The Sun. — London, England, 1807-01-24 00:00:00

CRIMINAL AND PAUPER LUNA' ICS. Mr. W WYNNE moved, t!.at a Sete -t Commit tee be appointed to inquire into the state of the Cri minal and Pauper Lumnics throughout England and Wales, and of the Laws relative thereto, and to re port the same with their observations..to the House: It was a year and a half since he had called thetit tention of the House to this subje&, which deiri•abd ed i in-mediate itrterferencer - -The ronsequeriee - of.t he attempt-made by Hatfield on the life of his Majesty, was, an AaeMpos,vering'the Judges, in cases of ac quittal on the ground'of insanity, to order the per.; bons so antlititd to - betletained in custody until'his Majesty's pleasure respeCting them should be known. Under this Act severatunititnnate persons Were noW, lying :n public jiits; of all places the most impro - per for then abode. He referred to an instance in the county which he had the honour to represent, of a person who, having been tried fbr - fnufd`dr, and acquitted on the-ground of insanity., had been int'. prisoncd in the public jail, in which all possible care was taken Of him that could be .etpeCted from per-; sons ignorant of the peculiar mode of treatment pe culiarly requisite-tor lunatics; eventually another murder was comthitted upon a felon in the prison by the same person. Pauper lunatics, as the law then stood, were maintained by the parish, so that it became the interest of Overseers that these tin , happy people sbould commit some outrage by which the -parishes 'Might be relieved from the burden of them. •;There were not less than 1700 pauper lu natics now in confinement. How to proceed, whe ther A . 4)411 . 1114 should be ere&ed to comprehend more than one-county, or in what Other way relief should be afforded, would ,be a proper . subject of consider ation for the Committee whiCh lie proposed, to in stitute. • Mr. STURGE.S BOURNE-asked why the Hon. Gentleman did not- include in- his reference to the Committee the Criminal and Pauper .Luinatics of Scotland and Ireland ? . Mr. W. WYNNE replied, .that in those Coun-: tries there :were provisions which rendered the ne7 cessily of any interpOsition of the Legislature less pressing than in England and Wales. A Commit tee was then appointed. IoHN (.7AWI ; HORNE, ESQ.. General PORTER rose, conformably to his no tice, to make *a Motion, to which he Was sure the House would do him the justice to belieVe'he was not instigated by the slightest pariicle of personal feeling of hostility to the: Gentleman who was the subjeetef it. He: Could assure them, that he Was prompted to take thiS'present step by . an imperious sense ot , diaty. to the House, and more than all . by a wish to maintain the purity and character of a prof fession to which for twenty years he had *.been at tached. Feeling as he did; fur the dignity of the House, and feeling as he'did . for the honour of his- . profession, he - was irresistibly impelled. to bring for ward acase; in which a person haviog.been tried by a Court composed of 16 of the most respectable Offi cers; had'neen.found guilty.on 11 charges but of 14 than had . been preferred against him, and 'in con *sequence had sUtfered the . severest punishment that could be _inflicted hiM. He would not now • enter into the triode of procedure. He only wished . that the House* should be put ;iico possession of the facts, Andle then pin it' to then' honour and dignity, Whether a person who; under those circumstances, lead been* expelled 'by a former Parliament, should be allo4,(ed to retain a Seat in the present ? He craved the indulgenee oithe House, as he felt • him.' self un.i.ble to proieed at that moment with the ex-' piessioo of his sentiments; but he would avail him-' self of the next 'opportunity to detail them mote fully, and concluded by Motiing, that the charges. rriade against John Fenton C . awthorue, Esq. a Metn, bet ; of' that HouSe, and the Sentence of the , Court l‘lartial, together with, thy: pideeedintrs thereon in the years 1795 and 1740, be now. read? Mr. S. STdiVHOP:,,,aeccitided the Itiltitien. • CA WI N'iF,'W is lied the Hoti.-Gentle tnan had Stated mare fully his sentiments, and had ad dticeti. precedents which might have indiked the ILuse to 4? immediately And without delay into the proceeding. 