The Sun.
London, England, 1846-08-29 00:00:00

- -
That the meeting referred to was interrupted by the
entry of the Bow-street officers, and that the whole body*
thereat present, including your petitioner, was arrested
by themt, and was subsequently taken before the Privy
Council ; that the Privy Council proposed to examine
your petitioner, whereupon your petitioner, indignant
at the recollection of his former treatment, refused to
answer any questions put to him by their Lordships,
stating as the ground for such refusal, that neither the
line of conduct ho had pursued in 1794, in frankly
answering questions, nor the voluntary sworn testimony
of the most respectable friends, delivered before the,
board, nor the evidence of the king's messengers, ex-
pressly deputed to inquire respecting his character and
pursuits (entirely exculpatory of him as those inquiries
were) had been of any avail for his protection ; but that
he had been subjected by their Lordships to a long and
rigorous imprisonment, and to a prosecution and trial,
ruinous to him in paint of expense.
That, should the conduct of your petitioner on this oc-
casion appear to your Honourable House injudicious,
and ill-calculated to dispose the Privy Council to regard
your petitioner with favour, he submits to their indulgent
consideration, that he was then a mere youth in his
twenty-second year, that he felt that he had been
wronged by the Government, and felt the wrong the
more because he was without redress, and that he was
then face to face with Mr. Pitt, whom he believed
to be the anthor of his past sufferings, and who menaced
him with a repetition of them if he did not answer.
That the Privy Council committed your petitioner to
Newgate, in which prison he was detained under a war-
rant directing " close and solitary " confinement more
than a year ; that his health being at last seriously im-
paired by the length and rigour of his confinement, and
by the insalubrity of the prison, his medical attendants
advised your petitioner that his life was in great danger,
and this being certified to the Privy Council, though
without his knowledge, he was removed to Reading
gaol, in which prison he was detained until the month
of March, 1801, during a further period of nearly two
years.
That, before his removal to Reading gaol, your peti-

