The Sun.
London, England, 1819-12-23 00:00:00

ALLEGED MISCONDUCT.

Mr. BENNET stated, that he had a petition from.
an humble indivitlijal, who prayed the House that
they wOuld not put into the hands of Magistrates
greater pOwers than those 'which, they now pos..
sesscd. He supported this Prayer by a detail of
his own case, ill which those powers had been
most oppressively used. He had rnade every in-
quiry respectin4 the character of the•wan, and tht:
truth of his assertions, and had obtained uni!oubt-
.ed evidence, on the best authority, of the cor-
rectness of holt). 'file petitioner stated, alit its
18.12. Colonel Fletcher, a Magistinie of the coun-
ty of Lancaster, propdsed to. him to become a
spy for Government, and that by-his refusal he had
incurred the resent trent of
.those whom he had ex-
posed, for it was generallyoknown that he hid re-
cei% e.! such an offer. A short time after he was taken
up.thrown into jail, treattAkin a.burbajons manner,
and made a sort of exhibition of as Gen. Lod.- As it
was found that he was ni,t a person of that de-
set iption, he had, howevsr, been liber.ated. But
a tdioft time alter, he had been taken out of bed
and cntifined again, without kin' log on what
chat ge. He bad, however, found himself at last
Cothltil4tfd to the county gaol of Lancaster, on
the charge of having murdered a person of the
tortne•of Chadwick, whom he had never seen.
This he (Mr. B ) would not believe (mid he had
SCE!) a copy of the calendar of that gaol. lie
bud Row seen -it, and ho found that a man called.

