The Sun.
London, England, 1818-05-22 00:00:00

RAPE SEED.

I/Ird LASCELLES wished to ask an Hon. Gentleman be-
low him, what Government intended to do with respect to
tht' inip,rtati!.r of Rape Seel, under the Consolidation Act ?
Mr: ROTIINNON was understood to say, that it was intend-
ed the diminution of the duty should not take place till those
engaged in this article should have had full time to carry into
effect the tngagt omits in which they had embarked their
capital. It was probable that the duty would not be made
to take effect till the sth of July, 1820

Sir S. ROMILLY H-ought up his Bill, which was read a
first and sec.)nd.tine.
LETTER OF THE SECRETARY OF STATE.

Mr. RFNNET said, lie rose to bring antler the
consideration of the tiouse.the Petitions of cer-
tain persons which he had presented at the early
part of the Session, and he blamed himself for not
having taken this step till the present period.—
But. the delay had been caused paitly from ..his
desire to make himself acquainted with the truth
of the cases. Ile had set on foot a minute in-
( xiry into the allegations in the petitions,'•-antl be
bad found them fully made out: These petitions
hail ari.en out Of acts Catio by that celebrated
Circular Letter which conll never he forgotten ;
but it was not his intention to trouble the 'Flouse
wilt any opinion Hs to the legality of that Letter,
about which so Much had already been said.—
Ile knew that at several Quarter Ses,ions it had
been tre;ited- %vitt' merited contempt, at one of
wh, h t: e Chairman publicly said, Don't let us
he tr,nhied with such trash as this." Inmost parts,
it was tine that not many steps had been taken
in consequence .of 'it ; but there were some men
who did not c-ire what the law was : they were only
anxious it should be what the Ministers wished
Such might be brought into action, as infe-
rior fntnials or reptiles were drawn out of their
kolas by a Sito,ver of. rain. The facts in the Pe-
tit ons let-pitted no comments, as every than must
know that such practices were inconsistent with
the liberty of the subject. The Hon. Gentleman
then repeated the statements in the Petitions of
the persons named Mellor and Pilling, of War-
rington, who were arrested in Feb 1817, for sell-
ing a copy of one of the blasphemoos parodies,
when their houses were searched, and no more
copies being found, a variety of other books, on
history, &c. &c. were taken away. They were
committed to the [louse of Correction by two
Magistrates, were sent off in irons, and were as-
sociated with felons and criminals of Lvery de-
scription. They were thus punished before trial
by order of two Magistrates, and he would say
that even the Court of King's Bench had not'the
power to subject men to the punishment which
they had suffered. The blame, therefore, was on
these two Magistrates, who had wantonly, ille-
gally, and cruelly committed them. Ii those per-
sons had been brought to trial, not withstanding
the persecuting spirit of the Government, they
might have been acquitted by three Lancashire
Juries, as Mr. Hone had been by three London
Juries. At length their trial was moved for at
the Quarter Sessions, but by a writ. of certiorari
they were removed to the Court of King's Bench.
He thought it fair to say, that he believed there
were several exaggerations in the statements of
the persons whose case he now brought be-
fore the House, and even that their Petitions
alleged several facts which were untrue. But
did that alter the illegality of the procczdings
by which persons held to bail were associated
with common felons ? Every thing that was
superadded to safe custody in such cases was
wanton am! barbarous crtielty. The other in-
dividual to -whose case he wished to call the
attention of the house was a person named
Swindells. He held in his hand an affidavit by
-this person. It stated, that while he was in bed
with his wife, who was eight months gone with
child, on the 10th of March, 1817, about twelve
o'clock at night, constables visited his house, and
search his trunks and repositories for seditious
publications. The consequence of the ill treat-
ment and alarm which his family thus received was
the premature labour of his wife, who died with
her infant on the 2Gth of April. Afterwards he
was discharged without trial, after having been
smile' tune imprisarred:-• Swin4e4ls- had -been a
seaman in his Majesty's service for eleven years,
aod served in the squadron which blockaded Brest.

Such were tt►e cases which Le hail to submit to
the House. He would ask . whether !lie
Horse would consent to allow. such things to pass
over without inquiry ? He moved' that a Com-
mittee be appointed to inquire into the truth of
the allegations in the Petitions of Melia,
and Swindells.

