The Sun. — London, England, 1822-04-25 00:00:00

a afford:ng a goal breakfast to the pool classes of the people, had beets served with -an Exchequer process, as if guilty of an infringement of the Exchequer Laws) None could accuse Mr. Hunt of any intention to cheat the revenue by an imitation of coffee. If he (Sir F. Burdett) had understood the Law Officers of the Crown aright when that subject had been .discussed its he Ilouse, they hadnot mentioned any charge of that neaure against mr. Hunt as guilty of a breach of the Re venue Laws—yet Mr. Hunt was declared liable to a fine of 2001. dor that art. The money; 2hol. had been demanded from Mr. Bed as he could not instantly pay he had directed the riff to retteive the rents of his estate until the whole should, be paid. That proposal had not been enough to please ; a Shark: 's salt had been ordered, and ruin had threatened Mr. tint unless he eaised the money. Ile did, and his property -had b. ea saved. Those acts he(Sir could not hut re gard W 4 of the most opPiessive and tyrannical nature. It might be' said that Mr. Hunt was in reality liable to both, those char _ges—gmated ; was the hasty declaration of a Sheriff's sale of • his property ;hi: the 10th of February, and the subsequent ha:• Lenin" o f the appointment of the sale for the 7th of the same monto, not an instance of a willingness to exhibit cruelty and vindictiveness ? Difference of belief of religious creeds had fre querhly hachened the hearts of men, and they had become per •.aezators tied torturers of their brother men. The House could see that eau naw that feeling was encouraged. A man was imprisoned for two years and a half.for an offence which the laws of the country pronounced to be one of the slightest ; and whca in, prison, not only was his person subjected to all the hor . rifle severities which a gaoler could devise, but attempts were made to ruin him in property. Odious were all persecutions; bat doubt) , odious, drably cruel, were the persecutions carried on under the mask of law. Yet of them Mr. Hunt had been doomed to experience a share. In other parts of his treatment, had also experienced much cruelty. Would the -. House would the country, would England and Englishmen be nlieve, that when the sister of a prisoner, Confined for a misde aneancrar; applied for permission to see her brother, she had *en refused ? Would a Christian, would any man, would a sa vage sappose, that when that sister, feeling herself approaching to death, had been desirous of seeing, of speaking to, of taking a last farewell of her brother, she had been refused.? And by whom ? By a man ? Yes. By a Christian ? Yes. Yes—a man who professed himself a Christian ; a Christian who had assumed the power of teaching its meek and generous doc trines ; a Clergyman, the instructor of others—and above all, a Clergyman of the Church of England, had refused her ! Yea ; he had denied the dying request of a sister—yes, he, with an unhallowed hand, had-shut the gate of solace against an affectionate women—he had driven a dying sister from a lastglimpse of her brother, and that unfortunate sister was naw no more. Dr. Colston had done it. Repugnant as was such a line of conduct to every human feeling, outrageous as iteavas, atrocious as it was, a man, a Magistrate, the dispenser of the laws of England—a clergyman, the exact professor, and the sincere teacher of the doctrines of Christianity, h a d been guilty of those acts. England boasted of liberality ; other na aims were' accused of having sanctioned the , horrors of re ligious persecutions ; Spain was charged with having tolerated „the Inquisition--Spain had freed itself from the horrible accusation ; but England was, in the nineteenth century, when learning, liberality, and religion, were said to have• made such progress, branded with worse than intolerance, with' a more odious charge than bigotry, with more barbarous outrage than had even been surpassed, or perhaps equalled,even in the dungeons of Spain, under its most ignorant and most tyrannical Monarch. England was now to yield to Spain; and a Minister of the Gospel thus degraded his country, and disgraced his nature. Mr. llunt was also entitled to great praise and to public gratitude for having brought to light the system of cruelty practised in the gaol of Ilchester. It would be a benefit to the people to have brought that system before the view of the nation, in order to prevent the possibility of its being practised in any other part of the kingdom : it would be a benefit to the Government, inasmuch as it would tend to relieve them hem the responsibility of sanctioning such odious proceed ings. It would have been a misfortune to the whole nation if that abominable system should have been kept secret. Mr. Hunt became ill in the gaol, and he applied for liberty to have the attendance of a medical man living in Ilchester, who had attended him upon former occasions. The Rev. Doctor Colt son had refused' to allow that medical man to enter the gaol, al leging that Mr. Hunt ought to be contented with the medical officers of thegaol. But who was the medical man of the gaol? One of the Doctor's friends--a medical man, who had shewn his willingness to make useof the healing art for the same pur -poses as the Doctor had used his authority as a Magistrate. The medical art was regarded as one which was to relieve the pains of the human.form • but what would the House of Common s think of a person professing the art of giving relief, who ap _plied three blisters on the head to three different persons; to the one, because he was a troublesome fellow—to the second, because his manners • wanted mending—and. to the third, be cause he was a sham ? Whatever might be the indisposition of which the Medical Attendant might suppose Mr. Hunt to com plain, he might be inclined to apply his efficacious remedy ; out under what classification of his diseases, it would be h#d to decide ; Mr. Hunt, however, had to fear, lest the Doctor, in his mercy, should c o ns id er it hi s duty to apply his remedy in a • triple form, and give him three blisters, instead of one.—(Laughter.)—Mr. Hunt, therefore, thought it better to trust to nature than to that gentle Physician; illness, however, compelled him, after having suffered for eleven days and nights, to write to Mr. Justice Bayley, for liberty to have his own Medical Attendant ; and an order had instantly been dispatched by that Judge for his admission.