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

LEATHER_ TAX.

Mr. DENISON presented a Petition from various tanners
and dealers in leather in the neighbourhood of the metropolis,
complaining of the severe pressure of the leather tax, and pray-
ing for relief. The amount of this tax, 600,0001., he observed,
was net more than the half of the burden it imposed on the
toirfumers. The labouring classes paid a tax for the leather
they used, equal to the tax on the finest leather. It was cal-
culated that they paid 2s. or 2s. lld. of duty on every pair of
shoes. This tax operated as the worst kind of poll-tax, and
chiefly pressed on the labouring classes, whilst it was not felt
by property.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said he had
no objection to the presenting of the Petition, but he could not
agree that this tax was oppressive.
Mr. CALCRAFT wished to ask the Right Hon. Gentleman
what tax it was he did think oppressive ?—(A laugh o—Each
tax, as it came to be considered, was palliated and commended
by the Right Hon. Gentleman. Being on his legs, he would
ask the. Right Hon. Gentleman a question on a subject, respect-
ing which many were anxious to have some information. Two
years from next May, £1 notes would not be allowed by law to
be circulated by country bankers. Was it the intention of the
Right Hon. Gentleman to propose any alteration of that law,
either for the repealing of any part of it or the extension of the
period ?
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said that in
a very *oft time, probably next week, he should submit a
proposition on the subject.
The petition was laid on the table, and ordered to be printed.

'THEODORE HOOK, ESQ.
Mr. G. BENNET ga*ve notice for to-morrow of a motion for
the production of a certain Paper, in reference to the case of
Mr. Hook.

IRELAND.
Sir J. NEWPORT gave notice for the Bth of May, of a
motion relative to Grand Jury and Parochial Assessments in
Ireland and (as was understood) some change of the law as to
Landlord and Tenant.

EXTENTS IN AID.
Mr. LITTLETON presented a petition from the Bankers
and Tradefs of the Counties of Stafford, Worcester, and War.
wick, complaining of the operation of the system of Extents in
Aid. The Hon. Member observed, that this Was a subject of
pelt commercial importance, and he should therefore indulge
in a few observations. He knew not by what fatality it had
happened, but certainly the .three counties from whence the
petition had arisen had been more subject than any other part
of England to the process of which they complain. In order
to give the House an adequate idea of the operation of an Ex-
tent in Aid, he would read to them an extract from the Report
of the Committee which had sat in 1817 to consider the subject.
It' was ftimast unnecessary for tutu to say who the parties were
who were entitled to sue out this process. They were collectors
of taxes, bankers for the remittance of taxes, farmers of post-
horses, and distributors of stamps. The practice Was for the
parties complaining to make an affidavit id toe Court of Exche-
' quer,- swearing that by the non-payment of the defendant he
was the less able to pay his debts to the Crown. The writ
then issued; a Jury was summoned to try the cause,
and on the mere evidence of the plaintiff alone, without any
notice to the defendant, a verdict was recovred. The execution
which followed was of the severest kind. The books of the de-
Tendant were carried off, and his person was liable to be arrested
and thrown into gaol, from which he could not he liberated by a
commission of bankruptcy, or the insolvent debtors' act. He
would ask, could such a process be necessary for the security of
the debt. The second paragraph of the Report to which he had
alluded said that in no one instance had the revenue been bene-
fited by the extent, for the debts due to the crown had been always
returned without the necessity of such a process. The persons
who, sued out the greatest number of extents in aid were bankers
for the remittance of taxes. The banker gave the collector of
taxes a draft upon his house in town, and although that draft
was invariably accepted and paid, yet it was upon that that the
pretence of a debt to the crown was raised. If a bankruptcy
followed on the part of the debtor, the consequence was most
injurious. An extent in aid robbed the other creditors and
consequently destroyed all confidence. No person who was a
bond,debtor was safe, or could be considered safe by others.—
The effect upon commerce in general was not less injurious.
The country bankers had the power of suing out these extents
and paying themselves by the process. It followed, therefore,
that other persons in the same trade had not a fair competition.