M. DAVENPORT said he thou/tilt it his duty to
conm!!nicate to the House the contents of a let-
ter which he had received Os was understood)
from a most respectable Magistrate of Chester,
relative to the case of Swindells. The let, er stated
that Swindells had not been `treated with any se-
verity when his boustt was searched—that the
search was made on -the 10th of March, at the
time whet; the most dreadful alarm was excited in
the town of Macclesfield by a thousand of the
Manchester rioters having entered it, and it was
suspected that some of the delegates were con-
cealed in Swindell's house—that it was nottroe
that Swindell's wife had died of a premature la-
bour; but on the contrary, that there was the af-
fidavit of the medical person who attended her
that she died of a consumption, under Which sh,:
had long suffered, previous to the 10th of M arch—
that Swindells was not arrested on the 10th
March, but was only at that time warned of the
danger of selling or circulating bfasphemous 'and
seditious libels, such as those which had been
fount) in his house—that afterwards, notwith-
standing repeated warnings, he persevered in sell-
ing such libels, in consequence of which lie was
finally tried and imprisoned. The Hob. Member
himself tcsiified that Mr. NV omi and the other Nia,
gistrates who searched Swindell's house were
men of benevolent dispositions and of the highest
respectability.

Mr. BLACKBURN read to the House two letters
from Magistrates of Lancashire,-stating that no
cruelty had been n'titted against Mellor and
Pilling, and contradictiag the facts stated in their
petition.
The ATTORNRY-GENFRL said that the com-
plaint of the persons whose case 'had now been
again brought before the Home was, that the law
had been turned against them into an instrument
of. oppression. This he positively deoied. With
respect to what had been said as to the discharg-
ing those persons frotn. their recognitatices, that
half been done by him, and he was ready to justify
it. He filed no ex-officio information against those
persons. To the enemies of ex-officio informatioos
:he appealed as to his conduct in this respect.—
The course which he pui-Sued was to send down
indictments against the personsin question. Aird
here he would appeal to those who were enemies
to giving Magistrates the power of committal in
such cases, whether he would not have been
justified in preventing those perions from
being at large without bail, after iriclictritents
found. Atterwards, being desirous `that
the cases should be tried before the Judges
of the land,• he removed them '.by Writs of
certiorari into the Court of King's Bench.- 'After
he had done this he utight lia've kept these men in
custody, but that he did not do. He did no more
than take their recognizances for their appear-
ance. He was astonished to hear it said; that
those persons ought not before conviction to have
been committed to a House of Correction. There
were two several statutes which atithorizetrMa-
gistrates to commit suet) - - Houses of
Correction before trial, and while only charged
with such offences. The law upon this subject
was clear and plain. But the Hon, Gentleman
said, those persons were committed to hard labour.
By the statute 22 Geo. 111. c. 64. persons com-
mitted under such circumstances might he ordered
to labour--not to hard labour—hot tolabour, and
when discharged, they were entitled to half the
produce of their labour. A doubt had at nee
time arisen whether persons committed for trial
were-liable to labour, but it was now perfectly
clear that the Statute of Chas. 11. as exieuded by
22 Geo. 111. applied to such prisoners, and
that they might be set to labour. But it
was said that the Petitioners were subject-
ed to hard labour. It was not hard labour.—
The only labour was their being obliged to
pick two pounds of cotton a day. As to the
case of Swindells, it was not true that be was ar-
rested by any Magistrate. An ex officio informa-
tion was filed against him in consequence of his
repeated offences in circulating seditious and blas-
phemous publications. He was arrested on an
attachment, for his having refused to appear to
the subpoena. He was told that the attachment
was not to hold him to hail, but merely to enter
an appearance. If he had appeared be would have
been immediately discharged. He refused to ap-
.pear, and for this contempt of Court he was ne-
cessarily imprisoned. What was then done to him?
Instead of being allowed to remain in gaol, where
he might have been kept to this day, a notice was
sent to him, that the moment he sent an attorney
to enter an appearance for hint he would be dis-
charged; and if he could not provide an attorney
for himself, be was allowed to apply to the soli-
citor of the Treasury, and to have a copy of
the information gratis.—(Hear, hear, hear !)
At the same time, he was told that he might
either do this or appear and plead. He did apa
pear and plead. Thus,instead of being treated with
rigour, all the ordinary forms of the law bad been
relaxed towards him. As to the circumstances of
Swind-ell's house being searched, he begged the
House to recollect that it took place on the 10th
of March. On that night about 1000 of the per-
sons who had marched from Manchester entered:
Macclesfield, and information was brought that
serve of the pet-sons called Delegates were- con-
cealed in Swindell's house. It was in consequence
of this that his house was searched. It was true.
that some . of his papers were seized, and he did
not mean to justify this. He admitted, that in
.point of law, the Magistrates were wrong. in
seizing the papers. But as to the effect produced
on bit wife by the circumstance of his house be-
ing searched, the statement of Swindells was com-
pletely contradicted by affidavits. His wife died
of a consumption, and after the 10th of March
continued daily to work at the manufactory
where she had been employed, and never
was heard to make any complaint of hav-
ing been ill treated, or having suffered in her
health from the alarm which site received.
Swindells stated, too, that hzi had been refused
medical assistance to his wife .durhig he'r•Tait ill-
ness. There was the affidavit of the Medical Gen-

