The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1818-05-22 00:00:00

-4-

Heat measure, the allegations of the Petitioner,
obert Swindells. He was well acquainted with
the Gentlemen who, having been sworn in as spe-
cial constables on that evening of alarm in Mac-
clesfield, had proceeded to the Petitioner's house
to search for a Committee of conspirators said to
be there sitting. There was no violence com-
mitted. Indeed these persons were men perfectly
incapable of any of the atrocities alleged against
them, as he himself well knew; and so far from
this man's wife having been starved with cold, aiid
hence falling a victim in childbed, it was a fact she
had gone to her work at the silk factory newt day.
without ever having complained that she was unwell.
It was further denied on the part of the Magistrates,
who had consulted the medical man who attended
her, that she was more than six months advanced in
her pregaancy, and he had also stated that, during
her time of gestation, she had been *object to a vio-
lent cough, and occasionally to hysterics.
Mr. BLACIIBUIINE stated, from the authority of
the Magistrates from whom he had this day commu-
nications, that the two other parties had received
whilst in the workhouse every accommodation which
the place afforded—that their removal to prison was
not attended with any unnecessary rigour, they be-
ing placed in an open cart, and connected together,
for the sake of security, by a light chain. Their
situation also in Ibres•oli gaol was Stated to be as
little irksome or inconvenient as it would have beep
had they been sent to Lancaster Castle, fur that
gaol was at this period, m common with others in
the neighbourhood, excessively full.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL contended, that in
this instance if he had hero at all guilty, it was
rather from a dereliction of duty then an excess of
cruelty in his conduct with respect to these parties.
He begged to state to the House what had been his
conduct on this occasion. He sent down an in-
dictment to the Grand Jury at the Quarter Ses-
sions, who found a true bill. On subsequently re-
fleeting upon the nature of the charge, it struck
him, that a charge of publishing a libel of this na-
ture ought rather to be tried before the Judges of
the land than before the local jurisdiction, he there-
fore removed the case by certiorari. Reflecting
on the delay which this would occasion, and the
consequent additional nutirissoment it might impose
on the party, he immediately sent down an order, of-
fering them a discharge on their own recogrozance,
to enter plea in the Court of King's Bench on the
first day of the next Term. If this offer was fur a
time rejected, he was not the cause of it, but the party
or parties who obstiriately refused the indulgence.—
On the subject of the committal by the Magis-
trates, the Hon. Genileman denied dust they had
authority to commit in this manner, before trial, to
the House of Correction. Now, on this point, he
(the Attorney-General) would only say, that this
power existed by virtue of two statutes; and fur-
ther, that it was given because it favoured the ac-
cused. In many counties there was only one gaol,
and that perhaps at some distance, but iu every place
almost there was a workhouse; so that the accused,
instead of possibly bring removed to a distance, had
the opportunity of remaining in their own immediate
neighbourhood. He was willing to admit, that if
the parties were before trial put to hard labour,
such putting would be a stretch of the law--
ft/earl—but under the 22d George 111. c. 24,
they might be set to easy work if they were sup-
ported at the expense of the country, and the, were
entitled on their discharge to half their earnings.
In stating thus much he was ready to add, that he
had lately, rind for a purpose quite unconnected
with this subject, considered the Statute, and lie
rather thought that it was not corn 10 universal
applicatiori.—(Cries of Hear, hear, hear.).—
This he was free to say. But let the House look
at the sort of labour to which these people were
put—te pick a couple of pounds of cotton per duy.
Was this consistent with the assertion that they
were seat to the House of Correction merely for
oppression, and to put to bard labour? As to that
part of the case of Swindells, fur a libel, all lie
should say was, that no man had been prosecuted
with less severity ; he had never been arrested (is
was said) by a Magistrate. or by the authority of
one. Ile (the Attorney-General) felt it his duty to
have filed an er-officio information against him ; no
warrant whatever had been issued but the ordi-
nary law process by sa6pena ; he had merely
a notice to appear, and no more—/Hear)—
and in default of his appearance, an attachment
was imbued sg►aiust him. This attachment was not
issued from the Crown-office until thirteen days
after the 6th of June, when lie was bound to appear.
%Viten taken up for this contempt, it was true he
applied to the Mayor, who answered (and truly)
that he knew nothing of the cause of the arrest.
The party was by this process, merely called upon
to enter an appearance, no recognizince was either
given or wanted, and an offer was made to hint
that if lie was unable to bear the expense of com-
ing to town. he had only to authorise the Solicitor
fur the Treasury to enter • plea for him, and he
should have a copy of the information gratis, with
a sopersedeas by return of post.—( Ileur.)—So iu
his case there was a complete relaxation rather than
an aggravation of puiiishinent. Now as to the do-
mestic sufferings lie stated lie had endured on the
10th March, lie begged, on his honour, to state,
that lie never heard of them until after the pro-
cess had been issued.— (blear, hear.)—lt was
right, however, in justice to the Magistrates, to
call the attention of the House to the circumstauces
attending this part of the case. It would be recol-
lected that the 10th March was the day when the
persons called the Blanketeers had set out from
Manchester, with the intention of proceeding by
two routes (Stockwell and Macclesfield) to London.
At Macclesfield the greatest bustle prevailed
among the lower classes on that day, iii the ex-
pectation of one of these bodies, and the Magistrates
had the greatest difficulty in preserving the public
peace. On the reciting of that day a body of 1,000 of
these blanketeers entered the town, and the leaders
or delegates of them were said to have gone to the
house of Swindells, who was said to have been act-
ing in concert with them. The Magistratei went
there merely to ascertain the fact, and aeon some
of the political catechisms in the place, and ether
inflammatory publications, they certainly carried
them away. He del not justify this act, or mean to
say that it was legal. but the time and situation of
the place would, he thought, plead much in exte-
nuation of the Magistrates, who were at such a
crisis responsible fur the peace of the town,