— Before die Chairman of the county it was proved that this sys tem of arrangement within the prison was injurious to the health of the persons confined in it, in consequence of the want of ven tilation, and the admission of pure air. Having already suffered so much from the severity of his confinement, it would be but ..an act of justice in the House to recommend the case of Mr. Hunt to the consideration of the Crown. He fully agreed with the Noble Lord who had that night presented a petition on the sub ject; andhe would say that he had suffered more than had been ever contemplated by the Court in pronouncing this very severe sentence on him. This very Court too had interposed, upon an application made to it, to mitigate and relieve his sufferingin ._ arising out of the rigorous condirea of the gaoler. Referring to the report he said, that when he reflected on that appointm en t o f Committee, and the persons, nominated on it, of which Mr. Munday, his relative, was one, he had the utmost confidence - that they would perform their duty, and j ustify their appointment .to the country. Instead of making out a bad case, they had, al though hberally disposed, done all they could to soften down its more culpable features, so far as was consistent with their feel inge as honest men. It had appeared, that the situation of the prison was extremely bad and improper ; that as to regulations, • ;tore were known or acknowledged by the gaoler. Of the con (hitt of the visiting Magistrates, a sample might be taken from . the rule recognizes' by the Rev. Dr. Coltson, that the complaint of any felon was not and ought not to be attended to. The cus tom was, fur the visiting Magistrates to ask the gaoler The all was right in the gaol, which was sure to be answered in the affir _ rnative. Such conduct was only calculated to shield the wick edness of the gaoler. And here he felt it necessary to protest against the appeal made to the House in favour of these magi strates on the ground of their performance of ,this public duty gratuitously. In Gon's name, if this was always to be lugged in as an excuse for the irresponsibility of their conduht, let them be paid for their trouble, and thus be rende re d respon sible for the future.—( Hear ! from Mr. Brougham.)--The report fully proved, that the local situation of the gaol was improperly chosen,—that it was, in fact, on a dead level, and could only be cleaned by the effort of human labour,—that all the pumps for water were liable to be tainted by the filth of the sewers, whilst the prisoners were forced to drink this water ; and though a river ran close to the gaol, in fact within a stone's throw, the very debtors could not prevail on the gaoler to furnish them with river water, who were told this was an indul gence contrary to the law of the place. Indeed, so far was this carried, that a person's friends would not be allowed to give them a pot of beer without the permission of the jail doctor, so that they were rather treated as malefacto rs th an as debtors.On the sub ject of solitary confinement he would say it was t ota ll y repug nant to the spirit and practice of our old law, especially where, as in the present case, solitary cells had been proved to be made instrumental to the purposes of oppression. It appeared that women were put into these cells, and yet the tarnkeys Were al lowed, most reprehensibly, to have access to them. A sort of manufactory being established in the gaol, it som e h ow happep ed that a good workman was better treated than a contrite sinntr. All the minor officers in the prison too were persons of the worst character, such as Carter, Shepherd, and another. The cases of the greatest enormity of misconduct in the gaoler were those of Gardner, Hillyer, and Mary, Pure. They were not however all, as the Commissioners considered they had heard ..enough to satisfy them, and stepped the investigation of other cases. The case of Mary Pure, who was a prisoner confined in' a solitary cell for quarrelling with another female in the pri . son, was ore'of peculiar cruelty ; though with an infant at her abreast, she was kept in a solitary cell from Thursday to Sun day on bread and water, without fire, in a period of frost at Christmas, and the parish allowance ..to her child was stopped by order of the gaoler, who would not permit' the water to be served to her in any other smaller vessel than a wooden bucket. ear !)—ft was unnecessary to appeal to the House by a set speech, or any powers of language beyond the ordinary re cap,ltulation of these facts, to impress them with the liveliest feelings of reprobation at such conduct. Had Mr. Hunt only brought to light the conduct or' the gaoler, with respect to this woman and her infant, he might have stood upon his merit in this respect, and have fairly aspired to an equal share'of praise with that patriotic Committee .so highly eulogised by the Poet, as having sought out the wretched sons of suffering in their dungeons, snatched the lean morsel * from the hungry •mouth, and restored them to a share of thoSe comforts of „life, consistent with their unhappy ,situations. Under the lila and key of such a roan as this, no person's life could be considered safe ; and yet whilst the Sheriff determined this man ought to be removed, the Magistrates continued him for a period to exercise an uncontrolled authority over Mr. Hunt, and the witnesses who established these acts of his atrocity. [Here the Honourable Baronet went into a -detail of the repre sentations contained in the Report of the Commissioners on the state of the gaol, and the causes of Mr. Hunt's complaints, 'and contended, that the closeness of his room, its want of ven tilation, the height of the surrounding walls, its northern as spect, rendered it unflefor - ari infirmary, as it had been allotted for that purpose, and that if he were to have been confined there for 24 months, the gaoler must have been of opinion there were many ways of killing a dog, besides hanging him. That the caprice of Dr. Colston should have aided this man in his system of persecution was most extraordinary. Un less Mr. Hunt were to have submitted to see his friends in a sort of cave; in which the felons in all their filth saw their associates in a certain hour of the day; he must be prevented from holding. any communication with them at all.] — To say this was justifiable, was to add insult to injury, and aggravate the severity of the sentence. Yet those who were the framers of that meeting (Johnson and Knight) which he had only attended upon express invitation, and had, therefore, been pronounced guilty of a serious offence, were only subjected to an imprisonment in Lincoln gaol for twelve months, where they were treated with comparative mildness, whilst Healy had never been called up for judgment. It was this which had challenged the public sympathy foi Mr. Hunt, as a victim of oppression and a martyr in their cause. The investigation of the case of Ilchester gaol would have the best effect on prison discipline generally, and