The Sun.
London, England, 1822-03-15 00:00:00

MR. HUNT.

Mr. NEWMAN presented a petition from certain Inhabi-
tants of Exeter, complaining that the sentence upon the above
individual had been aggravated by the regulations of the gaol
in which ha was confined.
Mr. S. WORTLEY said, he was anxious to take this op.
portunity of stating his belief that Mr. Hunt had been harshly
treated, and in a manner beyond the intention of the sentence
which was passed upon him. Ile did think that, in considera-
tion of these citcunistances, it would be just to remit the re-
mainder of his sentence.
Mr. HUI'dE begged to remind the House, that the Hon.
Member for Somersetshire had stated on a former occasion that
orders had been sent down to the jail to treat Mr. Hunt with
less severity, and that in consequence he had been allowed to
walk out in a yard whenever he chose. Now he had received
a letter from Mr. Hunt, stating that the door of his cell con-
tinued to be shut, excepting for three hours a day, by the order
of Dr. Coniston, one of the visiting Magistrates.
Mr. CORBETT made an observation, which was not
audible.
Sir T. LET.BRIDGE said, that what he had stated to the
House the other day was so stated upon the authority of a
Magistrate, who had informed him that Mr. Hunt now re—
ceived the same indulgences, or perhaps he should more pro-
perly call them-freedoms, which had been allowed to him when
he first entered the jail. With regard to the petition before
the House he -.begged to make some remarks upon its con-
tents: The petitioners averred that Mr. Hunt was subjected
to solitary confinement. NOw he could not, and he would not
allow, that he'had ever been in solitary confinement in the
gaol of Ilchester. He was strongly attached to the free exer-
cise of the right of petition in the subject, and he should be the
last to impose any restrictions upon it.' But he most pro-
test against the House going along with assertions con-
tained in 'petitions without examining into their falsehood or
truth, and particularly when• they involved the characters of
respectable individuals exeicising- the important duties of
Magistrates, It was for this reason that he deprecated the
course which some Honourable Members.had athipted towards
the Magistracy of the county of Somerset. He called upon the
'Nouse not to countenance 'assertions 'and. charges until they
had the-means before them of examining 'into their truth or.
falsehood. He did not mean to say that there had been no
abuses ; he did not mean to call upon. the House to disbelieve
that the Magistrates had not done their duty, or that the jailer
had been guilty of mai-practices. 'All he traked was, that they
Would suspend their judgments. With regard to the manage-
ment of the prison, he believed that it would be found to
have been different to what it was 'stated to have been in

