Star.
London, England, 1818-05-22 00:00:00

would be' ountbd - This

Session.
had

consi-
production
Accounts
"Lon-

account-
Chancery.
but
repose
funds.

IY geturable ' - a
Hono

stairs,
pro-

misalying
Bridge
there
em-

atprobatt
the

,t the
Surrey

.. to
were

the
some
'on-

been
Gentleman
(therefore
Jlect Corn-
Petitioners
arable
Pe-
be
Petitio-
nild be
Orders
any
was
the
compe-
, the
examine

(MS.
113,
'U.
al-

the
then
of
second
red

the
pro-

Lould
Re-

new
country
from
tene-
rated
con-
"dis-
and
the

The
of
Assessed
he
of
;di-
the
on
tan

they
House
corn-
parcel

. and
nothing
)point-
the
into

....g in
negocia-
-..‘ for

'

LORD SIDMOUTH'S CIRCULAR Larriat.

Gentleman below him, what dovernment iatended
to do with respect to the importation of Rape Seed,
under the Consolidation Act?
Mr. ROBINSON said, that it was intended the di-
minution of the duty should not take place till those
engaged in this article should have had full time to
carry into effect the engagements 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 brought up his Bill, which was
read a first and second time.

Mr. BENNET said, that the reason why he had
delayed so long to bring the subject of these Petitions
before the House was, that he had been anxious to
ascertain the truth of the allegations. He had now
inquired, and found them to be substantially true.
If he had not found them true, he should not have
troubled the House with any observations ; but,
having found them true, he felt himself bound to lay
before the House the state in which the country had
been. With respect to Lord Sidmouth's letter, a
letter never to be forgotten, he would not trouble the
House with any opinion f its legality or illegality,
especially as the opinions of Members on both sides
of the House had already been given on that subject.
But, as to one part of the circular, which affected
the powers given to Magistrates, he could not hesi-
tate to give an opinion. One Chairman of the Quar-
ter Sessions had said,'" Don't let us be troubled with
snch•trash as this." But the busy, active, intriguing
men in the Magistracy, who cared not what the law
was, but what the Minister wished, who lived in in-
significancy in other times, came forth, on this occa-
sion, like other animals which are drawn from their
holes in a shower of rain. These were the men to
whom it gave undue authority, while it diminished
the power of honest and upright Magistrates. He
who ran might read, and he who read must under-
stand that this was inconsistent with a fair and just
administration of the laws. In the month of Fe-
bruary, 1817, this celebrated letter had been written.
In the same month of the same year two persons
were imprisoned upon a charge of selling libellous
publications ; they were, Jonathan Butler Mellor and
Samuel Pilling, in Warrington. A more illegal pro-
ceeding never took place. It was not enough that
the individuals should have been arrested, but their
houses were searched, in order, if possible, to dis-
cover there papers of a libellous tendency. This was
an act, the illegality of which the House had so-
lemnly decided on. Books were taken out of Mel-
lor's house. Mellor and Pilling were'both sent, not
to the county jail, which was the only jail to which
they should have been committed, but to the House
of Correction. They were ironed • they were forced
to be the associates of felons, and, with all, before
ial, they were obliged to undergo hard labour. The
labour was not, perhaps, as severe as if they bad
been condemned, but the disgrace of it was the same.
it was punishment, and that too, let it be for ever
remembered, before it was ascertained whether they