'There Were certainly many precedents. for expulsion, .but not one of them rested on the grounds on which the present case stood. In the' Whole code of British - Jurisprudence* there was no ule more strong than that any man who had been at goitted or condemned `could not again.be tried for the same offence: This was a principle of our esta blishedlaik, rooted as he. hoped in every . man's breast, a nd 'against which he'.. trusted that no, one'would dare to set his face. There was another circumstance which .ought to weigh heavily ,in . l the ennsideration of tht House. . He stood there . rbgaliv qualified ; lie. had been returned,,- and re, tarried without opposition, by Ai very large body of "Electors.. if he had been thought ineligible, the moment of election had :been the- time. for stating that ineligd)ility ; but no such, attempt. had been made, and he had been. min irrioiasly returned for one Cif the la Best Canny Towns in the kingderri. He Wotild not enter into any discussion of the'merits of the sentence by the Court Martial, although; that Wa4 a subjeCt 'from which he would never shrfnk when it came mulaily before the . HotiSe. Witlf eegaid to precedents of expulsion, there were sever n the cases of Mr. Wilkes, Mr. Walpole, 'and othen ; hut, he -contended, -that none of these-CaSet was api e litable "to' owb; *The Hon. Gentleman' }gad disclaimed any feeling of personal hOstility to ward him. It awaa -oqtainly very kind of him to bring the subjeEt f 9 ward. This he NVOhld,deel4e, that .v hen be steeir.iii beler4',*he hid felt much rlioreSpfe'sSed; *and much more op pressed than he then did. But had he at the titue :t filch he alluded known what he then knew; he would not have troubled the House fur a iiiiiaent on the subject. He Meant, had he known - that' the first Law Officer in the House, the Attortiey-Ge , neral of that day, had *declared that the sentence of a Court Martial was - WO fiiai!;3 7 a ground 'on which to found the iiroiieedings which had terminat ed in his 'expulsion from the House. • Lord HO WICK declared that he had not.intend ed to say any thing on the subject that evening, but what had fallen from the. Member Who had : just gat down rendered it necessary for him to. offer.a tew observations. The present was not a question of qualification. The view that his Hon: Friend took of it, Was s imply this, - whether a person la bouringainder the stigma:of such a Sentence, passed upon him by a Court Martial, was a fit Member of that House ? If not, Whether the Honse'Lid - ihe power to expel biro, and if they had the power, whether in this instance they ought to exercise it ? This was a question of the utmost importance, as it a ffeaed the d ivid al - c.‘oncerned—as it a tfeard the charaeter of that HOuse, and as it involved the 'COn stitutional Principles which governed the Right's of Eleatirs. It was .a great satisfifaion to think that in a question of this nature, embracing 'so many considerations of such vast importance, that there did not appear any disposition- to -depart from dispassionate investigation. His Honour able Friend, in the manner in • which he had made: his Motion—in the temper which 'he. had shewn on the occasion, had evinced what, from a long knowledge of his chara&er, he had con fidently . expeaed he would evince-that the aEt• ed not as a persecutor—not as. an oppressor- 7 but• from a conscientious regard for the interests of the Public and the honour of Parliament. He hoped his example in this respe& would be followed ; and he was, therefore, more readily disposed to accede to the suggestion which seemed to be made by the Member who had just sat down, and to ascertain what precedents existed of similar and analogous cases. It had been his wish, had the Motion for reading the foemer proceedings passed,• to move for the appointment of a Committee to search for pre cedents. He was not aware that precedents directly similar could be found, but of analogous precedents there were many, some of which must be within. the recolle&ion 9f,many Members that heard him. At, all events, he was sure it must be the wish of the House to proceed to the examinatiou and decision of this Snbjea with their judgments as well insinieted from the Journals as possible. It was desirable that their decision should rest on sound and constitutional grounds, with as little reference as possible to vidual feelin g s. The only objection to the appoint men' of such a Committee that could he urged was, that it might produce some delay. But their la bours would be confined to so small a space, that he did not think this objection could have much Weight. If, however, it was made by theper , on most nearly concerned, he must recolle't, that he placed