He was surprised that such a system had grown up in a coun-
try so remarkable for the circumspection which it displayed in
drawing up its laws of debtor and creditor. The prominent
feature of those laws was, that no man should demiuid satisfac-
tion of a debt without first giving his debtor notice, but that
principle was violated in the practice of extents in aid. He
was sure that after the statement which he had made the Chan-
cellor of the Exchequer would not defend the necessity of this
process. If that Right Hon. Gentleman valued the good will of
the counties from whence this petition proceeded, if he valued
their loyalty, he would do well to permit no longer a system of
rapine under the sanction of the crown.
Mr. J. S M ITH expressed his accordance with the sentiments
of the Petitioners. He would ask whether it was proper that
any practice should exist„ which put the whole property of
the country at the mercy of the Crown? He hoped the Right
Honourable the Chancellor of the Exchequer would consider
their case, and afford relief to those who suffered under the pre-
sent system.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said; that
the subject should receive every attention on the part of Govern-
ment, though his Majesty's Ministers would feel reluctance in
trenching upon those ancient, prerogatives of the Crown which
the wisdom and policy of our ancestors had provided for the
security of the revenue. Besides, the evils complained of
were not without remedy, for it was competent for the Court
of Exchequer to interfere when circumstances required it.
Mr. W. SMITH contended that no man who had read the
Report of the Committee could persuade himself that it was
necessary for the security of the Crown that extents in aid
should remain on their present footing. Before he had made
his motion on that subject, the number of extents in aid had
risen from eight or nine a year to 220. They had then fallen
to almost nothing, but during the last year had again increased
to about 40. 'Upon what ground, he asked, was the extent
granted ? If the affidavit were not true it ought not to be
granted ; but if it were true, it only proved that the individual
was less able to pay his debts to the Crown.
Sir J. BOUGHEY expressed his hope that the matter of the
Petition would receive the most serious consideration of Par-
liament.
Mr. M °NCR.' also supported the Petition, and protested
against the very pernicious consequences attendant upon Ex-
tents in Aid.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL believed that the process
had been very much abused, but he still thought that it was
quite essential to the collection and receipt of the revenue.—
IN'o particular abuses were pointed out in the petition, and if
any such were ever established, he should prevent their future
recurrence.
Mr. HUME, from the inquiry which it was his duty to
make, undertook to say that individuals who ought to have at-
tended to the collection of the revenue neglected it, and thus
Extents in Aid were frequently sued out, and the power was
after arbitrarily and unnecessarily excused.
MT. IV. SMITH explained.
Mr. P.MOORE observed, that the first opposition to Extents
in Aid originated 'with the people of COentry, and if a little

Aid were quite unnecessary.
Mr. DENMAN thought that the system gate such encou-
ragement to abuse, that it ought to be no longer countenanced.
It was extremely pernicious, and tended in no way whatever to
the protection of the revenue. The petition was then ordered
to be printed.
Mr. HILL presented 3 petition on the same subject from the
Ironmasters of the county of Salop.—lt was read, and ordered
to be laid on the table.
TREATMENT OF HENRY HUNT.
The Marquis of TITCHFIELD presented a Petition froni
the inhabitants of Lyme Regis, complaining of the treatment 1
of Mr. Hunt. The petitioners dwelt upon the severity prac-
tised upon him, and they designated him as the victim of Mi-
nisterial vengeance. He begged leave to say that, though he
concurred in opinion with the petitioners, yet he was guided by
very different reasons in the formation of that opinion from
those assigned by the petitioners. They thought that the pro-
secution of Mr. Hunt was not only unnecessary, but cruel ;
and he, on the contrary, conceived that his Majesty's Ministers
simply discharged their duty in ordering thet proceeding.
There was no doubt, however, upon his mind, but that Mr.
Hunt was treated with unnecessary rigour, and if he remained
in prison during the whole period of his sentence, it would, he
thought, be much more severe than was originally intended by
the Judges. He was satisfied, from the defence of the gaoler,
that great severity had been practised towards Mr. Hunt, and
therefore, though he had no doubt of his criminality, yet he
thought that he had •already suffered a sufficiently severe im-
prisonment for his offences.