Ihad merited punishment or not—whether they were
guilty or innocent—in one word, before trial—(hear,
' near)—lf they had even written the libels imputed to
them, should this have been their penalty' That
he might net be supposed to give any sanction to
such publications, he begged to state, that in a moral
view he held them in abhorrence, and the author of
them, whoever he was, in contempt. But if 1.:71e in-
dividuals in quest on had been found guilty of a li-
bel, it was not in the power of the King's Bench to
subject them to such punishment as that he had de-
scribed. That Court would have sent them to the
King's Bench prison, where they would have had as
associates, men who, whatever were their misfortunes,
were, for the greater part, of good characters. But
in the House of Correction, these individuals were
condemned to felons' company, and to felons' fare—
(hcar, hear)—For this he did not blame the jailer, who,
he believed, was a very humane man; but he blamed
the Magistrates who committed them. What were
Houses of Correction ? What their purpose ? The
old statutes said that they were for thieves, vaga-
bonds, idle and disorderly persons, committed for
crimes, not for which they were merely charged, but
of which they were actually convicted—(Kear, hear)
—He had, therefore, no hesitation in saying, that the
commitment of these persons, before trial, to the
House of Correction, was scandalous and illegal
They suffered as it they were guilty. But although
they were confined non con:tat, they might have been
acquitted as Mr. Hone was, by three successive Lan-
cashire Juries. But that was not enough : they were
ironed and handcuffed ; they were conveyed to the
Quarter Sessions, where their Solicitor wished to have
their trial brought on, but this was not allowed. A
certiorari was obtained by the Attorney-General for
removing their trials to the King's Bench. They
were consequently summoned to appear there, and
the result was, that they were discharged without
either trial or bail. There were some facts stated in
the Petitions, which, for his own part, he disbelieved.
But these falsehoods, though they might lessen re-
spect for the individuals, could not shake the truth
of the other parts of the statement, which he knew
to be correct. He would now come to the Petition
of Robert Swindell, of Macclesfield ; which stated,
that in March, 1817, his house was entered violently
by constables, Who immediately asked what number
of persons were there. They tore open his cupboards,
trunks, and boles, searching for papers. His wife
was then gone eight months with child, and inconse-
quence of the fright she received, her delivery was
hastened, and she died, as well as the child, in the
ensuing month. He was himself imprisoned, and
discharged without trial. Swindell was a seaman,
having served in his Majesty's fleet eleven years. He
assisted in the blockade of Brest. It was for the
House to consider whether these three cases were
wnrthy of its attention? He concluded with moving,
" That a Committee be appointed to examine the Pe.
titions of Jonathan Mellor, Samuel Pilling, and Ro-
bert Swindell, and to report-thereon."
Mr. DAVENPORT read a letter from the Mayor
of Macclesfield, justifying the conduct pursued by!
the constables at the period in question. The town
was in alarm, dangerous persons were suspected to
be in the houses which had been entered, nor was
any violence used towards their owners. The Ho-
nourable Member stated that he was acquainted per-
sonally with the Gentlemen who acted as constables
on the occasion, and he did not know any men more
benevolently disposed than they, Or lass capable of a
cruel action.