that House.- He did not say this from any connection which
he had had with the jail, because he lived at a considerable dis-
tance from it, and his habits did not lead him to pay much at-
tention to its internal arrangements ; hut he believed that they
would be found to have been, generally speaking, of a different
character than that which had been ascribed to them. Undoubt-
edly it might have its faults and its inconveniences; he did not
mean to deny that, or that the jailer had been gqilty of malver
sation. But he had been dismissed by the Magistrates as .a pu-
nishment for his offences as soon as they were proved againsthim.
With regard to the alleged maltreatment of Mr. Hunt, there was
his own evidence in direct contradiction of what he now asserted.
He believed, therefore, that it was principally because it suited his
views that he made such complaints. Some time after his im-
prisonment commenced lie addressed himself to others, to the ef-
fect that his state in the jail was Paradise compared to theirs.
And who were the parties to whom he addressed this language,
and made this comparison ? To men, not confined like himself
irra.jail, bat• in the-full possession oiliberty.• He thought that
this proved that Mr. Hunt had rather chaziged his opinion of
the jail, thin that the jail had changed in its severity to him.
These declarations were made, he believed, after Mr. Hunt
had been confined in the jail for two or three months. But
supposing thatt-he had.only been there, one month, that was
quite long enough for him to have found out such objections
as he had since made. He declared at that time, in the strong-
est language, his satisfaction at the regularity of the jail,
and particularly -at its cleanliness. He said that although
he was confined in a dungeon, he bad nothing to complain
of. He (Sir T. Lethbridge) did not mean to say that there
were not local inconveniences about the jail. He did not mean
to say that it was not damp in time of floods. That was cer-
tainly true. But in iui general arrangement great sums of
money had been, expended, and it was now the object of the
NI agistrates to gleviate as much as possible the inconvenience
arising from dampness. They could not prevent the floods, but
they were taking measures to prevent their affecting the rooms
of the jail as far as that object could be effected. Ile respected
the motives which brought the Petitioners forward in support
of Mr. Hunt. They thought he had been treated with injustice.
It was-truly English feeling to be jealous of a man receiving
punishment and oppression beyond what his crime deserved.
Such was the belief under which the people of England inter-
fered, and all he asked was, that they should wait until the con-
duct of Mr. Hunt was investigated, in order to see whether
there had been any thing in his conduct which deserved in-
creased severity, if it had been actually exercised towards him.
It was the object of Mr. Hunt to be a great man, and nothing
could so effectually make him one in the estimation of the peo-
ple of England, as the belief that lie had been oppressed and
unjustly punished. If then, the Magistrates were hostile to him,
they would not pursue the very cause most likely to secure his
object. He had troubled the House thus much in order to set
the case upon its just standing, in justice to the Magistrates, as
far as it lay in his power to do so.
' Sir R. WIL,SON said, that the circumstance of Mr. Hunt
having written in language otcontent at his situation in Belies-
ter jail when he first went there, clearly proved that he did not
enter it in a disposition to find fa, ult. The fact was well known,
that the treatment of which he complained had not been exer-
cised towards him during the early part of his imprisonment,
while Sir Charles Bamfylde was High Sheriff of the county. It
was only upon the expiration of the'time during which that
Gentleman held the office, that the cruel treatment which he
suffered had been imposed.
Sir T. LETHBRIDGE explained.
Sir J. GRAHAM said, that the complaint now made by
the Hon. Member (Mr. Hume) could have no foundation, for
he was convinced that the same treatment was now observed
towards the prisoner, as during the time when Sir Charles
Bamfylde was Sheriff'. He saw a letter which was written to
that effect by the present High Sheriff ten days ago, and he had
reason to believe that it had been strictly complied with.
Mr. NEWMAN observed, that nothing could so much tend
to give Mr. Hunt weight with the people as the 'conduct which
had been pursued towards him. He should be glad to find that
the unjust severity with which he had been treated would be
softened by the remission of the remainder of the imprisonment
to which he had been sentenced.

The Petition was ordered to be printed.
AGRICULTURAL DISTRESS.

Lord NORMANBY presented a Petition from Higham
Ferrers, in the county of Northampton, complaining of Agri-
cultural Distress.—Referred to the Agricultural Committee.

IRISH TYTIftS.

Mr. S. RICE presented a Petition from twelve Parishes in
the South of Ireland, praying for an alteration in the present
system of Tythes in that country. He considered the subject
to be one of the very first importance, and such as claimed the
earliest and most solemn attention of the House. The Petition-
ers were chiefly respectable. clerical and lay impropriators, and
they considered that all the disturbances and deplorable misery
which Ireland bad experienced of late years were to be traced
to this cause. They had less hesitation in calling upon Parlia-
ment to make these alterations, because they themselves were
interested in ti* system as it now stood. They also implored
that the subject would be considered as involving the safety of
the Church Establishment in that country ; therefore it was
not only as a relief to the Agricultural interests of Ireland that
they called for this alteration, but as a Stipport to the Church
itself. He •Was not only anxious that this subject should
have the early attention of the House, but that it should be
brought forward on the part of Government, because he consid-
ered it to be a most dangerous, difficult, and complicated ques-
tion. He did hope that when it was brought forward, it would
be placed alone upon its own merits, and not combined with
other questions, such as the Church Establishment, or the
system of Tythes in England. It was impossible to draw any
comparison whatever betwixt the Tythes of the two countries.
—Ordered to be printed.
Mr. S. RICE moved for Returns of all Emoluments paid to
Clerks of the Crown and Clerks of the Peace in Ireland within
the two last years ; stating whence they ensued, and whether
they were paid in fees.—Ordered.
NEW WRIT.
Mr. BERN/IL, in rising to move that a New Writ be issued
for a Burgess to serve in Parliament for the City of Lincoln,
wished to express his deep regret at the cause of such a mo-
tion. However he might have differed from the late Member
for Lincoln, in his political views, lie always admired them, no
less as bting the result of conscientious conviction, than for the
manliness and candour with which they were always avowed
and supported.—A new writ was accordingly issued.
MR. HUNT. _ _ _