Mr. %ST. WYNN did not mean to anticipate the discussion
to-night, but he could not suffer a remark in that petition to
pass unnoticed, namely, the observation that a motion tnade
concerning the mitigation of the sentence upon Sir M. Lopez
had been withdrawn, upon an understanding that 'Govern-
ment would interfere, and remit some portion of that sentence.
He denied that any such concession had ever been made.
Mr. G. BENNET said, that the motion was certainly
withdrawn, but that it was with an implied understanding that
the case should receive the consideration of Government. He
knew this to be the case, because he was a party to the under.
standing. .
Mr. PEEL said, that he too was present on the occasion
alluded to by the Right Hon. Gentleman, and the impression
upon his mind was, that there had been no such compromise.
The Noble Lord who was to 'have made that motion urged
very peculiar reasons for the interference of Government ;
among others, that the prosecution had been instituted at the
desire of the House, and that the great age of Sir M. Lopez
entitled him in some degree to its humane consideration ; but
the motion was withdrawn without any understanding that )he
mercy of the Crown would be extended to him.
Sir J. MACKINTOSH observed, that it was quite true
that no distinct assurance had been given, but he had no doubt
of this ; that, in substance, such an assurance was given, and
that all who were present at that debate were quite satisfied
that it was the intention of Government to extend mercy in the
case of Sir M. Lopez. The' HOn. Member seemed to say, that
had the motion been pressed it might have been rejected ; but
it was thought right by the Noble Lord to leave the whole
grace of the proceeding-to the Crown.
Mr. WYNN added, that he distinctly remembered that the
motion was resisted simply upon the ground that it was an in-
terference with the prerogative of the Crown.
On the motion that the Petition should be printed,
Mr. BROUGHA NI rose, and begged leave to bear testi-
mony to the recollection of his Hon, Friend (Sir J. Mackin-
tosh). Allusion had been certainly made in the case of Sir M.
Lopez, not merely to his advanced age, but to the hardship
which he suffered, for the commission of a very common error,
to call it no 'more. No distinct pledge had been given that mi-
tigation of his sentence would follow, but at the same time
there was not a single Member present who left the House
after that motion had been withelrawnewith the least vestige. of
doubt on his mind that the object of it was ,wined.
The Marquis of TITCHF 'ELI) in explanation said, that
he had a recollection of almost the very words used by the No-
ble Lord on' that occasion. The Noble Lord stated, that he
could give no positive assurance as to any mitigation of the sen-
tence on Sir Al. Lopez ; but he undertook to say, that if the
motion were withdrawn, the subject should be considered. The
Right Hon. Gentleman (Mr. Wynn) was not then in the se-
crets of the Noble Marquis, and had
,therefore no peculiar
means of knowledge on this subject.—(Laughter.)
Mr. WYNN—The Noble Marquis seemed to think that his
(Mr. Wynn's) memory had failed him, merely on account of
the alteration of his position,—(Laughter)--but he still persist-
ed in asserting that no pledge was given.
The Marquis of TITCHFIELD had merely said, that his
opinion on the matter of fact was just as likely to be correct as
that of the Right lion. Gentleman, since it was before his
change that he had formed that opinion.—(Laughter.)
Mr. WYNN knew not to what change the Noble Marquis
alluded.—(Laughter.)—He was ready to defend his conduct
whenever it was attacked ; and he only wished, that, instead
of vague and general allusions to inconsistency, some distinct
instance of change should be specified in order that it might be
refuted.—(Hear.)
Mr. DENMAN said, that those most 'closely connected with
the subject under discussion, the two Noble Lords (the Marquis
of Londonderry and Lord J. Russel) could most satisfactorily
state the circumstances under which the motion was withdrawn.
The Noble Marquis, he regretted to say, was absent ; but the
other Noble Lord had just entered the House, and was then at
the Bar. His evidence therefore in the case would be important.
It was then ordered that the petition should be printed.
Alderman WOOD presented a petition on a similar subject,
from 2,500 inhabitants of Halifax. Ordered to lie on the table,
and to be printed.