hithself in the situation in which, utter what had passed, he could not help regretting that he had placed himself; but that was not no.t th e point. The House' must now take the best step they e(iuld to obtain iliformationon.the subject. ,The appoint- it - lent of a Committee seemed-to him to he the best step. After that Committee had made their Report, an opportunity would be afforded to his Hon Friend to propose such a Motion as might' appear to him to be best spited to preserve the .honour of the House, to advance the interests of the Connity,: and to maintain the rights and privileges of the Consti tution. Mr. SPENCER STANHOPE having seconded the Motion, would say merely that be had intended to submit to the House, after the disposal of the present Motion, a Motion similar to that which the .Noble Lord had . just declared it was his intention to ; propose. For the question ought assuredly to come to.a.solid and impartial decision, .and were it even only pro forma, it would be the duty of the HotiSe,. oh such a solemn occasion, to appoint a Committee to search the Journals fol . precedents. • Mr. C. HERBERT would not oppose the_ap r pointnient of a Committee, but declared, that be did not think that this was a question - that could pos sibly rest on precedents. The first question that 'would come before the House Would' be, had they' .a prime right of expulsion ? and if they had .that right, had they the right of re-expulsion 1 this were. also' established, the question theti 'would, be as to the propriety. of expulsion. No. .person could possibly doubt • the right Which the .House possessed. of expulsion. The others ap pear to follows , and thus it .became a• question not of precedent but of principle. The right of exphlsion existed in the House, to enable it to . . • maintain its honour, its dignity,. and its safety. ' Some might argue, that it was to give the EleEtors an opportunity of reviewing their choice. But this, .he distinctly denied.' It was for the protedion of the • House. HOW accumulated would be their disgrace if they allowed the same man to' be sent back to them whom they had declared to the Empire, to Europe, ,- and to the World, as unfit for their society. He wished, therefore,' for-no 'search atter precedent-; but. ► as he was as desironS as the Noble Lord that this. ,subjea should be cOndueled with coolness and beration, he should certainly not oppose his motion, to that eirea. General GASCOYNE could assure the Hon. Member who was the uhje& of this motion, that he felt- as. little hostility to him as any man but he could not remain silent after what he had heard from the Noble Lord on the subjeetof searching for prece dents. Why postpone the discussion without advaac-! big any arguments for that delay ? Why delay it in search of precedents, when the Noble Lord himself admitted that lie did not believe a direct precedent existed ? The precedents. on the Journals had no more connection with the present subje& than a case of bankruptcy had- with a case of murder. No in.; formation could be derived from precedents. Was there not this precedent before the House, that John :FentOu Cawthorne, for fraud, for infainoes and un j gentlemanly condu&, had been expelled ? What other ptecedetrt was necessary ? (The Hon. Gen ileman had Voluntarily placed himself in a situation where he-must hear these things) If there was not a precedent, would the House make one by passing oZ et-or rdther. would it not make one by punishing misconduct ? Was for the glory of the British Nation, of the Senate,, and of the Military, that .no case in point did exist: -There wasaio cause for•delay, and he,advised the Noble Lord to be cautious how he gave the public any cause .to suspe& that It. was intended fo throw over the delinquent' the broad - 61 - 15 - 61 - Ner. (A cry of No •=- -- Aro from the Be:nelies.) . He trusted' then that the Noble Lord would withdraw his motion. ' If .por, however, di - id the House should think fit. to appoint a Committee to search for precedents, which it, was admitted 'did hot exist, he must submit. Lord FOLKSTONE remarking that the two last Speakers bad totally deviated from the qUestion be fore the House, hoped they would not think their arguments assented to because they were not an sWered ; he heartily concurred in the Motion of the Noble,Lord—a Motion which he would himself have made:bad he not been thus anticipated.. It had been said that the Hon. Member must thank 'him self for the disagreeable _situation in which „he, was