tend to counteract tue hu mane but erroneous and Utopian idea of the benevolent Howard, that by the introduction of solitary confinement the gaol might be converted into a house of reform. .Howard, however, had not imagined that this system would have been engrafted on the - old one of chaining prisoners, and other addi tional systems of *coercion. Nor did that amiable man con-, sider it possible' that the old offenders should not be separated from the young, 'and .the females classed separately from the males to avoid contamination, whilst he had particularised the necessity of their being separately visited by persons of hu-. manity and virtue to expostulate with and dissuade them from .the practice of vicious habits, and alarm their consciences as to the consequences of crime., He hoped he had in the course of his observations established, first, that Mr. Hunt's sentence had beeniriginally one of severity; secondly, that it would, though severe, have been comparatively light, had not the interference of the local authorities rendered' it almost intolerable ; and thirdly, that Mr. Hunt had some claim to the consideration of the Reuse, on the ground of his. haVing thus successfully de tected a public grievance and abuse. If, the House agreed with him on almost any of these points he thought that it would do well to agree to the Address he proposed to their acceptance, and give his Majesty an opportunity to exercise his prerogative in a manner agreeable to the suggestions of his own humane disposition. He concluded by moving " An humbln Address to his Majesty that lie would be graciously pleased to retnit the remainder of the term of Mr. Hunt's imprisonment."—(Loud cheers.) Mr. DAWSON said he felt much consideration was due to the character and the talent of the Hon. Bart. who 'had moved the proposed Address. He felt apprehensive of the weight of both in the appeal that had been made to the House as to the alleged criminality of the principal actors in the detailed transactions, or of those who were described as merely lookers on. He should confine himself to the mere consideration of the case of Mr. Hunt, with respect to.whose sentence, as ,with, respect to sentences generally, it was only to be' observed that if they were excessive or severe, acquiescence was egaally the duty of the public a nd th e su ff e rer. It had been said that as the sentence had been excessive, Mr. Hunt's remaining period of confinement ought to be remitted. In examining thesques tion, he should principally refer for his guidance to the Report of the Commissioners, and the Petition of Mr. Hunt of:the 4th of March last. Mr. Hunt did not complain himself of Whigs ironed, of being blistered on the head, or of being associated with felons ; but he did complain of being confined in a dark, damp, gloomy cell, where he was debarred of the light of the sun and the free circulation of air, as well as the unrestrained priVilege of communicating with those he called his family. On these points he thought the Hon. Baronet had failed to establish that ,any. extraordinary hardship was sustained by Mr. Hunt. If it could be proved that Mr. Hunt had praised the salubrity Of the prison, the 'cleanliness of the apartment, and the regularity of the persons about him, he thought the case must altogether fail.— The sentence of the King's Bench upon Mr. Hunt had been, pronounced on the 15th of May, 1820. When the sentence was passed on him, lie appealed to his Judge to know, if. it was in tended his confinement should be solitary, and Justice Bayley replied, certainly not, and that if lie experienced any excessive restraint, an application to the Court would be humanely attended to. On.the 17th of May he arrived at Ichester, and was placed in the female part of the ward, when three beds were certainly in the ward, which were subsequently removed, and a single good bed of feathers was bought expressly for him at the expence of the county. A person in confinement, on a charge of murdering his wife,_ but certainly no felon, agreed to wait on Mr. Hunt and M r . Kinnear, who happened to be in the same place of confinement. In compliance with his request, the floor of the room where he resided, which had been of stone, was actually boarded over, and bells hung up, in order to fa cilitate his communication with those appointed to attend him. --So satisfied was he with the arrangements made, that he wrote a letter, signed with his own name, to the Editor of The Sherburne Mercury, in which it appeared, praising the prison, stating that he was now happy in having obtained that privacy and quiet in the retreat assigned him by his enemies which lie often hoped fOr, but never dared to' anticipate ; that in this retreat, he imagined his health would quickly be im proved, as the utmost cleanliness prevailed in every depart ment, and the greatest regularity characterized the Conduct of the persons around, and that though in a dungeon, he certainly had no reason to complain.—(Loud and continued cheers.) — This letter was written, and dated on the 20th of July. Until this period, he was allowed to be visited by a Mrs. Vince, the wife of a Mr. Vince, who visited Mr. Hunt, whose wife too was living. When this came to the visiting Magistrates' ears, ' a report was made upon the subject. From the date of that order all Mr. Hunt's satisfaction vanished—from that moment he viewed every thing done by the gaoler and the Magistrates with a jaundiced eye ; and after the declaration made by them in October, he determined to appeal to the Court of King's Bench. Ile did appeal--and after stating the treatment he had experienced in Ilchester gaol, he prayed - that he might be re moved out. of the custody of the keeper of that prison, and that his friends should have free access to him. Such was the purport of his application to 'the Court of King's Bench. He (Mr. Dawson) would- now call the attention of the House to Mr. Hunt's own affidavit, and requested the House should compare its terms with those of the Re port. He stated, that on his arrival in Ilchester gaol, on the 17th of May, he had been immediately placed in a cold damp dungeon ; and went on to state that he had been debarred the use of fender and fire-irons. Farther he stated, that he was confined within the pestilential atmosphere of a small yard, by which treatment his health had been materially injured. He would now show it' that statement tallied with the contents of his published letter ; and if they should be found not to agree, the House would draw the inference. In a succeeding part of the affidavit he stated, that by the cruel orders of the Magis trates his family had been refused access to him, and were rudely, driven away from the door by the gaoler. That affidavit was read in the Court of King's Bench, -in the presence of Judge Bayley—the very Judge before whom he had been tried— and the decision of the Court on 'the application was delivered by Judge Bay - ley himself. The Court declared that there was no ground for the application.