tleman who bad-attended her, which completely
contradicted this. That Gentleman continued to
attend her till he was told by Swindells himself
that he need not come again, as his wife had been
admitted into the Dispensary. Another.of the al-
legations was, that Swindells had been allowed
nothing but bread and water. This was a down-
right falsehood. There were affidavits which
Droved that he had lived-while in the prison on
the Debtors' side, and had daily tea and coffee,
and meat and butter. And yet it was upon these
cases, thus contradicted, that the present motion
%vas founded. Under such circumstances, he had
no doubt that the motio❑ would be rejected, as it
deserved.

Sir S. raosHeLY said, he thought this one of
the most important questions which could come
before the House, involving, the preservation of
he Liberty of the Press and the Liberty of the
Subject. 1-1 is Honourable and Learned niend
(the Solicitor-General) seemed to think there was
a charge personal against himself, which in fact
was not the case. There was no part of his
Honourable and Learned Friend's • conduct •itt
the case in question to which he objected, except
that of his having r,tnoved and protracted the
prosecution by certiorari. In cases of misdemea-
nant- it is always a hat dship not to allow the pri-
soner to plead immediately. As to the main ques-
tion, the loading men with irons, charged only
with -the publication of a political libel, was so
monstrous, that a few years ago it would not have
been believed It was said indeed that the pub-
lication - was a bfasphemous libel : that it -was a
reprehensible and improper publication he admit-
ted, hilt' it was an- abuse of words to call it a
blasphemous libel : the most strained description
•wilriCh 'es-told-with correctness be given of it WIA 3
'hat it was a-libel.against the Established Church.
Knowing the liberal .4.pinions wit,ich iris Hon. and
Learned Ft fend used io entertain in the earlicr
part of h-is life as to the liberty of the sni,j-ct, he
'thought he would have regarded the circumstances
of this ease with:hortor. The House most recol-
lect that the publication in qtle,tion ryas not
proved to be a libel. when the publishers were
carried in an -pet) cart and in letters to the prison,
where they were kept in irons. _ _ _

Mr. BLACKBURN here iose,,aod referred to bii
letter, whiiA, stated that they were not kept in
fetters in the workhouse, but were kept near a
good fire, secured only by a small chain to their
legs.
Sir S. ROMILLY .he did _not mean that
they were kept in fetters-in. the workhouse. But
according to thellon. Gentleman himself,. they
were kept in the workhouse in Preston-chained.-7-
As to the seizing of papers, his. Honourable and
Learned
_Friend admitted that it was illegal ;
but was it enough that such an act should
be passed over with such an observation ?
This_Nas the consequence of the indiscreet
zeal excited by Lord Sidmouth's Circular
Letter. What had happened in Swindell's
case shoived how little the persons whO exercised
this illegal limier were to be trusted—persons
Who had seized Rollin's Ancient History, Law's
Serious Call to Devout PersOus', the Evangelical
Magazine, and such pious works, because they
were foub*,beside. the. Liverpool Mercury and
some numbers of Cobbet's Register. This was,
he supposed, act_ iitg on the maxim nostitur a sociis.
Such were the itiOnstrous violations of the law
which had been committed in this case. On such
a question as that before the 'louse, he could
hardly believe that any,,corisiderable number of
Members could be found to vote against the
motion.

