Star.
London, England, 1821-05-03 00:00:00

THE BANK.

Mr.GRENFELL moved for a Statement, spewing
on one side an account of the amount of interest, at
the rate of three per Cent. paid 'or payable to the
Bank of England by the Public upon money ad-
vanced by the Bank to make good demands on, and
deficiencies of, the Consolidated Fund. And on the
other side, the amount of interest, at three per Cent.
on the public balances held by the Bank during the
last year. The Hon. Member observed, that the
amount of public balances, in the hands of the Bank
last year, was not less than £3,713,443.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER de-
fended the Bank ; and contended, that the Public
were gainers by the terms on which the Bank held
the public balances.
Mr. MABERLEY said, the question raised by his
Hon. Friend was not as to the advantages derived by
the Public from the mode of managing the public
balances. What his Hon. Friend suggested was, that
as the Bank had considerable balances of public money
in their hands, it would be but justice that part of
those balances +should be applied to the public ser-
vice, instead of monies being advanced by the Bank,
for which the Public had to pay interest.
Mr. BARING contended, that the question of
public balances was one which -the House could not
fairly meddle with at present. It was an arrange-
ment, arising out of the terms of the renewal of their
Charter, and might be made a subject of considera-
tion
at a future time, but could not be fairly inter-
fered with now.
Mr. GRENFELL denied that the Bank was en-
titled to any indulgence for advantages granted to
the Public by them in consideration of the renewal
of their Charter. All which the Bank had done in
return for privileges, under which they had made a
profit of upwards of 00,000,000, was to lend the Pub-
lic £3,000,000 of their own Money without interest.

. .
After a few words from Mr. litcAario, the motion
was agreed to.

IMPRISONMENT.

Lord ARCHIBALD HAMILTON presented a
Petition from James Turner, a tobacconist, in Glas-
gow, who complained of oppressive and injurious
treatment from the Magistrates of Glasgow, during
the agitation which prevailed in that part of Scotland
last year. The Petitioner stated, that on the 9th of
April, 1820, his house was searched in virtue of a'
search warrant, and he himself was taken, at eleven
o'clock the same night, and locked up 'in a cell.—
After this- his family were not permitted to•see
amd he was not informed until the 14th of the same
month that he was apprehended on a charge of high
treason. On the 18th he was examined) and admitted
to bail ; and from that time to this he was not brought
to trial. When the warrant was served; it Only an-
thot ised the seizure of papers, but the officers finding
no papers, seined some old arms. Now he (Lord A.

;RI l'iro 1)!•:NCIR.