—(Hear, hear !)—The Court of King's Bench called upon the Magistrates and gaoler for their defence. They put in a statement, in which they directly con tradicted every assertion and complaint of •Mr. Hunt against them; and so satisfactory did that statement appear, that the Court of King's Bench dismissed the complaint; and in order to mark their sense of the matter still farther, they dismissed it, with costs.—(Hear, hear !)—And this fo rme d one of the little complaints made by the Hon. Baronet.—( Hear, hear !)—Those circumstances of which the Hon. Baronet had made so much, were those precisely on which the judgment of the Court of King's Bench was founded.--( Hear, hear !)—Sir. Hunt had particularly complained of the exclusion of his female friend front the prison. Who was that female friend ? Mrs. Vince, a woman who lived in adultery ,with ,him.—(Cheers.)—.Were his male friends ever excludect? Never.—((:heers.)—And the exclusion of that woman was the only one of which lie could justly complain.—(Hear !)—lt was perfectly true that, for a certain period, the Sheriff and the Magistrates did not act in unison. What was done one day by the Magistrates was re versed the next by the Sheriff: That vacillation of conduct was to be regretted ; but Mr: Hunt was a gainer rather than a suf-' ferer by it, for he was thereby enabled to persevere 'in his un blushing conduct.--( Hear, hear !)—Yes, he would say his most unblushing conduct. Whatever the conduct of the Sheriff and Magistrates might have been, he would contend it might not .to influence the decision of that House. The question was simply this—was Mr. Hunt entitled to the interference of that House in his favour ? The regulations of the gaol, acquiesced in by the Court of King's Bench, fully justified the restrictions im posed upon him, of which Mr. Hunt complained. He (Mr.D.) was convinced these restrictions were called for. Mr. Hunt's friends were actnitted, but his mistress was not ; that consti tuted the whole ground of his complaint; and because his mis tress was excluded, Mr., Hunt chose to call his confinement so litary.—(Hear !)—Those regulations continued until the year 1820, when Sir Charles Bampfylde (the High Sheriff of the county) took the management of the gaol into his own hands, and Mr. Hunt's friends were allowed unrestricted intercourse with him. Then arose that conflict between the Sheriff anti the M agistrates. The successor of Sir Charles in office (Mr. Hamil ton) retained those sentiments which had guided him as a magi-I strate, and he enforced the regulfitions of the gaol, and in that state matters remained until the close of the investigation. In the beginning of this year the Magistrates felt themselves obliged to order that the regulations should be strictly observed, and Mr. Hunt was again denied the-company of his mistress. The High Sheriff took it on himself to prevent Mr. 'Junes having intercourse with his female friends ; and surely his doing so did not call for the interference of that House.• The Magis trates were bound by a special Act of Parliament (the 32d of George III.) which enacted"the leeks and regulations for the management of gaols, they were sanctioned by the Judge, and they ought to be enforced. The law enacted those rules; and he coul& see no reason for a departure from them in favour of Mr. Hunt. ' Why should he not be treated in the same manner as any otherprisoner ? Debtors in Ilehester Gaol ivere subjected to those restrictions of which Mr., Hunt complained, they were not allowed to see their friends.—(Loud cries of Hear !)—The law - explained itself, and if the friends of debtors were denied admission, lie saw no reason why Mr. Hunt should be allowed to carry on such an intercourse as he (Mr. Dawson) had de scribed. Of all men in the world Mr. Hunt was the last who 'had a right to .expect indulgence or the interference of that House. His public career was well known; his attendance at various public meetings, the objects and tendency of which were by no means doubtful—he had gone out of his way to do so. In counsel he-was the founder of mischief, and in the fielethe pre sided. He was the head or founder of the new school of rebel lion, blasphemy and infidelity. Since his incarceration, and that of his fellow labourers, IVooler and Carlile, the country had been restored to tranquillity, and to - its tone of sobriety ; and he trusted the decision of the House that night would secure the country against the recurrence of such evils, and protect it against the machinations of rebels, infidels, and blasphemers.— ( heering.) Mr. HOBIIOUSE complained that the Hon. Secretary (Mr. Dawson) had acted with more skill than fairness, in mix ing up with Mr. Hunt's case names which were unpopular in that House, and which, having no co nnex i on w ith t h e su bj ect , could only have the effect of inflaming the mind of the House. The names of Woeler and Carlile had nothing, to do with the case of Mr. Hunt. He (Mr. Hobhouse)knew of no impiety, or blasphemy, or infidelity for which Mr. Hunt was confined ; for be knew of nothing respecting him, but what was on the record upon which lie was cendemned. The Hon. Secretary, too, had entirely put out of sight the Report of the Commissioners, and not one point of that Report had his Hon. Colleague exagge rated in his statement. The Hon. Secretary had gone out of his way to read them a lecture on adultery and morality. The friends of liberty in that House, he thought, were called upon, by the tirade they, had heard on that subject, to keep a strict watch on their opponents, seeing with what closeness their conduct was sifted, and what malice was shewn in the opera tion. He would recommend the Hon. Secretary to be more careful when he talked about immorality, least it might reac h a little higher than the individual he had so unceremoniously dragged on the floor of the. House. With regard to Mrs. Vince, the infringement on the laws of morality no doubt was lamentable, but the men who had felt themselves called upon to repress it had permitted improper connexion between the male and female prisoners. With regard to Mr. Hunt's charges against the prison, the Hon. Secretary began by stating, cer tainly in a very artist-like way, considering he was quite new in office, that Mr. Hunt once thought otherwise. But this was a very unfair, even if it could be called any argument at all; for at least it only showed that he was mistaken, as many Members