Mr. B. llATnutisr said, the question was,,wthether
the cases before the House were ,sufficient to in-
duce the House to appoint a Committee to in-
quire into them. There was a complaint made'
(by tl.e Hon. Gent. who made the nuttion) against
the Magistrates for committing the Petitioners be-
fore trial; but this had been completely answered
by his, Hon. and Learned Friend, who proved
that such a committal was perfectly legal. It re-
mained, therefore, to consider whether there had
been any unjustifiable severity. As to this, it ape
reared, that W.st-ead_
_of. being committed to the
common county gaol, where they would have un-
dergone greater privations, they %vereonly'seirt to
the workhouse. It appealed too, that the alle-
gations of the Petitioners, as to their being com-
pelled to hard labour, was an exaggeration.—
They were certainly made to wink, but the la-
bour was by no means hard. As to the Case of
Swindells, the *Magistrates had not visited his
house for the purpose of searching for papers
All the pointS of the case being already before the
House, it was unnecessary to refer them to a'
Committee. Upon the whole, he thought no
hardship had been proied, and could see nothing
that called for further investigation.
Sir S. ROMILLY and Mr. BATHURST mutually
explained.

Mr. LoCKHART did not intend to vote for the
inquiry beezause be thOught the • publications
which had been alluded (o were not full of im-
piety, nor because he was of opinion the Attorney-
General had conduCted. the p.roSecutiOns of them
improperly, but because it appeared to him that
it was incumbent on the House to inquire into
the first case that came before them of an-indivi-
dual charged with a misdemeanor or libel being
put in, irons, in order to prevent such a violation
of the Constitution growing into an established
practice, as too much caution could not be used in
guarding individuals accused of such offences from
being punished a -priori,
.by their being compelled
to wear any hailge of infamy before they had been
proved guilty. On these grounds he thought the
House bound to institute an inquiry into the Merits
of the present case. Heshould therefore vole for the
motion, and doing- this, be felt he should merely
perform a duty which lie owed to the laws of the
country.

Mr. BeNNET replied ; and, in the course of his
speech, expressed a hope that the country would
bear in mind, i; the motion were lost, that one of
the last acts of the present House of Commons had
been to refuse an inquiry iA a case of this nature.
The House then divided, when the numbers
were—

• Ayes
Noes.
Majority —s6
•
NAnOB OP OU.D.E.

Mr. MARSH, After detailing a number of cir-
cumstances relating to the debts of the Nabob of

• -
Dude, moved that the petitions of certain of hi'
creditors (Messrs. Chase, Chinnery, and COI
Messrs. Abbott andMaitland) might be referred
to a Select Committee of the House. t.
Mr. CANNING would not oppose the Rppoin
ment of a Committee, but thought it impossibleal
the' petitioners could substantiate their
It was not likely that they should have lent their
money in ignorance of the Act of 1797 ; this-I,yr:
not impossible, but he thought highly improkolu'e-
he therefore did not commit himself to a
anY
proval of their claim by consenting to C°°l
mittee.
Mr. GRANT expressed his hope that the tiSg.
India Company might be beard.
M. MONEY thought the petitioners were ignh°s-
rant of the Act, and that their claims ought: to

considered.
After a few words from Sergeant ONsLoWy "' .
-
agreed with the President .of the Board of C°ll
trot,
Mr. W. SMITH expressed his assent to the
priety of a Committee; and Mr. MAasn hayilic
replied, the question was pot, and the appoin"ler
of the Committee agreed to.
The Savings'-bank Bill was read a third time and Pas,sea„t'f
The Irish Assesserl Taxes Bill, and the Duke of fs-e-)1„,,
Annuity Bill, went through a Conimitee ; report to-nor;tei
The Lottery Bill was read a second time) to he
to
Tmherow.
or
Irish Bank Restriction Bill was read a second
report to-morrow.—Adjourned at half,Pascileven.