tiuner was informed by the gaoler of NeWgate;that pro-
vided your petitioner would agree to quit this country,
and to remain in foreign parts during the continuance of
the war, he would forthwith be released from prison, to
which proposal of expatriation your petitioner peremp-
torily refused to accede, demanding to be either publicly
tried or liberated unconditionally.
That on the 15th day of December, 1800, a petition
addressed to the House of Commons by your petitioner,
protesting his innocence, and setting forth his sufferings
and wrongs, and praying the House to inquire into his
case, and to refuse, at the solicitation of ministers, to
renew the suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act, was
tendered to the House by Mr. Charles Grey, afterwards
Earl Grey; and that the reception of the said petition
was supported by Mr. Tierney, Sir Francis Burdett,
Mr. Jekyll, Sir William Pulteney, and other members
of the House, and was opposed by Mr. Pitt, Lord
Hawkesbury, the Attorney and the Solicitor General,
and other members and supporters of the then adminis-
tration, on the grounds that the said petition was dis-
respectful to the Privy Council, and a libel on the cha-
racter of Upton, above-mentioned, a man whom the At-
torney-General, in 1796, had stated in court to be no
longer living; and your petitioner's said petition was not
received by the House.
That, in December, 1800, an Act was passed to re-
new and continue in force the Act for suspending the
Habeas Corpus Act until six weeks after the commence-
ment of the next ensuing session of Parliament; and
whereas the first session of the Parliament of the United
Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland commenced on
the 22d of January, 1801, the Act for suspending the
Habeas Corpus Act expired on the sth of March of the
said last-mentioned year; and the Habeas Corpus Act
was by law in force from the said fifth day of March,
1801, until the 19th of April in the same year, on which
latter day another Suspension Act received the royal
assent.
That shortly before the arrival of the day, the sth of
March aforesaid, when the said Act for suspending the
Habeas Corpus Act would expire, your petitioner was
conveyed from Reading Gaol to London in charge of a
King's messenger, and on his arrival in London was
taken before Mr. Justice Ford, who informed your pe-
titioner that, on his entering into his own recognizance
in the sum of 1;000/. to appear personally when required,
he would be forthwith liberated. That your petitioner,
anxious, not only to be restored to liberty, but also to
have his character cleared of all suspicion, declined to
accept his release on the proffered terms; whereupon he
was committed, in charge of a King's messenger, to the
Parliament-street Hotel; and, while there, on his parole
given to Mr. Ford, he was allowed to traverse the streets
of London at his pleasure, and from the said hotel he
addressed a memorial to the Duke of Portland, then
Secretary of State, claiming to have either a public trial
or an unconditional release; and that, in answer to this
demand, a new warrant was issued, committing your pe-
titioner, on a pretended new charge of high treason, to
Tothill-fields Bridewell, where he had the option of
either associating with the vilest felons or bearding in
the governor's house, at the charge of two guineas and
a half a week.
That shortly after the said sth of March, 1801, the
day on which the Act for suspending the Habeas Act
expired, your petitioner's solicitor applied to the Court
of King's Bench for a writ of habeas corpus, to bring
your petitioner before the said Court, in order to his dis-
charge ; and that the Lord Chief Justice of the said
Court, Lord Kenyon, after taking a day to consider of
the said application, refused to grant the writ, not as-
signing any legal ground for such refusal, but stating
merely that he did so refuse on his own responsibility.
That the new administration, formed on the retirement
of Mr. Pitt from office, caused a Bill to bo introduced
into Parliament for again suspending the Habeas Corpus
Act ; and that your petitioner forwarded petitions to
Parliament complaining of his illegal detention in prison,
and remonstrating. against the new aggression upon his
liberty intended by the said Bill ; but that the said pe-
titioners were unheeded, and the said Bill was rapidly
hurried through Parliament.
That on the morning following the renacting of the
Suspension Act, on or about the 20th of April, 1801, Mr.
Justice Ford called at the Bridewell of Tothill-fields, and
again proposed to release your petitioner, on condition
of his entering into his own recognizance for future ap-
pearance if called upon ; and to this proposal your pe-
titioner acceeded, from his inability to maintain for any
longer period an unequal conflict with the Government,
now that the Legislature had consented again to arm
the Ministers with unconstitutional power.
That on his release from prison in April, 1801, your
petitioner directed his solicitor to commence actions
against the Secretary of State, the Chief Justice of the
Court of King's Bench, and the gaoler of the Bridewell,
for illegally detaining your petitioner in prison from the
sth of March to the 19th of April, 1801 ; but that your
petitioner's intentions to bring such actions were frus-
trated, by notice being immediately entered to bring in
a Bill of indemnity, and by the passing of an Act, on the
19th of June in the same year, for indemnifying all the
parties who, since the Ist of January, 1793, had taken
any part in apprehending, imprisoning, or detaining in
custody, in Great Britairr, persons suspected of high
treason or treasonable practices ; that against this Bill
your petitioner again petitioned Parliament, but in vain ;
and he was thus deprived of the means, and of all hope,
of obtaining legal redress for his unlawful detention.
That your petitioner, when first imprisoned in the
year 1794, had just attained his 18th year ; that when
liberated in 1801 from his last :imprisonment, he had
nut attained his 26th year ; so that during the greater
part of the first seven years of his early manhood (a pe-
riod of life which, to must men, is one of enjoyment and
pleasurable existence), your petitioner was undergoing
mental and bodily suffering within the walls of a
prison ; that his little property was exhausted by the
expenses of his vindication and defence ; and the vigour
of his con-titution impaired by the disorder induced by
his long imprisonment, added to which your petitioner
had to deplore the loss of a mother who, owing to dis-
tress of mind and alarm occasioned by her son's arrest
and detention, was brought prematurely to the grave.
That your petitioner most solemnly avers thatihe was
guiltless, as well in act as intent, of any treasonable con-
spiracy against the King's person or government, or of
any offence that was ever made the matter of charge or
imputation against him, or of which he was eversuspeated,
on either of the two occasions when he was arrested and
imprisoned, or on any occason whatever.
That, on your petitioner's release from prison, Mr.
Justice Ford expressed the strong interest which he
felt in your petitioner's future prospects and arrange-
ments, and promised to bear testimony at any time to
the exemplary conduc of your petitioner during the
seven previous years of his life, and offered to contribute
any reasonable amount of pecuniary aid towards esta-
blishing your petitioner in any respectable business ;
which said offer of pecuniary assistance your petitioner
respectfully declined.
`That on the death of Mr. Pitt, in 1806, the Whig
party being called to power, your petitioner made his
appeal to Mr. Fox and the other leaders of that party
for their favourable consideration, intimately acquainted
as they were with his history and sufferings, and zeal-
ous as they had been in Parliament to proclaim his
wrongs ; and the Hon. Thomas Brand placed the state-
ment of your petitioner in the hands of Mr. Charles
Grey,t who fully admitted the claims of your petitioner
on the justice of the country, and promised to obtain
for your petitioner, after the close of the then session,
some suitable appointment. But, before this promise
could be performed, Mr. Fox was numbered among the
dead, and the Whig administration was dissolved.
That the meritorious conduct of your petitioner in the
City of London on the day of the Spa-fields riot,
is
December, 1816, was acknowledged by the then Lord
Mayor, the late Sir Thomas Wood, in his place in
Parliament.
That, in 1817, the Government having again prepared
to suspend the Habeas Corpus Act, your petitioner, in
a petition to the House of Commons, presented by the
lion. Thomas Brand, stated the sufferings and wrongs
he had endured, and on the ground that such abuses
were the inevitable consequences of the power of arbi-
trary imprisonment, entreated the House not to pass the
Bill; and it appearing to the then Attorney-General, Sir
Samuel Shepherd, incredible that such wrongs should
have been inflicted on any subject of his Majesty, and
be unredressed, Mr. Brand undertook to substantiate, in
every material particular, the statements in the said
petition having reference to your petitioner's case.
That, in the debate on the suspension of the Habeas
Corpus Act in the year 1817, the wrongs done to your
petitioner were characterised by Sir Samuel Romilly
and Sir Francis Burdett as grievous and oppressive be-
yond the reach of any ordinary compensation; and
from Mr. Adam, Mr. Gurney, and Mr. Mackintosh, who
had been his counsel in 1795 and 1796, and from Earl
Grey, Lord Holland, Lord Deere, and other public
men high in station and character, your petitioner re-
ceived continued assurance of their conviction that he
was innocent of crime, of their sympathy with him in

• About thirty-six persons.
fi Then First Lord of the Admiralty, and a member of the
C4binet.