Mr. Alderman WOOD presented a Petition from 8000 In-
habitants of the Town of Leeds, complaining of the manner in
which Mr. Hunt had been treated' in llchester
_gaol. The sig-
natures were most respectable, and contained the names of
some of the most respectable men in Leeds, as well as that of
the late Sheriff of the adjoining County that in which Mr.
Hunt was confined. The Hon. Alderman said, he should not
enter further into the question, as it was his intention to do so
when the papers now printing were before the House. He
thought the evidence might be put into the hands of Members
as it was printed, in order to save time.
Mr. 'WYNN expressed his strong objection 'to such a course
as the Hon. Alderman seemed disposed to adopt, upon the
ground that prejudice might be excited by it in the minds of
Members, which might not be the case if all the evidence came
together.
The SPEAKER expressed his astonishment at what had.
fallen from the Hon. Alderman. It was the duty of the per-
son who had the honour to fill the Chair of that House to see
that all Returns were printed without delay, and to take care
that they were delivered to Members as soon as possible. It
was his duty also, when any papers were ordered to be printed
by the House, to prevent their being delivered by pieces.
111r.'Altlerman WOOD explained.
The SPEAKER said, that he should always act upon the
principle which he had alliided to, unless it was the feeling of
the House that in this or any other particular case, papers
should be distributed as they came fl-om the press.
Mr. PEEL said, be rose because he was alluded to by the
worthy Alderman. He bad no more controul over the print-
ing of the documents submitted to that House than the worthy
Alderman had. He did not know precisely on what day the
evidence could be printed, nor did be,recollbct that lie had ever
said three days or four days. He expressed his belief that the
evidence*could soon be put into Members' hands.
The SPEAKER said, he was sony again to trouble the
House. The present case would govern all of a similar kind.
The House would perceive the difficulty of his situation, if he
were take on himself the responsibility of delivering out part of
the evidence before the whole was prepared. He should, in
that case, be at the trouble of reading and examining every part
of it, to see that there were no ex-parte statements.
Mr. SYKES thought the subject of the Petition ought to
have the greatest attention and investigation from the House,
affecting,
.as it did, to such an extent, the personal liberty of
the subject. Ile was convinced that Mr. Justice Best never
intended that the rules which he signed for 'the use of the jail
of Ilchester should apply to political misdemeanours. He was
under the painful necessity of believing that the visiting Ma-
gistrates had not performed the duty. required of them by law,
in inspecting the condition, of the prisoners in the jail.
Mi. Serjeant ONSLOW said a few words in• praise of the
conduct of the Judges.
Mr. SYKES explained.
Mr. DICKEIVSON vindicated the manner in which the vi-
siting Magistrates had performed their duty.
The Petition was'then ordered to be printed.
A Message from the Lords announced that their Lordships
had agreed to the Navy Five per Cents.' Bill without amend,
ment.

PREVENTION OF FORGERY.
Mr. G. BENNE TT presented a Petition from James Fer-
guson, of Newman-street, Oxford.street, Stereotyper and
Printer, complaining that neither the Commissioners for in-