sfr. BLACKITCRN read a similar letter, contra-
dicting the treatment alleged to have been suffered
by Mellor and Pilling.
A pause then ensued, and no Member rising us
speak,
the question was put, and the Gallery was or-
to be cleared. Before that Was completed,
The ATTORNEY GENERAL rose, and defended
the line of conduct which had been pursued with re-
spect to these three individuals. He did not file an
information er glficio against them, but he sent down
an indictment to be presented to the Grand Jury of
the Quarter Sessions, and a Bill was in consequence
found against them. If they had then been at large
he appealed to any man who knew the law, whether
they might not have been apprehended as soon as
the indictment was found by the Grand Jury? In
having the certiorari moved for, his object was, not
vexatious delay, but to have the matter tried before
a higher tribunal. When he obtained the certiorari,
he could, if he had so chosen, have detained them in
prison. But he did not so detain them. He declared
upon his honour, that as soon as he had the certiorari,
he sent down an order that they should be discharged
upon their own recognizances--(hear, hear.) If he
was reproached with any thing, it should have been
for relaxing the law so much in their favour. It
was impossible that the Law Officers could have con-
ducted themselves with more lenity. It was stated,
that the Magistrates had no right to commit them to
the House of Correction. But there were twe statutes
which expressly authorised Magistrates to commit to,
the House of Correction persons charge% with offences,
and in counties, where there was but one common jail,
this power was very desirable. It was said, that the in-
dividuals in question were committed to hard labour.
If that were so, he admitted it to be illegal. The 22d
of George 111. provided that those committed to the
county jail might be put to labour ; and, upon their
being discharged, they were to het half their earn-
ings. He knew there was an opinion that this Statute
applied to persons committed for trial, but he had a
doubt whether it did so apply--(Hear, hear). It was
no wonder, however, that the Country Magistrates
should have fallen into an error as to the meaning
of the Statute, since professional persons differed
about it. The 31st of George 111. enacted, that pri-
soners sent to County jails for trial, might be put to
work, in order that, as they were supported at the
expense of the County, they might contribute, as far
as possible, to lighten that expense by the produces
of their labours ; but these labours were merely to
pick cotton—no very hard work, it most be admit-
ted. As to Swindell, he was an active circulator of
these publications. An information er officio was
filed against him. No warrant of a Judge or a Ma-
gistrate was issued in consequence of it, but only a
subpoena, with the usual penalty of 1001. if he did
not appear. He was summoned for the 6th of June
—in thirteen days afterwards he did not appear, and
as a matter of course, an attachment was issued from
the Crown Office, upon which he was arrested by the
Sheriff. When arrested, he was told that the attach-
ment only compelled him to appear; that the mo•
ment he did so he would have gone quit, and that
no recognizances even would he demanded. He re-
, fused to appear ; he remained in custody ; it was
then offered him to have his appearance entered
gratis ; and at length he did appear, and he pleaded,
and the moment he did so he was discharged. No
rigour was used towards him. Nay, the law was
relaxed, that he might not be kept in custody—(hear,
hear). When he (the Attorney-General) received an
account that Swindell circulated these papers, he
declared he knew nothing of his house having been
entered on the 10th of March, or of the misfortnnes
under which he suffered—(Hear, hear). But it
should be recollected, that on that day the town of
Macclesfield was one scene of confusion ; and it was
with great difficulty the Magistrates were enabled to
keep the peace. It was entered, towards evening, by
one thousand persons from Manchester, and the Ma-
gistrates received accounts that some of those persons
were in Swindell's house, in consequence of which it
was entered. Some political papers, he believed,
were taken away. lie did not contend that this was
a legal act, but the Magistrates thought it their duty,
under the circumstances, to provide every security
for the public peace. As to Swindell's wife, she had
been in ill health for a long time before the 10th of
March, and the day after it she was employed at her
usual occupations. There were affidavits, stating
that neither one nor the other ever complained to
any person of any injury received on the night in
question. Swindell stated that he could not have
medical assistance for his wife. But there was, in
contradiction of that statement, the affidavit of a
Surgeon who attended her. Seeing, therefore, that
the facts of the several cases were so distorted, and
so amply contradicted, he did not think there was
any necessity for a Committee.
Sir S. ROMILLY thought the present a most im-
portant qrstion, for it involved the freedom of the
press, and the liberty of the subject. His view of
it differed widely from that of his Hon. and Learned
Friend, who appeared to him not to have touched at
all upon the principal points. Although he was in+
some measure accustomed to see questions of the
highest consideration passed over without discussion
by his Majesty's Ministers, yet he confessed he was
not prepared to see that upon which the House was
now engaged, just going to the division without a
single word from the other side, in justification of the
conduct of the country Magistrates—(No, no, from
the Miklisterial Benches.) Certainly the gallery was
nearly cleared, and the question was put, before his
Hon. and Learned Friend had risen. But the charge
contained in the Petition was not against the At-
torney-General. Nothing was to be complained of
on his part, except the removal of the trial by cer-
tiorari. Even to correct the mischief, which was
said to have been caused by these publications, a
speedy trial was necessary. But the main charge,
and the important question for the House to consider
was, whether it was or was not legal, that these in-
dividuals should have been put in irons?—(hear, hear)
That men charged only with a libel, should have
been committed to prison, and ironed, was a thing
so monstrous, that a few years ago, it would not have
been credited. Of the fact, however, there was no ,
doubt. It was sworn on one side, and not denied on
the other—(hear, hear). He agreed, that these pub-
lications were highly reprehensible; but he could not
admit, that they were blasphemous. To make use
of the form of a particular prayer, in order to express
ones detestation of certain corrupt practices, was
certainty very improper. But it was got a blasphemy.