Lord J. RUSSEL rose to address a few words to the House,
on a subject that a few moments ago had undergone some dis-
cussion. He was unfortunately not present during that dis-
cussion ; but he understood that it referred to the motion he
had had the honour of making respecting the liberation of
Sir M. Lopez. All he could say was, that the object he
had in view was furthered by that motion ; and that al-
though his Majesty's Ministers had not made use of specific
words to state what they. intended to do, he had gone from
the House with the conviction that they were willing to pay
attention to the subject of it, and that the imprisonment of the
person for whose liberation it had been made would be
shortened.
Mr. W. SMITH presented a petition from Norwich com-
plaining of the cruel and tyrannical treatment to which Mr.
Hunt had been exposed. He thought that the prayer of the
petitioners for the interference of the House, in order to pro-
cure his liberation, was highly deserving attention. The con-
duct of gaolers had been defended by the Magistrates, not only
in Somersetshire, but even in Middlesex, as far as he recollect-
ed, in the case of 'the gaoler of Coldbath-fields prison. The
House was bound to give the petition that consideration which,
as the free expression of the sentiments of people at a distance
from the county of Somerset, it merited.
The petitio” was then read, laid on the table, and ordered to
be printed. -
Mr. W. BEAUMONT presented a similar petition from
Rothbury, which was read, and ordered to lie on the table.
Mr. BENNET presented a petition from Salisbury, in which
the petitioners expressed their approbation of the admirable con-
duct of Mr. Hunt—(A laugh)—and prayed for his release—
Read, ordered to lie on the table, and be printed.
REMITTAL OF H. HUNT'S IMPRISONMENT.
Sir F. BURDETT then rose to bring forward the motion of
which he had formerly given notice. After the numerous peti-
tions which had been presented to the House on 'that subject,
not only upon that evening but on former occasions ; after the
various appeals which the people had Heade to'the House in
favour of the object of that motion ; after the succinct but strong
representations of many Hon. Members, and in particular of
the Noble Lord who had brought forward on that evening the
petition from the county of Nottingham, when that Noble
Lord had so strikinglylaid before the House all the grounds on
which the question rested ; and after the effect which that Noble
Lord had produced; he confessed that he felt some anxiety when
he rose to address the House on that subject. His anxiety arose
'not from any fears that the subject was one which would not
excite the interest and the attention of the House, that the sub.
ject of his motion could be regarded by any individual in the
country with unconcern or apathy ;—no : the people were
interested in the result of it, and they exhibited to the world the
interest which they felt ; the House too was interested in it, and
the people of England, and they looked to the result of that
motion with attention. The liberation of that Gentleman,
whose confinement and whose treatment in prison had been

the subject matter of many discussions in that House,
was regarded by every impartial man in the kingdom !met
desirable, not only on account of the individual himself, but
also on account of the eagerness which every man felt to re-
lieve his fellow men from oppression. When he regarded the
punishment to which that gentleman had been subjected—when
he recollected the offence for which he had been subjected to thi:t .
punishment—when he considered the gieat extent of that pu-
nishment=--when he reflected how that punishment appeared
more than adequate to the offences of which Mr. Hunt had
been accused, much less found guilty—he was willing to confess
that, prior to his coming on that evening to that House; he had.
entertained hopes that his Majesty's Ministers would have spared
him the trouble of bringing the subject forward, by promising .
the exercise of that prerogative of the Crown, by which the re-
mainder of Mr. Hunt's imprisonment could be remitted ; a •
proceeding which' in itself would be productive of so -much se-
tisfaction to the country, by being not only grateful to
but just to the individual in question. He thought that the
delay of that proceeding had tended to defeat the object of his
Majesty's Ministers, for they could not but perceive that it con-
tributed to excite feelings of sympathy and commiseration r
the sufferer, while it cast upon them the odium of neglecting
and refusing to extend to him any relief. Sympathy and com-
miseration could not fail to be excited in a most powerful de-
gree ; for where was the man who-could feel that the punish-
ment to which Mr. Hunt had been subjected was adequate.