placed. The fairness of this statement woukt not be very clear, if it were proved, its be thought it would Ise, that he had as good a right to sit in the House iSlaily man in it. V'he ATTORNEY GENERAL, declined, that if the Noble Lord had not announced his intention of moving for a Committee to search the Journals, he 'was free to say he would have given the- Motion "made by his Hon. Friend near him the immediate negative. Undismayed by the menaces ofany man, and influenced alone-by-his duty to-the vonotry, by his ,Wish to maititain the right; of the filet ors of that he - Wonld - havj2 gi - Ven it his negative, because he was at a loss to conceive hoW the min'utes pro posed to be read could be made'aground of proceed ing against any Member recentlyeleeted.. He would have given it his negative because he was desirous of guarding against the exercise of poWer not regulated by law, and which had therefore no consritritional origin. Leak of all should be have been d4osed to accede 'to a Alotion for reading , the sentence Of a Court for which he entertained great respect, as the best constituted for the trial of military offences, 'and on the Sentence of that Court Wit bent precedent to found an ulterior proceeding—on the sentence of a Court :Martial, in, Which there existed no trial-by Jury, no power in, the person accused to challenge his Judges, to indict a punishrnent which nelnece dent shewed had ever followed the sein i teurce of 'a CoOrt of Law .1 had troubled the 'House thifs early in consequence. of the mmner in which the Hon. Members had expressed' themselves. • - HiS Noble Friend had been cautioned not.. to, throw the shield of power over the Member who was: the ob jeet of the) motion. He had not done so : but he had thrown over him the ,shield of the coustitutioil a shield which he hoped he would.beteady to throw . Ovee every than, even over the, Fion. Gentlemanif - he should want it. As to,,Vague phrases, such as honor and dishonor; it •was impossible they could lie rnad4 the sub;tanEe - Of any proceeding. It was impossible the House hould .be guided by IllakillfS :cif that na - - tore. relied upon it,• that , as long as the Eleaoit of "the' country .possessed their reason; they would know ‘ that those Opposed the prilent ,attetntit were the true friends to their rights and to :the.Con4 stitution. Gen. G:4SCOYNE rose; and was prOceeding.4 enter into anew argument, but being_called_to,order,' he intimated his intention of rdservilig-theM:for Th'e s next question. Mr. BRAGdE BATHURST said, that S.V hathali fallen from the' Learned Gentleman ma,deit. neces sary for some IVlember of that ParliamMit, - thejut tice of whOse prOceedingS had beep , M4eaelle l 4.l6 - rise in defence of it; .not only the sentence:Of the Court Martial, blit the evidence AlSd;'"Were laid be fore that Parliament, and ,would :Oa : Learned Gen'= . tlemati save that this was not a.Sufficient, ground for the House to exercise its right ? No such opinion had then been entertained. As he-wished that into , , this discussion strong expressions of feeling, if not of passion, had not, been introduced, however honour able /6 those by whom„ they were entertained; So.. also he was of opinion thatthis' was a question which ought to be clientangled .from all legal niceties; if the House 'possessed gatisfA6tory evidence on , oath,' proving that a body ofcritheekisted, and that evidence hs'.sanetioned by! the judgment of a Court, whether of a military nature or not (for beit observed,: that tilt crime charged was not merely a charge of a military natere, beit a char-ge of moral turpitude) i• where the corpu4 delieli was thus made, .out, Parliament , was most assuredly justified in thing as they had ailed: Whets the question cameto be discussed, he , trusted, it : would .not be of jeaed that the evidenCe. was not good -because it ,waS — the same evidenceon' which the expulsion took •place in a previous Parlia- Merit: if it were fit to exercise again the right, in. •the exercise of . Whicli, in 'his opiuion, the former .Parliament was completely justified; there .could be noJeLison why the same. evidenCe. should not, be te 7 curred The ATTORNEY GENERAL, in explanation, declared that he . never meant to question - the grounds of the proceeding in the last Pariiment, a subjed c ti which he was notsuffieiently informed. If the House, thought that the•evidence (independent, of, the sen- . was conclusive, -- Oley had been right in doing as theOttd crone. All that he bad said was, thyt 'any sentence, and more especially any military Sell thce, must be an insufficient ground tbr such a proceeding. • Mr 'CHARLES HERBERT asked, if the Learn ed Gentleman thought the sentence of a Court Mar tial too flimsy - 4ground of proceeding; what ground would he exped ?