I Hamilton) wished to know from the Lord Advocate,
whether he considered himself authorised to pursue
this line of conduct ? In the first place, treason was
not a bailable offence; and in the next place, though
the Petitioner was bailed, neither he nor his bail were
!ever called upon to redeem their recognizances. The
Noble Lord expressed his opinion that the insurrec-
tion at Glasgow was urged on by Spies, and that it
seas not suppressed so speedily as it might have been.
His object now was, not to obtain pecuniary com-
pensation for the Petitioner, for the Petitioner dis-
dained it, but to obtain from the Learned Lord op-
posite, *an avowal of the Petitioner's innocence. If
that was not done, he should bring the subject under
the notice of the House in anothcr shape.
The LORD ADVOCATE said, that during the
whole time which had elapsed since the date of the
transactions in Glasgow, the doors of the Courts of
Justice in Scotland and of this House were open to
the individual, and yet it was not until this hour that
he came forward to make his complaint. This cir-
cumstance must convince the House that the griev—
ances of this individual could not have been very
great, otherwise he would not have so long neglected
them. He was not bound to state the grounds of
suspicion upon which this individual was charged
with high treason. He was
.in possession of those
grounds, but supposing the Petitioner imagined there
had been no grounds, he was competent CO bring the
matter bekre a Court of Law ; and if he had done
so, then it would be incumbent upon him (the Lord
Advocate) to chew the grounds upon which he had
proceeded- He then reminded the House of the si-
tuation in which that part of Scotland was placed at
the time the apprehension of this Petitioner took place,
and contended that it was such as to require the most
.
active vigilance on the part of the MagistraLes of
Glasgow. With regard to the Noble Lord's assertion
that the insurrection in Glasgow was urged on .by
Spies, he denied it to be true. At the time alluded
CO, there was no person of that character employed
by the Government in Scotland. He went into a
detail of the transactions connected with the rising in
Glasgow, and
,the measures which the Authorities
had taken to restore the place to tranquillity. The
necessary consequence of those measures was the col-
lection of a large number of prisoners. The Jails
were not sufficient to hold them as well as the pri-
soners who were waiting for the Assizes. In conse.
quence it was determined to appropriate the Bride-
well of Glasgow to Slate prisoners ; ever y attention
was paid to them, and six Magistrates were employed
from morning to night in examining the pri,oners,
for the purpose of liberating, as speedily as possible,
all those whom there was not strong grounds for
detaining. Under these circumstances, the present
Petitioner was liberated as soon as iu could be done.
If he felt that he was aggrieved, he had it in his
power to bring au action in a Court of Law ; there
all parties would be heard, and he had no doubt that
he (the Lord Advocate) would satisfy those before
whom the action should be tried, that he was per-
fectly justifiable in the course he had adopted.
Mr. MAXWELL said, that the statement .of the
Learned Lord had the effect of convincing him that
the treatment of this individual had not been as severe
as he imagined at first. The only charge which, it
appeared, could be substantiated against this indivi-
dual was one for riot. He had heard that Spies were
employed in Scotland. He could have wished to
have heard from the Lord Advocate something like
an exoneration of the character of the Petitioner, after
the ignominious treatment he had received.
Mr. MONTEITH moved that the Petition be now
read, .as he conceived that it would be much better
for the House to be in possession of the allegations
Of the Petitioner himself, than to be engaged in list-
ening to comments upon them.
The Petition was then read, and its details were
exactly of the nature stated by the Noble Lord who
presented it. The Petitioner, whose names is James
Turner, prayed generally for redress ; and particu-
larly that the Lord Advocate might be required to
give up the name of the person who gave him
information.

Mr. MONTEITH, the Lord Provost of Glasgow,
entered into a statement of the particulars of the riot,
and the apprehension of the Petitioner. He denied
that the Petitioner was subjected to any hardship by
being sent to the Bridewell in Glasgow, as, under all
the circumstances, that prison was a much more ell•
gible, one than the jail itself. He said, that the Ma-
gistrates had acted in consequence of informatioi
which they received, some of it authenticated, -and
some not; some anonymous, and some not; and, con-
sidering the number that was engaged in it,. he was
rather surprised that so few were apprehended.
Mr. HUME wished to know if the Authorities in
Scotland had acted upon information given by oath.
lie had waited anxiously for information on that head
from the Lord Advocate, and he was much asto-
nished to hear from the Lord Provost that the only
information they had was anonymous.
Mr. MONTEITH denied haVing said so. He stated
that they.had information, some authentic and some
not, some anonymous, some true, and some whet:•
wise; and they had to be thankful that when conspi.
racies were projected, individuals were concerned in
them whose remorse of conscience led to the defeat
of the wicked object.
Mr. HUME wished to know if Turner was appre-
hended upon information on oath?
The LORD ADVOCATE said, the practice of the
law of Scotland did not require that depositions
should be given upon oath.. A public prosecutor
giving information was responsible for the truth of
what Ale suited. •

. 11r. HUME would then put it to the house if this
was a state of law under which the people of Scot.
land should be stiffered:to remain ? It was monstrous
to think that•a man might, upon the mete report of
another; be dragged from Ms home and inf;areerated.
He himself, if he went on much longer in this way,
might expect, as soon as he got down to Scotland, to