of that House •had been on the same subj ec t, an d it was ren dered completely useless by the Report of the Commissioners. The Honourable Secretary himself admitted that there might be a deficiency of sun and air in the chamber of Mr. Hunt's confinement, and considering what minor ingredients these were in human happiness, there certainly was nothing to corri plain of. He also admitted that he was the sport of irritating and contradictory orders, which , could not but render imprison ment much more harrassing. In his opinion, the Honourable Secretary had made •concessions 'enough to justify the grant, which was the subject of his Honourable Colleague's motion. The man who had brought to light the atrocities which Mr. Hunt had exposed to the world, should not be looked on as therefore a greater criminal, but as a public benefactor. The Honourable Secretary had called upon them to treat the deci sion of the Judges with respect,' amounting to silence. This he could not assent to, as he thought the representation was formed for the purpose of watching the conduct of the Judges, as well as' every other part of the Government; and it was necessary to thew that they knew it was possible that the lan guage of revenge and malice might come even from that high quarter, and especially in the case of state criminals. If there was any thing in the conduct, in the character, or the talents of Mr. Hunt, it would acquire force from his continuance in pri son contrary to the feelings of a great portion of the people of this country. He appealed to the House as men, as ( • nide men, and as Christians, to coin's!), with the motion' of his Hon. Mr. - DICKENSON defended the conduct of the Maistrates of Somersetshire. He repelled the charge which had been made against them, that they endeavoured to support the gaoler of Ilchester Gaol against Mr. Hunt.- The first thing that was done was, to discharge the: gaoler and the medical man. The prisoner Wyatt who had been complained of, was there as a misdemeanant, and had been Mr. Hunt's servant for nine years, and in the gaol he was permitted to be his ser vant. All the crime he had committed towards Mr. Hunt was, that he once went suddenly into the room and found Miss V., his Ward, on his knee. Mr. Hunt was dower angry, and in re-. turn, with the a s sistanc e o f some one in Power in the gaol, got him twenty-four hours' solitary confinement. To his know ledge, Mr. Hunt had every day, for three hours and a half, permission to walk in an airy'yard., where he was attended by his servant. He was himself one of the Magistrates for the county of Somerset, and although he did not always agree with his colleagues in the propriety of all the restrictions, he was perfectly satisfied with their conduct as a body. 'The Magistrates, having signed certain rules which were ap proved of by the Jtidges, thought themselves bound to act up to them. They were the custos mornm of the gaol, and as such were called upon to take steps to prevent a flagrant breach of morality. Mr. Hunt was the first political prisoner that had been sent to that gaol, and they had the terror of his principles before their eyes. If the Magistrates had , acted im properly, the Courts of law were open. When lie looked at the tendency of Mr. Hunt's conduct, and his dangerous designs in heading such large bodies of people, he could• not regard him as a person entitled to favour. He could not, for these reasons, assent to the motion of the Hon. Baronet; but if he could think that it would be any advantage to the public; he should be the first to wish him discharged to-morrow.--( Hear, hear !) PEEL.—The strong impression he felt, that this parti cular subject, the remission of the sentence of Mr.Hunt,was not fit for the consideration of that House ' was a sufficient guaran tee that he would not trouble them with many observations. He had 'also another motive which would induce him not to trespass long upon their time—it was, because he felt that he might al most put it to the House, whether, in the course of the Hon. Bart.'s speech, he had laid down any thing like sufficient grounds to induce Parliament to interfere with a judicial sentence—to in terfere with the exclusive and sacred prerogative of the Crown, and to depart froni that which had been the unvaried prac tice of the Hotise of Commons ever since the Revolution ? That practice was, not' to express any opinion as to the continua tion of a punishment awarded to an individual by a Court of Justice.—(Hear, hear !)—On the propriety of adhering to that wise and rational practice, unless compelled to depart from it by some overwhelming necessity, there could, he thought, be but one opinion. But.if there were one man who, more than another, ought to entertain the opinfon that this practice should not be departed from, the Hon. Bart. was that individual. With his known and avowed opinions ofthat House—with his recorded complaints of its encroachments on the peculiar province of the Crown, he conceived that the Hon. Bart. ought to be the last man to propose a precedent, which, if once established and followed up, would arrogate to that House a power that did not belong to it—a power, than which none could be conceived more fatal to the constitution, since it would have the effect of enlarging the functions of the democratic part of that constitution far beyond its useful and natural boundary. The question was simply this —were there, in this case, circumstances o f th a t overw h e l m i ng nature, which would tempt the House to interrere with this most important prerogative—that would induce them to meddle with that peculiar attribute of the Crown, which was wholly alienated from the powers of that House, and was unconnected with the ends for which it was instituted ? Before he applied himself to the particular case now before the House, he would orfer a remark or two on the observation with which the Hon. Baronet had prefaced his speech. The Hon. Baronet alluded to a communication which he had, some time ago, with him (Mr. Peel) relative to the punishment which had been awarded to certain individuals who were apprehended on suspicion of a highway robbery. The Hon. Baronet said, lie (Mr. Peel) must not consider it as arising from want of courtesy, if lie did not pay him a compliment for the course he - pursued on that occasion. Good GOD ! could any one suppose that he expected a compliment on such an occasion ? He should consider it as the most severe satire, if it could be imagined that he looked forward to a compliment because he had discharged a duty.—(Hear, hear !