Theta again as to ti►e ill health of the wife ; this
was true, but it was equally true that her indis-
position was not caused by this visit of the Magid-
testes, for he had seen an affidavit from the surgeon
who attended her for some time previously, and who
described her to have been in a very weak state—
( Hear )—and further, he bad information from her
fellow-work persons in the manufactory, that while
she worked there after this matter had occurred
they never heard her complain plains as being
either the cause or the aggravation of her illness.—
( Hear.)—The man also had gone so far as toady,
that his wife was refused medical aid ; now, on the
contrary, he could prove, that a surgeon continued
to attend her until the husband told him he might
spare himself further trouble, as l►e had got her
into the Dispensary.—(Hear.)--This man was
again contradicted, when he sail, l►e had been kept
ou bread and water for months, whereas the fact
was, lie had the general gaol allowance which the
debtors had in Chester gaol, and which was sub-
stantial ('pod.—(Hear.)--When such evidence in
direct contradiction to his statements were given,
where was the necessity of going into this inquiry'
—(Hear.)
Sir S. ROMILLY conceived this to he a most im-
portant question, and one which involved two great
and paramount privileges—he meant the freedom
of the press and the liberty of the subject.—(Hear,
hear.)—He deeply regretted the feeling winch the
House seemed disposed to manifest on a question
of such vital interest-4e could not but express his
astonishment that they seemed disposed to go to a
division with so little ceremony on points of such
magnitude.—(s 'ries of " No !" from the 7'reasery
Bench.)—The Hon. and Learned Gentleman re-
pented his assertion, and said, that his Hon. and
Learned Friend (the Attorney-General) had seen
the gallery half cleared before he rose to speak
on the subject, and when he had spoken, lie
had carefully abstained from noticing the great
bearings of the question. —( Hear, hear, hear.)—
lie had argued it as if it were a charge brought
against himself, which in fact it was not, except
so far as his act in removing the case by certiorari,
when one would suppose that, if the object were to
suppress the libel and punish the libeller, the pro-
per course would be to proceed at once against him,
and not let the matter rest at the time, and after-
wards revive the libel by a distant prosecution.
But the great question was, in the float instance
leading men with irons who were merely charged
with publishing a political libel.—(Hear, hear.)—
This outrage was so strous, that but a few
years ago no man would have believed such an oc-
currence could have token place. The Member
for Lancashire (Nlr. Blackburne) hurl, in the excul-
patory letter (as he called it) which he read, gently
alluded to this treatment, by reading that die par-
ties were sent to prisati " with the usual precau-
tions."—(llEar, hear.)—The Hon. and Learned
Gentleman had called these libels blasphemous;
he (Sir Samuel) did not like to hear such a term
applied to those productitn►s, because it was not
warranted by law. They were certainly, to say
the least of them, very• reprehensible—to parody
the sacred parts of the Liturgy, was an ex-
tremely bad form for the writer to convey his de-
testation of corrupt practices--it could hut be justi-
fied, but it was not yet blasphemous in a legal
sense. Knowing the liberal sentiments which his
Hon. and Learned Friend held in early life, and
he hoped still held, it was astonishing how he could
have so slightly touched on the real oppression dis.
closed in these cases—he was astonished how lie
could have listened without indignation at the
avowal by Magistrates, that they sent a man
charged with a political offence to prison in
iro►►s, before his trial. To say that they had
acted thus, because he had published abet was
pronounced a libel, was to say nothing ; for
some excellent production• had fallen under that
title, not indeed in the opinions of country Ma-
gistrates, but • according to the declarations of
leading Crown Lawyers--such, for instance, had
been the case in the respectful Petition of the
Bishops in the time of James the Second.—(Hear,
hear.)—See the situation iii which die liberty of
the subject Lutist stand, if Magistrates had the
power of thus putting persons, in the first instance,
in irons, and sending them to gaol like convicted
felons.