John Leaver (which, was the Petitioner's name)
had hero committed on such a charge to that
gaol -hy a Magistrate of the name of Fletcher
in 181-e. The person whom he was accused of
having toardcred had died of a fever. It had
been toilsome() that he had* received a blow,
but the verdict of the Coroner's Inquest held
on the body, and the certificate of the Phy-
sician by whom he had been attended, hail proved
that he had really died, of a fever ; yet eiotwith-
*et endine this evidence had been submitted to Co-
lonel ifrleteher, he had committed the Petitioner
in slid' a manner that he had remained in gaol,
and io the company of common felons, from Julie
to the end of eV/gust, 1812. To his great as-
tonishmeet, after such treatment, no Bill had-
been found against him for murder ; none, in
fart, he believed, had been presented, but he had
been brought out and tried for a political misde-
meanour, having all the time prepared his defence
against the charge of murder only. The Judge
had thought the evidence, so defective.-,and the
vt'hole case so groundlesi, that in his charge to
the Jury he bad said, that even if it were proved,
it would at the worst amount only to a case of
drunken folly. The Jury, however, (tad chose!)
to think otherwise, and bad found the Petitioner
guilty. Two men were brought to swear against
him, that in a mixed company be had drank to
the death of the King, who shohld be sweetened
with a pound of sugar, and on this he had been
convicted. He therefore prayed that the House
would not increase powers which, in their pree
sent state, had beets so grossly abused. The
Hon. Member coucleded by moving, that the
Petition be brought up.
Mr. HosterssoN lamented the facility, amount-
ing almost to credulity, with which the Honour-
aLle Gentleman appeared to listen to the asser-
then, of Petitioners to that House, whilst at other
he refused to believe the statements made
on oeth before Coulee of Justice. He should not
ewer into the details of the present case, het he
woeld ask whether it teas possible for the House
to try again a case which had been decided in a.
Court of Justice .1 If such a line of conduct was
adopted, the House would have nothing to do but
to interfere with the course of instice, for appli-
cations would not tail. Even supposing the Ma-
gistrate to have acted wrongly, or the trial to
have been improperly managed, as the Hutton ra-
bit Gentletnan alleged, he was not aware how the
House could reverse a judgment that had taken
place ; and he submitted whether stsc)► cases were
proper to come helot e Perliament ? He also re-
ploeekl the bringing of such charges, calculated
not only to take away the character of P Magis-
trate, but if entrrtaiued, to subject hint to the
ur st severe prosecutiotse, so many years after the
alleged offence was stated to have occurred, and
when the means of defence must be considerably
diminished.
Mr. llooeee WILSKAFIAM bed received from
the candour of the Honourable Gentleman t;p-
posite, private notice of the. Petition which
he intended to pi sent, in order that he might
procure informatiou to rebut his charges. He
had now got that intnenetiou, and with the
leave of the House would briefly detail the real
state of the case. John Leaver, the'Peti inner,
bad been appyebend,d, in 1812, on the wartttnt
of a Magistrate. not Colon-I Fletcher. for having
.e.temees words, and given out as a toast,
" Death to the King.'' Shortly after, Colonel
Fletcher, who till then knew nothing of that its-
dividual, bad received a hater from Mr. Aaron
Graham (whirls the Hon. Member read to the
House), informing him that John Harper, a con-
vict on -board the Laurel, had stated, that about
the time a perstm of the name of Chadwick had
been suspected of being murdered, he had met
two men quarrellieg on the road, with birth of
whom he was acquainted, John Leaver, and Tho-
mas Hunt that he bad asked them what they
had been doing, and that they had threatened him
with being the death of bins if he should titter a
word of what he had heard. Harper had been
convicted of forgery, and embarked for Botany
Bay, but had been landed and- detained some
time, in expectation of Leaver's trial. On re-
ceiving this information, Colonel Fletcher had
issued his warrant for murder against Leaver,
who was already in confinement, and he had been
committed on that charge to the gaol of Lancas-
ter. When the time of the Assizes had arrived
it had been found that the family of the deceased
were unwilling to prosecute, that the evidence was
not conclusive, and -that to be.able to use Har-
per's testimony he must receive a ..free pardon.
The charge of murder had-therefore been aban-
doned, but there was no reason why Leaver should
not have been tried on the first charge for which
lie had been committed. He was so tried and
convicted, and sentenced to ode year's imprison-
ment. If he had been wronged, there was no
Bill of Indemnity at the time to protect the Ma-
gistrates. He might therefore have had recourse
to a Court of Law ; but instead of doing so, he
had suffered the business to lie dormant for seven
years ! Having answered the remarks of the
lion. Gkeitlentan, as he trusted, to the satisfac-
tions of the. House, lie could not help observing,
that in this instance the Magistrate had been harsh-
ly used, in having such a charge brought against
his character at the end of seven years, when the
papers necessary to his defence, and which had
fortunately been preserved, might have been de-
stroyed or lost.—(Heer, hear, hear !)—He la-
mented the extreme credulity of the Lion. Gen-
tleman. The lion's mouth at Venice could have
no larger swallow than he had for all charges of
this kind, although it always turned out that they
were satisfactorily answered. Colonel Fletcher
had beets a Magistrate for twenty-two years, in a
period of considerable difficulty and danger, anti
had never been brought before the Court of King's
Bench, to arise er for any improper use, of his
authority. It was therefore harsh that he should
be exposed to attacks so utsfooncled as the
present. But this was ore of a series of ground=
less complaints, made from day to clay to the
House. Among other representations, it, had
been repeatedly asserted, that the Manchester
Magistrates had acted on the 10111 of August, un-. ,
der the authority of Government. This.he posi-
tively denied. Their conduct, whether right or
wrong, was their own. They did not shrink from
their responsibility, and they would have to show
the grounds on which they had acted, and to jus- e

tify their conduct when the approaching trial
should come on at the Lancaster Assizes„ lie
submitted to. the House, whether it was fair that
such charges against them should be brought for-
ward just before those trials were -going to take
place ?