>-The Honourable Baronet stated to him the case of two individuals who were suffering punishment on account of a highway robbery. Rut on examining the facts of the case, their conduct assumed the character rather of a culpable frolic than of a felonious design. When acquainted with all the circumstances, he took the necessary steps for re mitting the remainder of the sentence, and the individuals were liberated. He claimed no merit for this act, which, as he be fore said, was an act of duty. The exercise of mercy ought to be as prompt and as pure as the visitation of justice. Where good reasons were advanced for the extension of mercy, lie would immediately attend to them ; but he never would con sent to recommend any one on the ground of personal favour._ (Hear !)—But the inference which the Hon. Baronet attempted to draw from this transaction was, that the system which he (Mr. Peel) was anxious to adopt would lead him to call for the remission of Mr. Hunt's sentence. In the transaction to which the Hon. Baronet alluded, he had beep influenced by a sense ' of public duty alone "; and if he opposed - Mr. Hunt, his oppo sition sprang from the same source. After having fully con sidered the subject, the strongest conviction was impressed on . his mind that nothing could be' more inexpedient, nothing could beanore fatal, than that the House should agree to this Address. Thy would, if they allowed this motion to be car , ried, establish a most dangerous . precedent—a precedent in separable from their acquiescence in it.—( Hear, hear !)—Who was Mr. Hunt, and for what crime had he been committed to this gaol ? The Honourable Baronet had quoted several writers to show that his offence was inter minara erinzina ; but he must look to the intentions of Mr. Hunt Wire wished to dis cover the particular crime for which that individual was punish ed.—(Hear, hear !)—The duty of inquiring into the motives of Mr. hunt was not assumed voluntarily by him. That duty was imposed on him, in the common course of things, by the Hon. Baronet's motion. The I-ion. Bart. had put him on his trial—he had called on him to state to the House on what grounds he re fused to recommend a mitigation of Mr. Hunt's sentence. His reason was'recorded in the criminal jurisprudence of the coun try, where it was entered, that Henry Hunt, James Johnson, . and others were found guilty of " assembling with unlawful . banners, and in an unlawful manner."—(Cheering from the Op : position benches,_ which was answered from the Minist er i a l s id e of the House.) —Was it possible, he asked, that such a statement could be treated with contempt ? Was it possible that a meeting which assembled with unlawful banners for the purpose of in citing the liege subjects of the King to hatred and contempt of . his Governments could be treated with levity ?—(Hear.)—lf it were so, let that circumstance operate as a warning to theilleuse not to agree to this motion.—(Hear.)—Let the house pause--. let them well consider the consequences, before they acquiesced in an address which told the country that the charge brought against Mr. Hunt was so slight, and his conduct so admirable, that the Commons of England were induced to interfere, and to call on the Crown for a mitigation of punishment.—(liear, hear.)—Was there any man who had read what occurred in Lancaster s ithin the last fortnight, without being Convinced of the magnitude of the offence ? Did any man see, in the full consideration which the subject then received—in the perfect establishment of all that had been stated on that (the Ministerial) side of the House—in the complete refutation of what had been called the Manchester massacre—(Loud cheering from the Op position)---did any man see, in these circumstances, the least rea son, for supposing that the meeting was an innocent one ? Had gentlemen read those proceedings ? Hay they, professing as they did a respect for the decison of a Jury, considered the ver dict' which was returned by . the Jury at Lancaster ? Were not the most decisive proofs given of the previous drilling—of the manner in which the parties marched—of their inflammatory banners—and of expressions which left no doubt as to the al most avowed object of the meeting ? Were they, after such evi dence, to be cajoled info a belief, that the object of the meeting was peaceable, and that it was only assembled to petition Parliament for a redress of grievances ? Would they suffer themselves to believe this, and allow the Constitution to be sapped, and undermined, and invaded, by those who took ad vantage of the liberty which that Constitution provided, in order to destroy it with the greater security —(I-fear !)—The enemies of the British Constitution had become too, cunning and too skilful to direct their att ac k s i n th e f orm o f open war fare. No : they proceeded by making complaints of the liberty of the subject, and the liberty of the press, those great privil eges which they were the first to violate and abuse. But after having defended the country against open and avowed enemies, let not the English people be swindled out of the rights they now enjoyed, by the machinations of secret foes. Let it not be said of them hereafter, that they had not the courage to defend them selves against open aed decided attacks, but that they-had not the sagacity to perceive the danger which threatened them from the covert attempts of base incendiaries. He could never view the sentence pronounced on Mr. Hunt as too severe for the crime he committed.—(llear !)—Believing, as he did, that his punish ment was fully merited, conceiving that the evidence adduced at his trial fully supported the charge that was preferred against him, he never would, as a servant of the Crown, consent to ad vise the Crown to remit any part of his sentence.s--(1 - lear !)--Nay, he would declare, with all respect for the decision of that House, -even its unanimous assent to the motion of the Hon. Bart. would not induce him to depart from the line of conduct he had adopt ed, after the most mature and deliberate consideration that he could possibly give to the subject.—(Hear, hear!)—lie saw no thing in the case that called for commiseration. He saw nothing but accumulated proofs of Mr. Hunt's enormous guilt, in availing himself of that distress by which the country had been visited, for the purpose of infl a min g th e m i n d s o f t h ose with whom he had no other connexion except a community of bad feelings.—(Hear, hear !)