Mr. BLACKBURNE here rose to say, that be had
not admitted they were so sent. The Hon. Gen-
tleman then referred to the letter • which he had
previously read, and repeated, that the persons bad
been sent to the workhome, where they were
placed by the fire-side merely with a chain round
their legs to prevent their escape.—(llear, hear.
front Sir S. Romilly.)
Sir S. Rommt.v—" That is what I allude to;
and did not the Hon. Member read from the other
letter that they mere sent to Preston gaol with the
usual precautions,' and were not these precautions
irons ?"—(Hear.)

Mr. BLACILBUItNe admitted that he had read
such an extract.—/Hear.)
Sir S. RUMILLY Oro resumed, and said, that
was precisely what lie had been arguing upon. He
denied the power of the Magistrates to commit
such an outrage. The single question wee, whe-
ther the House could hear such a doctrine without
indignation ; or whether, having heard, they could
allow the matter to rest without further inquiry ?
If they did, what would their constitnents think of
such an abandonment of public duty ?—(
His lion. and Learned Friend had also but slightly
glanced at the seizure of Swindell's papers. New
whatever differences of opinion lawyers may hold
on a number of points, on this, relative to the sei-
zure of private papers to rake out evidence against
an individual, lie did mat believe thete had been •
dissentient voice since Lord Camden's celebrated
decision condemnatory of such a practice. It was
both illegal and disgraceful, and entirely arose out
of Lord Sidinouth's Letter, michising the opinions
of the Attorney and Solicitor-General to whet the
zeal of the local authorities is their several district*.
The coneequence of it in this particular instance
was, that the ignorant individual sent forth to
hunt for libels, discovered in one titan's custody a
volume of Kellin's Ancient History, Law's Serious
01/Iwpins Good C'h►istians, and The Evangelical
Magazine—all of which, on the maxim of noscitar
a seciis, were seised and carried off, because they
were found on the mass /shelf with The Liverpool
Mercury, and some cumbers of Cobbett's works—
(4 laugh.)—lf such a practice were tolerated, no
man would chime like Sydney, to put his thoughts

-4

to paper on the public transactions of Government.
The facts, it was said, were denied. Where, lie
would ask, was this denial to be found ? Was it
net admitted, that the persons were put in irons
before the Magistrates, and their papers seized ?
The other parts were, it was true, in some
instances contradicted ; but he saw no reason why
the statement of the oppressed should not receive
as much credence as that of the oppressor ; indeed,
except as it would seem in political cases, the
former was usually believed in preference—,
(Hear)—and the zeal of those who came form;il,l
to contradict what the Petitioners had asserter:„.
might in some degree be estimated, when some o!:
them had the hardihood to swear that neither
dells nor his wife " had made complaints to ally pt i•
sons whatsoever." The Hon. and Learned G.-wit--
man concluded by warmly calling upon the House.
to consider the situation in which the liberty of the
subject would be placed if acts of this kind %vile
tolerated, and if the people of the country were to
be told that that House would not deign even to
inquire into so heinous an abuse.—(Hear, hear.)
Mr. BATHURST contended that his Host. and
Learned Friend had given a full explanation in
support of the conduct of the Magistrates, in send-
ing these individuals to the House of Correction.
They were authorised to do so by law, and such sna
uniformly the place of committal in these cases in
Lancashire.