quiring into the means of preventing forgery, nor the Bank
Directors, would investigate a plan which he had submitted I
to them for obtaining that object, notwithstanding that he
had made repeated applications to them for that purpose. The
Hon. Member considered that the only means to be pnrsuedfor
preventing the dreadful extent of crime and convictions which
had taken place of late years, was to render the imitation of
notes as difficult as possible. He did not mean to give the
preference to one plan or another, but he was quite sure of all
the notes he had seen those now- in use by the Bank presented
the greatest facilities of imitation. He understood that the
Bank Directors having found the plan they itad chosen to fail,
had abandoned the idea of altering the notes.
Mr. MANNING said that this was not the first time the
Petitioner had applied to the House. A similar Petition
to the present stood upon the Journals of the House, which
the Honourable Member for Taunton presented last year.
The statement that the Commissioners and the Directors
had refused to investigate his plan, was false. It had been
fully examined at different periods, and found to be inadequate
to the desired purpose. The Hon. Member stated his belief
that the Bank Directors had no intention of endeavouring to
prevent the commission of the crime of forgery. But if he
would attend to what the Directors had done, he thought he
would come to a very different conclusion. After a labonou-
investigation of the various plans proposed to the Commissions
ers, they selected one which they sent to the Bank Directors,
and it was at first adopted by them. It was afterwards found
to fail, and it was stated that the Directors then abandoned the
attempt ; but that was not the case. They were still anxious
to discover a plan which would give security to all parties. If
the present notes were easy of imitation, it was some security
that it was also easy to detect forgeries upon them. He had
the satisfaction- to inform the Hon. Member and the House,
that since the month of May last the total number of prosecu-
tions for forgeries upon notes of 51. and upwards was only
fifteen. At the present time, in the metropOlis they had only
one person under prosecution, and in the kingdom at large
only six. This, and the fact, that the Bank had withdrawn its
small notes from circulation, he thought, were the best answers
which could be given to the Petition.
Mr; HUME said, that the argument of his flon. Friend, the
Member for Shrewsbury, had been mistaken
_by the Honour-
able Member. He was happy, however, to hear that the Bank
had not given up the subject. While on his legs he wished to
ask the Noble Marquis opposite, whether our Ambassador to
the United States had not applied to every banker in the Union
on the subject of these notes ? If so, he presumed there would
be no objection to lay before the House the correspondence which
had taken place.
The Marquis of LONDONDERRY said he was not aware
that there would be any objection to produce the correspond-
ence. The result of it had been so far thought favourable, that
a Gentleman belonging to one of the banking houses had been
encouraged to come to this country to communicate with the
Bank of England.
Mr. PEEL said that as so much complaint had been made
of the distress caused by the resumption of cash payments, he
trusted the fact would not be overlooked, that prosecutions for
forgery had diminished.
The Petition was ordered to be printed.
Lord EBRINGTON presented a Petition from Queen
Camel, in Devonshire, complaining of Agricultural Distress,
and praying for a reduction of Taxation and for Parliamentary
Reform. After a few words in its support from the Noble
Lord, the Petition was ordered to lie on the table.
Mr. COKE moved for a Return of the quantity of Wool im-
ported into Great Britain from the Ist of January, 1821, to the
Ist of January, 1822 ; a like Account of the Exports for the
same period ; and similar Accounts respecting the Imports and
Exports of Butter, Cheese, Tallow, and Hides.—Ordered.
POSTMASTER-GENERAL.
Mr. CALCRAFT moved for an Account of the number of
days on which Lord Clancarty attended at the Post Office,
while lie held the office of Postmaster-General ; with the date
of his appointment to, and that of his resignation of, the office.
The Honourable Member said he did not make the motion
for the purpose of insinuating any thing to the prejudice of
the Nobleman in question, for whose character he had the
highest respect. His motion referred merely to the nature of
the office. _ _

-- —.
The— Marquis of LONDONDERRY thought it would be
difficult to remove from the motion all appearance of insinua-
tion, though the Hon. Member had disclaimed any wish to
convey it. The fact was, that the office in question did not nee li
cessarily require much personal attendance. Lord Clancarty
when he held it had been called away at 48 hours notice to ac-
company the King of the Netherlands, when he set out on the
opening of the Continent to take possession of his kingdom.—
That Noble Lord bad obtained the confidence of the Court in
question, and finding that his return to this country became un-
certain, he resigned the office. The talents and diligence of
Lord Clancarty, as a public officer, were universally admitted.
He (the Marquis) believed that the Duke of Wellington, when
he was Secretary for Ireland, had held that office while he was
commanding the English Army in Portugal. Unless the Hon.
Member would state some reason in support of the motion, he
should feel it his duty to oppose it.
Mr. CALCRAFT said, it now clearly appeared that the
holder of the efficient office of. Postmaster General had been
absent during the greater part of the time he had held it. He
(Mr. C.) fully agreed with the Noble Marquis in his descrip-
tion of the public conduct of Lord Clancarty ; but that Noble-
man individually was not the object of the motion. The mo-
tion itself he had no wish at all to press ; for he had gained an
admission of the fact that we could go on for two years with
only one Postmaster-General. The high character of Lord
Clancarty, coupled with the fact admitted by the Noble Mar-
quis, were proofs tHat the office was a sinecure ; for Lord Clan-
carty would not have retained it while he was abroad, if he
thought his doing so would be in the least detrimental to the
public service.
The Marquis of LONDONDERRY said that the reasoning
of the lion. Member, if good, would prove that the office of
Secret,ry of State for Foreign Affairs was also a sinecure; for
he (the Marquis) had had the honour to hold the office during
his absence abroad.
Mr. CALCRAFT said, the slight difference was, that the
Noble Marquis while abroad, was acting as Secretary for Fo-
reign Affairs. He supposed it would not be contended that
Lord Clancarty, while he was abroad, discharged any part of
the duties of English Postmaster-General.
The Marquis Of LONDONDERRY and Mr. CALCRAFT
mutually explained.
Lord NORMANDY said, that when he considered the ma-
terials of which the majority of last night was composed, he
could not but consider the result as a protracted triumph rather
than a defeat. He should bring the subject again before the
House in the course of the present or the next Session, and he
looked with confidence to the issue. .

