The Sun.
London, England, 1839-01-24 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, THURSDAY, JANUARY 24, 1839.

sion, their branches are ramifications of injustice, and their
fruit is poison.—( Long continued cheering.) From what
do they originate ? They originate in the selfish injustice of
the landowners, who, in order to raise a revenue to them-
selves from the rest of the community, lay a tax on the ne-
cessaries of life.

Atter some further remarks, Mr. BLACK read the third re-
solution.
Councillor JOHN RITCHIE seconded the resolution.

Mr. PEDDIE, staymaker—l am an old Corn-law repealer,
and rise for tho purpose of supporting tho prayer of the
resolutions. It strikes me, however, that the resolution
just read is not sufficiently explicit. It prays for the re-
peal of the existing laws, but does not say what ought to
be substituted in their stead ; and, therefore, I intend to
add an addendum—(Laughter)—to test the sentiments of
this meeting ; as, whether justly or not, the working men do
entertain considerable suspicions.—(Uproar.) The working
classes do entertain suspicions, and the sooner these are put
right the better.—( Interruption. ) Mr. Peddie went on at
some length, and then moved two resolutions, to the effect
that the petition to emanate from this meeting should be
for the total abolition of the Corn-laws, and for the free im-
portation of grain in all time coming ; :and the second
went to pledge the electors present not to support any can-
didate, at the next election, who would not pledge himself
to a repeal of the Corn-laws. He urged the necessity of
adopting his addendum that there might be no mistake or mis-
understanding hereafter.
Mr. E. MURRAY said, if the Hon. Gentleman had waited to
hear the next resolution he would have seen that at least a part
of his addendum was uncalled for.

The resolution was then carried by acclamation.
Mr. PEDDLE insisted that it was absolutely necessary to
have a pledge from the electors not to support any candi-
date that would not pledge himself to vote for a repeal of the
Corn-laws.

Some confusion ensued, which prevented our hearing whe-
ther Mr. Peddle found a seconder.
Treasurer STODART—I submit that before Mr. Peddie
puts his resolution to the meeting, he ought in courtesy to
have waited till all the resolutions were before the meeting ;
and if he had done so he would have found that the purport of
his motion was fully embodied in the resolution which has
been put into my hands.—(Cheers.) Here Mr. Stodart read
the resolution.

Mr. Psonis—As that resolution embodies the spirit of what
I propose, I cordially second it. _

'Dr. GLOVIM—I rise to more an amendment.

Mr. PEDDLE—I am in possession of the chair.
Dr. GLOVER maintained his place and went on, but a; he
seemed to be wandering into matters not immediately con-
nected with the object of the meeting,
Mr. BURTON rose to order.
Dr. GLOVER—I am in order.
Mr. BURTON—It is for the meeting to say whether the
gentleman is in order.
The cry becoming general to put the amendment and the
motion to the vote, the Lord Provost called on those in favour
of Dr. Glover's amendment to hold up their hands ; when we
counted about fifty. The motion was then put, and we may
say almost every hand in the room was elevated.
Thanks were then voted to the Chairman, and the business
of the meeting declared finished. Some of the Chartists,
especially the individual who moved the adjournment, became
very vociferous, complaining that they had been unfairly treated
—they had been promised a hearing, which they had not ob-
tained. But, as few seemed disposed to listen, the meeting
quietly separated.
This was one of the most numerous meetings ever held in
the Waterloo Rooms. The Chartists mustered their forces
(their strength in Edinburgh is not great) and sustained a.de-
feat they will not soon forget. As a body they are more noisy
than numerous ; and in any fairly called meeting, in which the
public generally take an interest, the most effectual mode of
silencing them is to put their motions to the vote, and to a
certainty they will be in a miserable minority.
The following are the resolutions at reed to :
It was resolved, on the motion of Sir THOMAS DICK LAUDER,

of Fountainhall, Bart. ; seconded byJouN WIGH AM, jun. Esq
" That the prosperity of the country in a great measure
depends on our trade and manufactures, and that agriculture
cannot flourish if trade and manufactures decay."
It was resolved, on the motion of Councillor M‘LAREN, se-
conded by the Hon. J. ERSKINE MURRAY.
" That of late years great progress has been made in the
establishment of manufactures on the continent of Europe,
not only by foreigners, but by natives of Britain, who have
transferred their skill, capital, and enterprise to foreign
countries, in consequence of which we have already been
deprived by foreigners of many neutral markets for several
branches of our manufactures, and are beginning to be un-
dersold at home."

Ic was resolved, on the motion of ADAM BLACK, Esq., seconded
by Councillor RITCHIE,. _

" That the chief cause of the rapid and successful pro-
gress of foreign manufactures is the low price of food
abroad, compared with its cost in this country ; that the
high price of food in Britain, occasioned by the laws against
the importation of corn and other articles of subsistence,
inflicts severe suffering on the industrious classes, not only
by the great proportion of their savings it absorbs, but also by
►essening the demand for labour on the part of our manufac-
turers, and thereby lowering wages ; and that, unless these
laws be speedily repealed, our trade and manufactures must be
seriously injured, and the sufferings of the industrious classes
still farther increased."