Sir S. ROMILLT and Mr. BATautsr, severally
explained.
Mr. LocKitatre said, that the explmation given
by the Attorney-General, of the part he had taken
in the transactions, was entirely satisfactory. One
topic, however, had been left unexplained, that re-
lating to the irons. It seemed, too, from the pal-
liation endeavoured to be made for it, that stich a
practice was, in similar cases, general. If such a
practice was resorted to by the Magistrates, as al-
leged, for convenience in transporting prisoners
accused of misdemeanors from one gaol to an-
other, without any fouticei,n of law to warrant it,
that alone was a reason why the House of Com-
mons should institute an inquiry on the first of such
cases brought before thew. Misdemeanor %vs*
an undefined sort of offence—new cases of it
arose every day ; and it was hard in the extreme,
to allow Magistrates a discretionary power of punish-
ing it by ironing before the guilt was established.
But above all, should they prevent supposed abuses
of the liberty of the press to be piiiiiihed a priori?
Was it to be endured that Men only accused of
publishing a libel should be put int° a cart, bound
with chains, and paraded in this state of de-
gradation from one town to another ? On such
grounds, he conceived the House was bound to go
into iiiquiry, and he should therefore support the
motion for a Committee.

Mr. BENNETT replied. The persons petitioning.
were Englishmen—every alleged oppression of such
demanded the consideration of the House. Shoutd
they reject the motion, the country would recollect
that one of their last acts was to refuse inquiry intr.
a caae of violation of liberty. in which any man
might have the misfortune to be involved..
Tile House then divided, and the numbers were—
for the motion

Agaiuct it

Majority against it
CLAIMS ON THE CARNATIC.

Mr. MARSH then rose to bring forward his mo-
tion fur a Committee on the claims of certain err.
doors on the Nabob of the Carnatic. In the years
1796 and 1797, the Gentlemen who had now pe_
titioned the House, Messrs. Chase, Chinnery, and
Co. Messrs. Abbott and Maitland, and Mr. Perry,
of Madras, had advanced large sums of money, to
the amount of above one hundred thousand pounds,
to the Nabob, to be repaid by monthly instalments.
This money was lent in • fair open way, with
the consent of the local authorities, and the Pe-
titioners had the receipts for it. But in 1801,
a most important revolution took place in the
territory, the revenues of which bad been pledged
as security for the debts. The East India
Company took possession of the whole admini-
stration of the Carnatic, civil and military,
and an them it of course depended whether the
assignments on the country should be made good.
They thought proper to reject the donne of the
Petitioners, on the ground that the money had hero
alvanced contrary to the provisions of an Act of
Parliament. However, the Company and tl►e cre-
ditors came to a compromise ire the year 1805. It
was agreed that all bo•a fide claims, adjudicated
to be so by commissitoners to be appointed in
India, should be allowed by the Company, and
liquidated out of the revenues of the Cartiatic. The
claims in question originated out of tuonies abso-
lutely advanced to the Nabob. Why, then, it
might be asked, had the justice of them not liven
admitted by the arbiters ? They rejected thew,
bemuse, by a clause in an Act of Parlia►nent, p►a:sed
in the year 1797, with • general object quite dif-
ferent Irons any thing in these trimeactions, persens
iu India were prohibited from lending money to
any of the native Princes without the consent of the
Governor and Council expressed in writing—the
professed purpose of the clause was to check
and put a stop to usury and extortion. Neither
of these characters could apply to the deal-
i►►gs of the Petitioners; because, during the two
years they were engaged in them, all was done
above board, and they had actually obtained the
consent of the local authorities, not, however, re-
duced to writing. The want of this last formality
altogether vitiated, in the opinion of the Commis-
stoners, and rendered void the contracts. They
had been excluded from the recovery of their ilt
not from any want of consideration in the contisct—
not from any thin unfair in the manner of coo-
ducting it—but solely because they had nut coin.
plied with the directions of an Act of Perliument,
of which at the time they were actually ignorant.
He would not argue on die severity of extending
the principle that ignorance of a law does nut ex-
cuse a transgression of it, to so remote a part uf the
empire as ludic—because, in point of fact, the
Petitioners had been deceived ou the subject. In
the copy of the Act that they saw published in Ma-
dras, not a syllable appeared on the necessity of the
authorities bring expressed in writing ; so thst the
only requisite wanting to substantiate their claim
under the Act, was a thing they could scarcely
have known. If the Petitioners spoke what W:l4
false, that would easily be discovered by the
acute and intelligent 'Members of the cola-