proportional, or commensurate, to the offence of which he ima
been declared guilty ? He had therefore hoped that his Ma-
jesty's Ministers would have anticipated the object of his mo-
tion ; they had not dime So ; he did not, however, despair cif •
being able to induce the House to agree with him in otreritio
its mediation. He knew from personal experience, that an ap-
plication to the Right Hon. Secretary for the Home Depart-
ment was attended with beneficial results; and he could net
help feeling, however much Ministerial adherence and Parlia-
mentary tactics might require a lineof conduct from each of his
Majesty's Ministers, that he ought-not to despair of obtaining
the assistance of that Right Hon. Gentleman inforwardingehe.•
object of his motion. That Right Hon. Gentleman, when
applied to on behalf of some persons who had been convicted
of offences, not indeed of great enormity, in whose favour
there had been stated several alleviating circumstances, as
well as their previous character, and the general belief- among
their neighbours that they had not been guilty of those offences.
had granted not only immediate attention to the application,
but had also exerted himself to procure them relief. Of • the
conduct of that Right Honourable Gentleman he could 'net.
but express his high esteem, not out of compliment to him,
but from conviction of the regularity and punctuality in which
the business of his office was carried on, as well as of the. in-•
tegrity arid high honour of the Right Honourable Gentleman
himself. T,Jnder those circumstances, he hoped that the Right
Hon. Gentleman would grant his powerful assistance to .his
motion. He should call the attention of the House to the sub-
ject on several points. First, as to the charge of which Mr.
Hunt had been found guilty ; secondly, as to the punishment
to which he had been subjected. Under both these heads, he
hoped to shew to the House sufficient grounds to induce it to
interfere. There was a third claim on behalf of Mr. Hunt, one
which could not but be regarded as of great weight in the, con-
sideration of his case ; vie. that he had brought to light one of
the most important facts in the regulations of the gaols of this
country which had ever been laid before the country. As to
the first proposition, what had been the charge against Mr.
Hunt, he wished the House to recollect what that charge really
was. He had been indicted on a variety of charges, or as they
were called counts, containing a regular gradation f offences.
Of the highest in the scale the Jury pronounced him not guilty;
on the middle class of charges a verdict of acquittal had been
pronounced, and the Jury, after five hours' deliberation, de-
clared him guilty of a small part—of a half of the smallest of-
fence in the scale of counts. One of the prosecuting lawyers
then had declared that the Verdict should be considered as em-
bracing the extent of that count, .and upon that the . minimum
of the counts had Mr. Hunt been found guilty. Thus upon a
list of counts, each containing a variation of • the nature of the
offence, the lowest was chosen, and upon that, had Mr. Hunt
been pronounced guilty: "You know, Sir, that as this House
frequently passes Acts for the purposes of preventing fishing
in certain rivers : "that is, for the prevention of the use of
nets calculated to take all the fish, the small fry as well
as the large ones ; so the ,lawyers exert themselves, and
frame legal meshes to catch delinquents even of the smallest
species." In one of those legal meshes the lawyers had con-
trived to catch Mr. Hunt, and on his being caught; he had
been subjected to a punishmentof two and a half years impri-
sonment. If he had been found guilty on one of the greater
counts, to what punishment would he have been Subjected ? The
offence of which he -bad been.,declared guilty had by Mr. Jus-
tice Blackstone been placed among the minora of crimes, and
the Jury had pronounced his guilt to be of the smallest and
lightest description of the 'counts of the indictMent—of the
slightest crime--and yet he bad'for that offence, been sentenced
to two years and a half imprisonment. Of that punishment,
if it could not be said to be too severe, it could at least be de-
clared that it was fully sufficient to answer all the ends of jus-
tice. Mr. Hunt had been declared guilty of the Tightest of-
fence, and even it could not be 'said, according to the adage
among the old lawyers, (taus nose facie ream, red- nicer rea,
that, he was in reality guilty. If guilt could be associated with
the attendance upon that meeting, for what reasons had not
the magistrates, instead of allowing the meeting to assemble;
prevented it altogether. Notwithstanding all that had been
said on that subject, still he was at a loss to discover of what
offence Mr. Hunt could be said to be guilty, and of that
offence meriting a punishment of two years and a half im-
prisonment. Among the old constitutional lawyers the depri-
vation of personal liberty was considered a great punishment.