It was moved by Treasurer STODART, seconded by Mr.
PEDDIE, and resolved, _ . .

" That a petition, signed by the Chairman, be intrusted to
Sir John Campbell, to be presented to the House of Commons,
embodying the above resolutions, and praying for an imme-
diate and total repeal of all restrictiot,s and prohibitions against
the importation of corn and other articles of food, for the re-
moval of all legislative obstacles to the unrestricted employ-
ment of industry, and for the establishment, to the fullest
extent as regards both agriculture and manufactures, of the
principles' of free trade ; and that Mr. Horsman, M. P., be
requested to support the petition."
JAMES FOREST, Lord Provost.

THE CANADIAN PRISONERS.

QUEEN'S BEN CH.-(YESTERDAY.)

(From our Second Edition of last night.)
JUDGMENT.

Lord DENMAN—This is a motion for an attachment against
William Batchelor, the gaoler of Liverpool, who has made a
return to a writ of habeas corpus, by which he justifies for
holding the body of Leonard Watson in his custody. The at-
tachment is moved for on the ground of his having committed
contempt by deceiving the Court, in falsely setting out the
warrant under which he received the body of that person, and
I agree that, if there is anything like a wilful falsehood
in bringing these matters before us that would be a subject for
the severest punishment the Court could inflict. I also agree
that there may be a degree of culpable neglect in the false
statement which would also make it proper for us to visit the
party who made it with displeasure. Upon the pre-
sent occasion there is no doubt that the statement
is untrue. There is no doubt that it is incorrect to
say that the letters patent of Sir John Colborne—which
William Batchelor in the first place received, and described
as the warrant under which he held Leonard Watson in
custody—these letters patent in the mandatory part re-
quire the captain of the barque to convey that person
over from Quebec to England. Now then, in the first place,
I do not say that the party making this return is free from
blame in having received the body of a man whom he was not,
by what he treated as a warrant, instructed to receive. On the
contrary, I think that it is the bounden duty of a gaoler to receive
no man into the restraint of his custody without being per-
fectly satisfied that he had lawful authority so to do ; and I
think there is a degree of neglect in the conduct of this
person, which we cannot pass over without some degree
of censure, when he imprisons Leonard Watson by virtue
of what he conceives an authority to imprison him,
in which the name of Leonard Watson never once occurs.
One sees that in criminal proceedings the most dreadful con-
sequences might result from these mistakes; and I think that
every man who is entrusted with an office in which the liberty
of his fellow subjects is kept under his controul, ought to be care-
ful not to controul that liberty without being fully convinced,
and taking the proper means to be convinced, that he has the
right to hold them in his custody; but this is not the contempt
which we are required to visit upon Wm. Batchelor. He is
brought before us, not for having improperly imprisoned this
person, but for having untruly trifled with us, and with justice, by
stating an untrue fact before us, because he has said in the
return he did receive this man, when in fact he did not.
Now, whether the warrant be material or not, would not at
all be decisive of the question whether we should visit this
person for contempt, of Court, because he evidently considered
himself to have truly returned it. But now, in a subsequent
part of the case, the affidavits of these parties set forth
the reasons by which he was misled on that subject.
and I must say, when these reasons are considered, it is im-
possible to impute to him this once of having wilfully
treated the Court with contempt in making a false return,
because there cannot be the slightest doubt that he fully be-
lieved, and was satisfied, that what he did was authorised
by the warrant. I think he ought to have made himself
more sure on the subject ; but, at the same time, when he
finds a list of a great number of names set forth in the
letters patent of Sir John Colborne, and the name of Leo-
nard Watson in the number, it seems impossible to say that
he might not have overlooked the name with the most
complete persuasion that it was in the other part, as he had
found it in the introductory part. Therefore, I must say
that I cannot conceive he stands before us in any such
condition, as that we should be at all justified in treat-
ing him with severity for the contempt he has committed.
I cannot help adverting to that which was dwelt on so much,
the supposed blame imputable to the individual in the course
of committing the blunder, for such we must take it to be ;
and on that subject also, though I feel that the Attorney-Ge-
neral, and all his coadjutors, have nothing to do with such
warrant, except to say that the facts are properly stated,
on general terms ; and with regard to the Learned Counsel
who drew the return, I have no idea that he did anything
more than copy, probably the first name, and that then some-
body filled up the names of the other parties ; but I must also
say I do think there has been great neglect in some quarter in
not comparing one document with the other, so as to be perfectly
certain there is the most complete copy of it set out upon
that which is produced to the Court as a true return and
statement to the warrant. J cannot feel it is altogether
to be passed over as a matter without blame, because
I think the Court have a right to expect that the document
that was brought before them stating that Leonard Wat-
son was doomed in Canada to be imprisoned in Eng-
land without somebody being responsibly called to com-
mit himself to the fact—that Sir John Colborne's warrant