—lf he saw nothing in the case of Mr. Hunt that called for Parliamentary interference, still less could he see any thing that ought to influence the House in those other circumstances which the Honourable Baronet had thought proper to introduce. Those circumstances could not induce 'him to give any particular distinction to the case of Mr. Hunt. The. Honourable Baronet said, he would show the House that the sentence of Mr. Hunt was aggravated by the conduct of the Magistrates; and he also stated, that he • would confine himself to Mr. Hunt's case, and leave all dis cussion relative to the general discipline which had prevailed in Ilchester gaol for the motion of the Honourable Alderman (Mr. Wood.) Here. he wished to observe, that when the mo tion to which he had referred was brought forward, he would be ready to discess it, and most certainly lie would not defend those acts of' arbitrary power which were alleged to have been committed.—( Hear !)—He would fully state his opinion then ; but until then, as he saw no necessary connexion between the question now before the House, and the system which h a d pre vailed in the prison, lie would abstain from noticing it. He would not 'either follow the example of the Honourable Ba ronet, who, perceiving that there was nothing in the case of Mr. Hunt, had, with the skill of an artist,. referred to other facts in order to inflame the passions of the House. No motion was introduced, it should be remembered, for the release of those prisoners who were thus incidentally mentioned ; but Mr. Hunt, who of all the prisoners in Dchester Gaol had suf fered the least, was selected as an' object of special favour.— ( Hear !) He would put out of the case the woman who was placed in solitary confinement—he would put out of the case the bl4ter which was applied to a prisoner's head : no man could defend such acts, and no man condemned them more than he did ; but he now rejected them, because they were not connected with this motion. le called on the House not to give up their under standing to sophistry or skill ; and if they meant to decide dis passionately, they would leave out of their consideration subjects that were not before them. He found that the magistrates and the gaoler had issued contradictory orders with respect to Mr. H.; but he must impute the necessity in which that conduct originat ed to Mr. Hunt himself. Now, admitting every thing that had been stated to be true, supposing that nothing tnorehortible could be fotind in the annals of the inquisition titan was experienced in' that ' gaol, why, lie asked, was Mr. Hunt selected from amongst the sufferers, as the only object of mercy ? Was the insalubrity of the'air the great cause of complaint ? That was an evil, if it existed, which all must feel as well as Mr. Hunt. In the course of twenty years, about 25,0001. had been ex pended on this gaol to make it as convenient as possible ; and, at the present moment, many persons were confined there Who had not been convicted of any crime, but -who had the misfor tune of being in debt. Many debtors were confined there who had forfeited their liberty, not through their own fault, not because they were inattentive to business, but in consequence of that distress which had visited the county of Somerset with peculiar severity. Now, he asked, was it consistent with justice' to call on the Crown to mitigate the sentence of a con victed offender on account of the insalubrity of the gaol, while persons who were confined as debtors, were exposed to the same evil ? Could they possibly req u est the CroWn to relieve the one, without relieving the other ? Or, if they did, would not the omission be fatal, and justly fatal, to the application ? With respect to the'other ground advanced by The Hon. Bart. that it was through Mr. Hunt's means that an inquiry was set on foot as to the conduct of the gaoler, and that very important disclo sures Were made in consequence, he must say, that if' the Hon. -Baronet compelled him to look at the conduct of Mr. Aunt, lie must also take a view of his motives. Ile did not mean to enter ' into any details on this point ; but he did not think that the motives of Mr. Hunt were of the most disintergted character. He believed, also, that had lie been placed in any other prison in England, some ground would have been discovered on which,.in the opinions of some, a Secretary of State ought to recommend the remission of his sentence.—( Hear !)—On the three grounds which he had mentioned, and which formed the main branches of the Hon. Baronet's argument, he must oppose the motion. The Hon. Baronet had, he thought, utterly failed in making out a case. He had not shown that the conduct of Hunt was such as demanded the interference of Government,—he had not shown that the severity of his sentence had been aggravated by the conduct of the magistrates,--and he never could be induced to think that the punishment of the offender was uneommensu rate With the offence he had committed.. On these grounds he would oppose the introduction of a principle which had not been acted on since the Revolution. But, above all, lie implored them not to let it go forth to the country, that they relieved this man, because he was guilty of sedition, while innocent persons, who were suffering through unavoidable misfortune, were left, unpitied, to their fate.-41 - lear.) • Sir J. MACKINTOSH said, that if no man could vote for this motion, who did not approve of Mr. Hunt's political opi nion and conduct, lie should not be able to vote for it. But when he was asked who Mr. Hunt was, he must reply, that he was an injured person, and in that character, and that only he knew him in the present instance. He protested against the principle of holding sacred the conduct of the Judges. It was unwise and illiberal to maintain that their conduct should be free from discussion. He would pay a reasonable but not $, blind reverence to them. Hi s o pi nion was , t h at M r. H unt h a d! suffered more than the Court' of King's Bench intended he; should suffer. The Right Hon. Gent. had said there was no pie•l cedent for the interposition of that. House in the exercise of the prerogative of the Crown in judicial matters. He was pre' pared to state,abundance of precedents. He might cite before the Revolution the address of both Houses , of Parliament to King Charles, not to proceed against lambert and Vane. 10 1068, the House addressed thee. King to remit a. penalty of 00 imposed on two men named Sayer and Dennis. Since the Re• volution in 1697, Parliament petitioned the King to stay the person of Thomas White ; and with reference to that cise he might ask the House whether the interposition of Parliament to stop an Act of grace was not a harsh proceeding compared to an Address to the King to show mercy. There was another Address, praying that the execution of a. criminal in Nevi gate might be delayed. The House th en sent a Committee to Newgate to examine the prisoner, in order to see whether the circumstances entitled 'them to proceed further. He could not suppose at the present day that tiny Honour able Member would recommend his Majesty to oppose the application of the House of Commons for mercy, and he could not believe any Minister would resign his seat in such a case. The Address of the House of Peers, in behalf of the rebel Lords was another precedent. Sir R. Walpole did not complain of such proceedings, but the question for the consideration of the House was, whether the punishment of Mr. I :unt was not greater than it ought to be. He passed over all the tranac--- tions of Mr. Hunt. They had no reference to the question, except to increase severity of feeling against the individual.