T e motion was then negatived without a division.
STATE OF THE PUBLIC ACCOUNTS.
Mr. MABERLY said that, in bringing forward the motion
with which he should conclude his statement that evening, he
felt it necessary to say, that on a'lbrmer occasion he had been
induced to withdraw a motion for Accounts in consequence of a
promise given by the other side that the accounts would be
printed. He gave in a paper of the accounts he wished to have
returned, and he had now to complain that the papers were not
returned ; and further, that the Hon. Gentlemen on the other
side had the advantage of the paper. He was, therefore, in a
situation very different from that on which he should be placed
had he in his hands the Accounts which were promised to be
furnished. So that if he erred in the course of his statement,
the House would not impute it to a wish to misrepresent or fal-
sify the Public Accounts. The House was aware that there
was an Act in form which required that the Public' Accounts
for each year should be laid on the table of the House before
the 25th of March in each year. But there was in this Act no
provision compelling the production of a balance-sheet, in
which the actual state of the income and expenditure would
appear. But there was a clause in the Audit Act which re-
quired that such a sheet should be printed with the Accounts
for this year. But as the Public Accounts for this yeas were
not on the table,' he should advert to another paper laid on the
table by the Noble Marquis, purporting to be a statement of
the net public income and expenditure for the year ended Jan.
5, 1821. It would be his objat, then, to show that the ba-
lance-sheet of that year, as compared with the Public Accounts,
was in error. The first part of the account was an account of
the net public income from ordinary and extraordinary sources
for the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland for the
year ended sth January, 1821 ; and then he would compare it
with an account, purporting to be an account of the net income
of the country for the same period. He would take the first
head of Customs. The amount of net income from Customs,
appeared by the
Public Accounts to be - , - £9,862,462
In the Account of the Noble Marquis - 9,837,279

Being a difference of - - • £25,188
But not only did these two accounts differ from themselves
under this head, but each differed from a third, called the
abstract account, and all three varied from a fourth whiCh-
was laid on the table by the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
There then were four accounts purporting to' be statements
of Public Accounts, and each varying from the other. In the
article of-Excise,, the Public Accounts, and the account of
the Noble Marqu►s were the same, but they differed in some
respect from the abstract account. There was the same
agreement under the head of Stamps, and both differing
from the abstract Account. In the Post Office there was a
ariation between the Noble Marquis's Account and the
public one, of 7,0001. ; and those again differed frOm the ab-
stract and the Account of the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
Under the head of taxes, there app_eared a difference be-
tween the Noble Marquis and the -Public Account to the
amount of • 24,0001.- In the article of Hackney Coaches a

difference of 1,1671. and that of Hawkers 3,0001. He would
not say that all these differences might not be reconciled
upon examination, but the Public Accounts should be of that
simple, intelligible nature, as not to require any explanation.
There was an item of seizures and fines amounting to 6,5281.
in the Account of the Noble Marquis, which did not appear
at all in the Public Accounts. There were several other
item's of difference, such as that of the arrears of the Pro,
perty Tax to the amount of 24,0001. ; that .of the impress re-
paid 14,7061. ;_a small difference on Contracts for the redemp-
tion. of Land Tax ; a difference of 36,0001. as money repaid in
Ireland on account of advances from the ,Ccti,solidated Fund ;
and, lastly, there was an item of 260,0001., the proceeds of old
stores which did not appear in the Public Accounts. Now he
was aware that the absence of this item in the Public Accounts,
could be explained by the statement thatthe public had the ad-
vantage of it in the Navy estimates. But besides the absurdity
of taking the proceeds of Old Stores as an item in the Ways
and Means, he objected to the course on account of its obscuri-
ty.—The item of Unclaimed Dividends which appeared in the
Public Accounts was not included in the Account of the Noble
Marquis. The total amount of the net income, as stated in the
Account of the Noble Marquis, was 54,542,9581. differing from
the total of the Public Account by 80,6961. and from the total
of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's Account by 54,9551. There
was another variation in the item of Excess of Income over Ex-
penditure. The Chancellor of the Exchequer's Account stat-
ed the surplus to be 1,831,0001. The Account of the Noble
Marquis stated the item to be 1,447,5801. He wouldlnext shew
the variation in the Accounts in the items of public Expendi-
ture. The first item under the head of Expenditure was the
interest of the National Debt. He would take this and the
other items respectively, and show their variance from each
other.
Public Account - - £29,403,391