- The Learned Gentleman was in error when he'Said that no right existed in the per son tried by a Cottrt Martial to challenge his Judges. It was. both the right and the. practice, . He was sur prised how the Learned 'Gentleman could, think as be had expressed himself, without deeming the ACS. of the last Parliament a flaartnt injustice. The ATTORNEy Gk',N F:li Ai deified having used the word flimsy, as applied to. the, 'sentence of a Court Martial. ' .. .. General GASCOYNE stated, in explanation, that he did not say the brOad shield of Gnvernment had been thrown over the delnquent He only cau tioned the Noble Lord to avoid (Ling, any thing which might .be so unicOnstrued—nor did he say that .the House should take the proceedings of a Court Martial for their guide; although 'he differed from th 'Learned Gentleman on his notions, of ho nour, he was as willing to abide by the honour of a Court Martial as the decision of a Court of Justice. Lord Wr4. RUSSELL made a few observations,, bui in so low a tone of voice, that it was impossible. for as to - conga his Lordship's sentiments Mr. J3RAGGE ,13 4 vi'nuasr explained, as did the. ATTORNEY-GENERAL. _ AIr.'ADA . III observing that The temper and elia raaer of the debate had undergone some clang. since its commencettient,'was anxious that the House should understand what was the precise object i hey had in view. The.O6jea was to inquire what was best to be done, first,. consistently with justice (for that must ever be the first consideration), then con : , sistently with the dignity of the House, and, lastly, ; consistently with the peCuliarcircumstancesolthecase. It had.beensaid that this was a question of princi. ple, and not of precedent. He did not _understand thedistinaion. He hoped that precedents would be referred to ; for thui.righ We had 'leng ago formed a clear opinion on this subje6t, vet ..he wished that the House should consider 'it deliberately. lie was old enough to recollect the Resolutions of the' Elonse ot..C;omi uns With respeat . to Mr. Willies, in 1764 and 1769 : when it was moved tlitit those Re wlutions should be rescinded, he was one ill the minority. He : remembered that that Motion a;- made annually, and he remembered that in I asa, those Resolutions were rescinded by a majority, of which he had the honour to make one. He there fore considered the subjeel as settled and fixed an i the sound foundation of the Law Of Parliament. He shOuld support the motion for a Committee, as consistent with justice to the individual, and with re ; gard tOthodicanity'of The Honse, and alaii as tending to moderate those , feelings and passions, of which it was desirable that the discussion of the subjea s h o uld be altogether diveated. Mr. HURST contended' that there was a very ma terial difference between principle and preeedent.-- They Were as opposite as the poles: The principle was the great general rule; whiCh was illustrated by the precedents. He had no objeftion to the course pointed out by the, Noble Lord, to search first for precedents, but he would ask the Learned Gentle ' man, whether a if no precedents in point should be ound, the Haaise 'would not be bound to recur to the prineiple ? TberMotion was then breed to, and the sentence of the,Court Martial, and the proceedi9gs of Parliaa ment . thereon 10 the Session of-170-? read in brief, • after which it was 'moved by Lord HowicK, that a coultuittee. b'6 appointed to examine into the Journals: of that Mamie, and the Records of Parliathealt, ( fOr - ,precedents of cases in Which. Members had been expelled-from that Ho se Who had been'returned to it, .and report there-04 to the • a • Mr. SPENCER, in seconding the Motion; . thought his duty to"ablstaiii froth giving any opie iron .upon :the caseT by anticipation, one way or thii! other. • Mr. RA AWES perfenli agreed With the Noble" bird as to the course of proceeding which lie re commended, but thought, as the motion was word ed, it "would'narraw the view of the case.—Gentle: men convetkirewith the Records of that Rouse) would be- l atare r that•of cases similar to the- present there was „none, : and of .anal o g ous cases ex t reme ly, few. There Were many cases to he tbund'whch, as the motion • was werded, the ComMittee .would think; themselves bound 0.