—• There never was a case which encroached so little on the pre rogative of the Crown as this case. It was no question of guilty, but the. House had merely to consider whether more punishment had been suffered than the law inflicted. Mr. Wic'NN did not deny that - cases might be cited to justify the interposition 'of Parliament, for the purpose of procuring the mercy of the Sovereign, There was,' in fact, no prerogative of the Crown with which Parliament might" not interfere, but the case before the House was not o ne which called for Parliamentary interpnsition: The Rebel Lords were tried upon impeachment, of which the House of Lords were cognizant, and it was precisely the case of a jury recommending to mercy. Ile would not dispute with the Member for Westminster, that cases might occur in which the-conduct of Judges might properly he brought under dis cussion ; but what benefit could bb derived from bring ing the conduct of Judges before Parliament by a side wind, and without evidence of facts ? He could not admit Mr. Hunt's conduct had been light and trivial. It ap peared to him to approach very near High Treason. In the Report of the Commissioneis it did not appear that Mr. Hunt had to complain of more hardship than others in the gaol, and it must be obvious, that that individual ought not to be tolerated in immoral conduct, more than others. .11.1 r. Wynn then 'cited a letter recently' pul , lished by Hunt, in which he alluded to Sir F. Burdett's intended motion on his behalf, and observed that it was quite childish to suppose Ministers would giVe him a pardon on the ground of his having suffered more punishment than the Judges intended. This clearly proved the opinion of the individual himself upon the excess of punishment so much relied on by the Hon. Members who supported the motion. Mr. BUXTON said, he should trouble the House hut a few minutes. Ilis sentiments on the question were known, but the frequent allusion made by an Hon. and Learned Friend to him, as being able to give some accoun t o f t h e ev il s i n the gaol, made it necessary to offer sotne explanation. When he visited the gaol he dismissed from his mind the whole of Hunt's misconduct. He only saw him as a man under sentence. The term and nature of his imprisoruneent had been defined. The prison was considered healthy by the Judges, but it was evi dent from the verdict of the Jury on Briant that it was cold and unwholesome. S:. J. MACKINTOSH, in explanation, said be had no in tention to impute to the Hon. Member any thing but a correct statement of what he had seen.- Mr. ESTCOURT stated, that the Commissioners, upon making inquiry in the prison, did not find any misconduct proved against Hunt. Sir F. BURDETT having shortly replied, the House divided, For the Motion - - - 84 Against it - - - 223 Majority - - - =139 The other Orders of the Day were then disposed of, and the House adjourned at HA - IS-PAST ONE O'CLOCK. FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE. PARIS, APRIL 22.—1 t was reported last night that a vessel had arrived on the 16th at Mar seilles from Malta, having on board a Messenger with despatches to the English Ambassador at Paris. The crew announce the general insur rection of the lonian Islands. We repeat the report as we heard it, but cannot vouch for its authentic y .—( Constitutionnel.) The Count's de Woronzoff, father and son, left Paris yesterday, the former for London, and the latter for Petersburgh. Letters from Lisbon, dated the beginning of April, confirm the news of Brazil having de clared her independence, and state, that the Prince Regent has been nominated Emperor. The Courier Francais of to-day contains a very long article on the affairs of Greece, ex tracted from numerous letters of various dates, from the Peloponnesus, Thessaly, and Epirusi— The - following are extracts from some of the most recent : " The details respecting the late victory gained by the Greek fleet over the Turks are nearly the same as those already published, both as regards the number of Turkish vessels taken or sunk and the scene of action, near the Gulf of Lepanto only we !lave more accurate details on the direc tion which the fugitive Turkish vessels took to escape certain destruction. The Greeks, accord ing to their usual tactics, attacked furiously the centre of the Ottoman fleeti where the largest vessels are usually stationed, and among them the Admiral. The v e ss e ls f o r m i ng th two wings of the Turkish fleet, seeing the centre de stroyed, fled in different directions, some towards Cephalonia, the others into the Gulf of Gaume nizzal ; the latter, being closely pursued, were soon overtaken, beaten, captured, or destroyed. 4C The Government of Cephalonia signified to the division which had fled to its coast, that it could not remain there for fear of exciting an in surrection, as happened last year on a similar oc casion, when the English Governor of the Port of Zante admitted the Turkish fleet to escape the pursuit of the -Greeks. It is, therefore, not true that the Turks took refuge in the Gulf of. Le panto, where they would have been safe. The Greeks, sensible of this, manoeuvred so as to in tercept the retreat of the Turks into the Gulf of Lepanto, and one of their divisions wtich followed those that fled towards Cephalonia, soon pressed, them closer when they quitted that coast. " The accounts of Samos, sent by an eye-wit ness to Odessa, state that the Samians have a considerable army ; th a t Lycurgus, their Chief, has made many wise regulations ; that he under takes frequent excursions to the coast of Asia Minor, where he has often defeated the Turks and made great booty. Lycurgus recognises the General Assembly of the. Peloponnesus, and is in alliance with \ the Cretans, to whom he has lately sent a reinforcement of 2000 young men, well armed. - " Our correspondents promise us details re specting the Central Government of Greece, on the laws that have been published, &c. The duties on vessels and goods are levied in the ports and islands in their power ; the public , contributions are regularly paid, and the land and sea forces paid by the State. To meet the ex pences of the corps lately sent to Epirus and