If Mr. Hunt had been found guilty of one of the greater
counts to what punishment could he have been subjected which
would 'be proved equal to 'his offence, if two years and a half
imprisonment was regarded only as adequate to the smallest;
count ?. Mr. Hunt would require to live to the age of Methu-
salem in order to satisfy the • offended laws of England, nor
would his living for that period be sufficient, unless Dr. Colston
continued to exist for the same period. Mr. Hunt, on hearing .
the court pronounce the sentence had, with great presence cf
mind, asked, whether it was to be solitary imprisonment or not?
The court had replied, that it was not. He reached the prison,
when he was shewn Into a cold flagged apartment, in which
were two truckle beds, and two of the prisoners had been ap-
pointed his attendants, one of whom, a half-witted miscreant.
had been imprisoned for attempting to murder his wife. Mr.
Hunt procured the removal of those wretches from him. ,How-
ever much it might be said that the magistrates were desirotis
of affording accommodation to Mt. Hunt, they could not deny
that the severities of the punishment to which he had been 'sett-
tenced had been highly augmented. He (Sir F. Burdett)
had himself seen the apartment ; it was where the sun never
shone for 5 months of the year, and when its beams were seen,
they were reflected from a large white wall, to the great injury
of the sight. That Mr. Hunt's eyes should for life be mate-
rially injure, he should not be in the least surprised to find.
Mr. Hunt had called the attention of Sir J. Acland to the state
of the place in which he had been confined, when Sir J. Acland
had ordered that it should be made commodious, by having a
floor placed over the flagging, and the Windows properly adjust-
ed. At first Mr. Hunt was allowed.to take fresh air in a small
yard, of eight yards square ; and afterwards, by way of shew-
mg him an indulgence, he had been alloWed to go into a larger
one ; but the Rev. Dr. Colston had interfered, and prevented
the latter indulgence. Sir C. Bamfylde,' the Sheriff of Somer-
setshire, had been willing to give accommodation to Mr. Hunt;
but no sooner had he ceased to be Sheriff, than the punish-
ment of Mr. Hunt became more grievous, and Mr. Hunt
became exposed to all the severities which the gaoler and the
Magistrates could inflict. Mr. Hunt had then inquired into,
and detected, the gross mismanageMent which prevailed in the
gaol ; and by his courage, his energy, and his determination, he
had been successful in bringing to light a system of crueltiel
which' was disgraceful to any place of confinement in the world.
The gaoler had, by his hypocrisy and deceit and unaccountable
cunning, procured the favour of the Magistrates ' • he had
been considered by them as a friend, and as such had usually
dined with them at table as their equal, and had been
warmly defended by his friends the' Magistrates. An in-
vestigation had taken place, and within three days after its
commencement, a compromise had been offered by the gaoler
and by the Magistrates, but Mr. Hunt had refused to enter.—
The gaoler had been proved unfit for his situation, and as such
had been dismissed. In order to relieve himself from the seve-
rities to which he had been subjected by that gaoler, Mr. Hunt
had made application to the Court of King's Bench ; the appli-
cation had been attended with costs. Soon after the dismissal of
the gaoler, the Sub-Sheriff; who was in league with the associa.
tion of friends, served Mr. Hunt with an attachment for th
amount of them, 501. That was not all. Mr. Hunt, who had,
without intending any injury to the revenue, discovered, recom-
mended, andernade use of, and sold roasted rye, as the means

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" of 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, had 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 Commons
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 consider it his 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 appointment of
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 rendered 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 malefactors than as debtors.On the sub-
ject of solitary confinement he would say it was totally 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 somehow 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 and the sufferer. 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 Mr. 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 formed 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 connexion with the subject,
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 reach 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 subject, and 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 assistance of 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 of that overwhelming
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 Ministerial side
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 attacks in the form of 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 inflaming the minds of those
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 had 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 request 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. His opinion was, that Mr. Hunt had!
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 then 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 one
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 account of the evils in 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.