- report: He • thought - , therefore, that it would be desirable to make tha wokKatho motion laage6 i*'Order to Cona&'atilia main a'pring upon' a6l - ed in .such ca'se§", - which Would enable : them to discharge theii painful duty in this instance. The Honourable'rGeni tleman snggested •to enlarge the words Of the-frio - - ti,on to all cases' of exptalsien, diatinguishing those 'Which the expelled Members hbd, been again re' turned. mortiick . aaoptA the suggestion .09 : Hon. Gentleman a and ".a Committee was then ap pointed to examine the SourUafslof that HouSe, the RecordeOf Parliament, fir Precedents Of Case of Members who had been expelled thatHobat, and for what causeS, and also- of the Cases of persons whb, After . baVing been *eXpeil . e4 that 116 use,, bald been again returned to Parliament, topether with the proceedings• thereon; and to report i ' fiejainet4 Ala House.". ' - • . • PETITION OF TIE ELECTORS OF LANQASTER• Lord _GEORGE; kio,l4i-Lpr . 6p o . sea to pre-, sent a Petition to the Hodse- from a very considera ble number of the Fret.Mienaalf Lancaster. I c a haL l 4 been OLit into his bands as he chine into the 11 - itaate and be thought : it hii,i,i344k t& - But in do' •t) , r. this he would' tdotprthege himself t o any 0 000• on the case. As he had-been a Member of the Court, Mdrtial a;, hose sentenee had' been 'alhided should abstain from taking any share in those disettaa slobs. Of the contents, Of the Petition he was norant, but if the House-would: eon Sent to receive it, they would be enabled toajudge of its cOntente . when it should be read at the table. The Petition was then ordered to 'be brought UP and react It stated, in substanCe, ThA the Subscribers to the Petition, being Free' men of the town of Lancaster, had been inforine& that there'were measures pending in that House, It' which no Petitioners being interested were parties, and Which had for their objeet to prevent them froaa being represented by the Member whom they ha& ehosen. They humbly subrnitted that no Return could be invalidated, except by Petition presented 1 0 that House within fourteen days after the Meetinta cif Parliattent, atid that any other attempt to invali date ,the same ,was contrary to law, and ought to 60 diSCountenanced by that House; that that House' . if'ho ohjeMon had been . iii i i a - e ( lio n d oya ore the slym m a t d z e ground''of disqualification, • 'cept on matters siib;alqtieiit - _l6 the Return,' wliicn alOne could invalidate that Return ; that the Peti" - • : milers were acquainted with ail the enctimstancei upon which the messurespend pending fowl - Jed whets they elthed their present Member s and therefore humbly submitted" that that Hon. House mould adopt any proceedings thereon Which tvould be situ' VersiVe of the Rights of Ele6tors, and the Freed to of Election, and prayed to . be heard by theinaelva or their agents, 'agaihst ssuch proceedings." On the MOtion that the Petition do lie on• tb! table, Mr.BER BERT asked the Noble Lord who 'pre sented it, whether it was really the Petition of tit's Freemen of Lancaster ? If it was, it appeared t° him hot to be in the light of a Petition, but as a ditty tonal and insolent attempt to controul Pailiarne . nti The , last paragraph appeared most reprehensible where they ackhoWledged that they %v.:re acquaintec i With all the infamy that was the objeCt..of the Mc"' firm. This admission would almost.justity the Hoii s in disfranchising , the. Borough. There certaialf Could be no doubt that a peilant -declared incapai- 1 4 of serving his Majesty in any c a pa c ity Wits not fit - 1° any -trust. • Lord GEORGE CAVENDISH declared, that 1 1 ° knew sotrie of the signatures 'to be , those of . very Te l spe&ahle freemen of Lancaster. CAWTHORIVE ( Observed that the H a noar! • Gentleinan had taken up the question ve'l j warmly, but . appeared to •be totally unaequ i 'ai?t ,g with the circumstances of the case; could site him an alphabetical list of the Subscribers to the re . • , tition; which,. bad been taken from the list of s.be freemen of Lancaster, and trahsmitted him' Amongst themwere the names 'of the a pairO j a i f and Alagistra% ‘of the QUarta "SCssidni, 4rid 1 101 1 land-owners in the hundreds about . theloWn• was grit by any personal considerations th it he `;y;' . influenced- Ott 'this ; occasion, but by a regard to t r rights .of the Gentlemen who had seat &till • to.: House. Mr. SPENCER STANHOPE remarked, 0 00. to J rc; th, otl 'ter 3Q , f o II( C all re