a mil lion less than last year; but the House would find that the expenses of the Army and Navy exceeded those of 1819 by above a million ; and were only less by £300,000 than those of last year. He said that the Army Estimates were net fairly stated to the House. He entered into the usual comparisons between the Military Establishments in Great Britain, Ireland, and the Colonies, in 1792, and those of the present day; the 'result of which was, that we had now 20,000 men more than we had in the year 1792. He therefore would call upon the House to reduce the regular troops by 10,900 men ; for he did not wish that so large an Establishment should be reduced all at once. This would leave to the Noble Lord a sur plus of 10,000 men for the new Colonies and other purposes. The House_ would be surprised to find that we had 125,00 Q men in arms, or ready to be called out in a few hours. He appealed to the Agri cultural Members, whether they would not do more good to the country by reducing the Military Estab lishment, and by consequently reducing the taxes, than by increasing their own rents, which it was in vain for them to deny as being their object ? If they did • not do so, they would feel their pockets still lighter before the year was out—(Hear, hear). — Fie contended that there was an excessive number of Household Troops kept up by Ministers for the mere purposes of parade and shew. It was the duty of the House to oblige Ministers to look how they could make these troops become of less expense to the country. We had got, he would contend, an over. grown military establishment in America ; and 'a still greater establishment in the Staff. When they looked at the £l4OO, £l2OO, £BOO, and £6OO a-year to clerks in the War-Office, would any man say that we could continue in that unnatural state of things, which was occasioned by the War? Taking every thing into consideration, there would be seven mil lions for the Army, exclusive of the Half-pay and Pension List, when in 1792 it only cost two or three millions at the utmost. He thought the House had a right to complain that the Noble Lora had not proposed a reduction of the number of Regiments from 92 to 72. He should oppose the expense of the Staff and other Corps, especially the Ordnance De. partment. At the same time he believed that the duty at the Horse Guards, as far as he knew, was much better done.than that of any other Department under Government. But it was their duty to stop every species of extravagance in every branch of the State. He complained that our Colonies of the Cape of Good Hope, the Mauritius, and Ceylon, were taxed with. out their own Representatives having any share in voting away their own money. The only one of these Colonies that had received any boon was Ceylot‘ which had received the Trial by Jury—a circum.. stance which had given the greatest satisfaction t o all classes in the Island. If those Colonies received British laws, they would cheerfully provide for their own Military Establishments. The House might perhaps be surprised that pay and clothing for the Stations abroad amounted to £1,048,000. A s h e was credibly informed, almost the whole of these Colonies supported themselves before they came un der our Government ; and this was only altered by our sending out a set of men to fill sinecure offices. We had ruined and spoiled everything by giving away idle and useless places. Until all these branches of economy and retrenchment were attended to, it would be impossible for this country to prosper.... The Hon. Member then proceeded to a review of the expenditure of the Office of Secretary at War. 11 intended nothing personal torthe Noble Lord, who, he dared to say, was no worse than others ; but it should be recollected, that is 1796 the whole expense of the Office of the Secretary was £8260, now it was upwards of 4:60,000; susd at the COMMCIIMISLK