Mr. BEN'NET contended, that the character of
the petitioner was irrelrroachable, and that nothing
had ever been urged against him, except by the
convict Harper,. and the two suet' who bad been
sent to swear' against him. He would prove by
the certificate (which he now held) of the respec-
table Physician empleyed, that not only no mur-
der had been committed on Chadwick, but that
there was even no charge of murder, except in the
imagination of the lie of the deceased, who had
become insane, and had finished by banging her-
self. The certificate st atsd, that the man sup-
posed to have struck Chadwick was Richerd
and not John Leaver, who had not even h:en
mentioned, and it was only to clear Hunt's cha-
racter that the Inquest had been instituted. The
certificate explained besides the professional
grounds on which it had been sliewn that Chad-
wick had died of a fever. Was not such a certi-
ficate a nifficient authority to satisfy any Ma-
gistrate who was not actuated by private ran-
emir ? Had any of Chadwick's., family been even
bound to prosecute ? They [tad not ; and he
contended that the sole object was to keep an
innocent individual in gee!. The petition bad
been misunderstood. It not pray the House
to ird+,ire into the petitioner's case ; it only
said, " You are going to endow Magistrates
with extraordinary do it not, for )•olt
see , how they have abused those which they
already possess." He had held the Petition a con-
siderable time iii his hands, but he would not
present it without having procured sirfileient do-
cumente to prove the truth of its asseverations to
his own sati",.faction. lie would not have pre-
sented it without having obtained a copy of the
caleteler of Lancaster gaol. Ile led now received
it, and of its antleot ity he had brought the sub-
itet.torieard. Whether the House would receive
the petition or not, was matter of inditlerelice
to him. He lied done his duty to the individnai
who had pressed him to present it, in submitting
it to she House and stating the facts, which he
believed to he true.
Mr. BeouGeteet recollected the case when tried
at the Lancaster Assizes, and bore testimouy to
the accuracy of the statements of his Hoe. Friend.
The case was one of great hardship to the man,
who had certainly been hied on very deficie`nt evi-
dtnce for a misdemeanour.. though be h irl been
charged with a felony which had precluded hint
from the, possibility of being balled out. The
eouSeqiience was, that Its bad been kept a con-
siderable time in prison in the company of felons,
and had saffersd material inconvenience in his de-
fence. At the same time he regretted, that 'the
charged should have been brought forward after so
long ae iuterval, as it was a hardship on the per-
son accused to have been 7 years wiihout hewing
of any complahlt against his conduct. But the
whole of tile trial had been a paltry business. The
evidence amonuted to very little. The 111411, half
lit joke, and more than halt in liquor, had uttered
the words ascribed to him., and he remembered per-
fecly well that the Judge had slimmed up for
an acquittal, But the same Jury having acquit-
ted, much against their will, the,precediug day,
38 individuals, all brought to trial in one indict-
meta, and on the evidence of only one, spy, were
tit-tee-untied to convict the petitioner. He had ne-
ver been snore disgusted with the conoluct of a
Jury in his life than on those two 'occasions.
They had hesitated for ten minutes or a quarter
of so hour on the case of the 38 men, although
uu doeht could be entertained of their innocence,
and had ,at last given a most reluctant acquittal,
because it was a polisical ()fleece. But the next
day they were determined not to acquit any more,
atid convicted every prisoner put upon his trial be-
fore them. •

Lord CASTLEREAGH did not think that any good
could result from discussing, the verdicts of Juries
in that House.' With respect to the petition, was
it not preposterous to expect that its allegations
concerning a transaction which had passed seven
years ago, and the troth of which could not be
ascertained, should arrest the progress of the Hill
through the House Were they, from one alleged
case of misconduct, to draw the inference that
tile whole Magistracy of the country were un-
worthy, and that new powers should not be en-
acted ? If the Holt. Member could not find
better arguments to support his motion, be had
better• desist from pressing it any farther.
• Mr. BROUGHAM did not mean to offend by dis•
cussing the verdicts of Juries. But he was not
the first person who had commented on such ver-
dicts, for it was not twenty•four hours since—
(Or der !)—He should only add, that not only the
conduct of Juries, but that of Judges themselves,
were competent subjects for discussion in that
House —(Hear, hear, hear !)•
The question that the Petition be brought in
was thet► put and negatived.