Star.
London, England, 1814-05-24 00:00:00

-- -- -- - - rat
4 medical assistance if he had required it, but that was pro
11 ' not what he wanted. He wished to have air auel ex- the
-ercise for the benefit of his health. It was•needless to 'sw
say that this could not he granted. • But how many of
persons were there deprived of air and'exertise, per- an
I haps for Much less cause, and with much less health R
and strength to bear it than Mr. de Berenger. As ri
to the prodigious hardship of his not being able to go w:
about the country to find out persons whom he could
not describe, a, point much insisted on by the Hon. w
Mover, it was- to be considered that every prisoner lal
confined for debt was exposed to the same inconveni- In
ence..- One circumstance would serve to shew the co- gi
1 lour which vi as given to his case by the Hon. Gentle- G
man ; and in the Petition it was said that he was,con- gl
d• . fined or. the Felon side of Newgate. Now it happen- E
ed that ell the letters from him to the Secretary of et
i State, even one written yesterday, were dated from g
• 0 the State side of Newgate." So far from the apart. ai
:went in which he was confined being small or had; it, T
11111 1!: ' was about as large as one-third of the House of Com-
Wi b
ons, and from the- time that be had been confined, (
no one had been -introduced tohim whom.he did not h
wish to have adhaitted.—(llear, hear.)—Nay, people rr
had come from Dover and Rochester to see him, and p
.on his refusing 'to bare the& admitted, they were ob- a
bged. to go away -without getting a 'sight of him.— a
money
c rics of Hear, hear.)—He had already stated his a,
. money had beet! returned to him, that was, the ft
ainatint4lB6,.elthotegh not in the very notes taken c
k
from hi So. taseeltus to the facts. They proved v
that there kras no cause hr the appointment of a Gem- ti
mittee on the -grounds alleged by the Hon. Gentle- a
man. The intervention of the House was not neces- g
eery to procure fot Mr. de Berenger the redress which c
he required. e
Me.- ABERCROMBIE was surprised at the as. 1.1
d stimption of the Right Hon. Gentleman who spoke
last, that there had been no cause of complaint respect- (
ing the way in which the Alien Act had been put in f
force. He maintained, that there were many in- I
stances within his own knowledge, of persons being c
most vexatiously treated under the alleged authority ii
of this Act. .I'e woulfl ask the Secretary of State to s
point out one sentence in the Alien Act, authorising a
the seizure of papers ? To justify what had been it
done in the present case, it was necessary to prove r
that it would be inconsistent with sefety to the State t
to return Mr. de Berenger his paperr The very cir- r
i cumstance of Mr. de Berenger being confined was
enough to shew, that his case was one of peculiar I
aggravation, and on this ground he supported the t
motion.
Mr. BATHURST explained. . I
Mr. Alderman C. SMITH had seen De Berenger t
in Newg..te, where he was in a. most comfortable c
1 Apart:neat, well furnished and %tell aired. - On being. 1
asked how he was treated, he said that it was impcis- e
di
sib,e that any one in such a situation could be better s
treated. r
Sir SAMUEL ROMILLY could not conceive a
how the Secretary of State had any authority by the c
Alien Act to seize pepers. The general practice of .1
the office did not even authorise such seizure and de- I
tention. Indeed it appeared to him, from the way .1
in which the Right Hen. Gentleman opposite had
I argued,- that he had confounded the case of an arrest
• on a criminal charge with that of an arrest under the 1
Alien Act. !
I Mr. P. MOORE thought it appeared from the cir- ,
cumstances of the case that De Berenger had been i
I seized on account of his having been supposed to have 1
hoaxed a body of professed Hoaxers—the Stock Ex- i
1 . chahge Committee.—(Laughing.)—Mr. Taileirand, 1
the present Minister of France, had been subjected to i
the operation of this same Alien Act, with this dif-
ference, that the Government by sending him out of .
• I
the country merely afforded him means to escape
from his creditors hare.—He wished to ask the Right
7 Honourable Gentleinan opposite, whethei the trunks
of Mr. de Berenger had not been deposited in the Se-
cretary of State's Office ? and whether the warrant for
his arrest had not been issued on the application of
. the Stock Exchange Committee? Also, whether,'when
the trunks were opened, some of The Members of that
Committee had not been sent kir to be present?
Mr. H. A DDINGTON,—It wasquite newt° him
to hear that the trunks had been conveyed to the Se-
cretaty of State's Office, and lie firmly believed that
they were not, as he had not heard that they were.
No application had been made by the Stock Exchange
Committee for a warrant to apprehend Mr. de Be-
tenger.
Mr. P. MOORE repeated his last question about
the opening of the trunks.
Mr. H. ADDINGTON repeated that he never
beard thai the trunks were taken Oa the Secretary cf
, State's Office.
Mr. WYNNE did not see that the question could
be decided before a Secret Committee. The only way
by which it could in his opinion be decided was, by
Mr. de Berenger entering into a prosecution against
the Secretary of State. Supposing that the papers
bad been legally seized, that might be very good
ground for Mr. de Berenger to prosecute the Secre-
tary of State, but surely it was no reason why the
papers should not be used in t prosecution against de
Berenger by other persons.
. Mr. BAT HURsT explained ; he had not argued
the question upon whether or not it might be dan-
gerous to the State to set Mr.' de Berenger at liberty.
Mr. STUARI WORTLEY thought that after
the declination made by the Right Honourable Gen-
-4 Liman, on his official tespoosibility, and after the
vadubitisfah facts which had come out, there was oo
cause why the House should interfere, by appointing
•
such a Comniittee as had been moved for. -
i. Sir JOHN NEWPORT was of opinioa that the
i
i case clearly reepiird d the interference of the House.
Mr. WIL BERFORCE was against• the motion,
on the ground that there was no proof that the Secre.
cry of Slate had made an improper use of the power
with %Inch he was entrusted. .
t ,Mra BA RHAM declared, that although he felt no
I /
; / sympathy far Mr. de Berenger, yet aware that if the
violation of the law and personal liberty were tole-
r
rated with regard to the worst man iu society, the
. precedent might be acted ripen towards the very best,
he thought it his duty to vote for the motion, By
• , the opponents of the motion an apprehension was
' • stated that public inconvenience might- result from
Oat appointment of the proposed Committee, but it
appeared that in the only instance quoted of a similar
taeumnsittee, no inconvenience whatever had occurred;
*maw the apprehension expressed was not war-
.