This was an alms of words. it might have been
disrespect to the established religion ; it was net
blasphemy. He was surprised that the committregi
of men in irons, did not even strike his H0n0t,414
and Learned Friend as a novelty. It would at :,at
have had that effect upon him in the early par,
life, when he professed to entertain liberal prints*,
and opinions. When the individuals in t
asked the constables who apprehended them For avir
warrants, the latter produced handcuffs. which wee
soon turned into fetters, and thus ircac.l, they ...en
brought before the Magistrates. The, .1% ere
in an open cart—and they, let it be, remem!,e.a.
were men charged only vrith a libel. It should be
also remembered, that the opinions of mei arm,
very much as to what was, and was not a libeL The
respectful Petition of the Bishops, in the time
James 11. was considered by the Lau Officers Kite
Crown as a libel, and any publication might ke calks!
a blasphemy which gave offence to persons in prat-
-shear, hear). In what situatmu would the ii,n,e
place itself, if it passed over such a violation of the
liberty of the subject as this? Were men to be pm
in irons, because they were charged with
(Dear, heard

Mr. BLACKBURN begged the Honourable
Learned Gentleman's pardon, but he be:ie:-cd t::4
was contradicted. The Honourable Member •:
looked over the letter which he had before read, 4;4
at length read the folloising words--" They sec e
placed in a large room by d e f:rc siie, and securid
by a chain to their legs--(lfear, and lausikt)
Sir SAMUEL ROMILLY—" 1 am quite surethit
the letter stated, they were sent to the House die-
rection at Preston, " with the usual precaution.-

Mr. BLACKBURN—" I believe so." ( h „,ar
and laughter).
Sir SANIUEL ROMILLY—" That is just v'•,:4
stated--(/fear, hear, hear).-11:e usual precat!l,-1,
was, however, nothing mare or less thin iron
(hear, hear). It mattered very I:ttle, shether thr-
wete put by the fire tide or not. All idea ci tem.:4
was lost, when they we:.e in chains--threr, Lea
Then, as to the search for papers, the Alt,-,e -Ge-
neral said, he would nut undertake to inintaiii it ai
legal. Here all were agreed at lelst, and melt the
House could not pass it over, if they had 32.•;:e.
gard for the liberty of the subject, and the secUriti
of.property. In consequence of the circular let-
ter, warrants were issued—the house of one ci
these individuals was entered, and the constable tux{
away Rollin's Ancient History, Lee's Holy Ce
The Erangelical Magazine, and a LirereoJ Mc.--
eury—( Loud cries of hear, hear, sal lareter;—
It was often said, noseiter a sodis, and if in this cue
the libellous paper was among thee hooks, he did
not think it was much to their honour. 11 this search
was allowed, no man could hcredter write, like Al-
gernon Sydney, in his closet, upon political subjects
(hear, hear!) It was said that the statement or the
petitioners was contradicted; hut as much credit uas
due to one party, at least, as to the other. It sheiltl
be recollected, that one of the affidavits brou,At
against the petitions had the boldness to assert, that
neither Swindell or his wife ever complained to ary
one !—(hear, hear.) There was another pan of the
case in which great hardship had been practised. It
appeared, that the publication on which the prosecu-
tion was founded against Mellor was bought fr.=
him in February, and though the Quaver 5ft1407.1
was sitting, proceedings were not taken against h.m
till they were over, in order, as it would appear, coat
he might be kept a longer time in prison. With suck
facts as these cases contained, he could not think that
there would be any considerable number of Members
in that House who would say there was no pad
for inquiry.
Mr. B. BATHURST contended that the allegt•
dons in the Petitions were exaggerated, and tint
the different persons whose cases were before the
House, were sent to the House of Correction, in-
stead of a County prison, because such uas the prac-
tice in Lancashire, as a matter of convenience. UPI
the whole he, was of opinion, that no great hardship
had been suffered, and as all the circumstiaices sure
before the House, there was no necessity for the AF•
pointment of a Committee.
Mr. LOCKHART considered the explanation of
the Attorney Genesal as perfectly satisfactory, as far
time,
he he himself was concerned. But, at the same
he thought that the practice, which seemed to be
growing into general use, of putting mess into irocs
before trial, deserved the serious attention of the
could not oatsbiet
juwstasifiedagaibynstthetherel:nw
ceofotlit :onto:La:act
On these grounds he should vote for the inquiry. (hear.)
Mr. BENNET expressed a hope, that if the mock*
was negatived, the country would bear in mind, that
one of the last acts of this House of Commons watt*
refuse inquiry in a case of admitted oppression.
.
The House then divided—Ayes, l7—Noes, 75
Majority against the Motion, 56.
Mr. MARSH moved for the appointment of a Select Cap
mitt!! to inquire into the claims of certain creditors of the
bob of the Carnatie.
Mr. CANNING thought it highly improbable that
.sb?or
Gentlemen could go on advancing money to one of the Non
Princes in ignorance of the Act of 1797. He had no objectAi
to the appointment of the Committee, but wi.hed to guard lin -
self against any pledge as to the measure they might motional
After a few words from Mr. Gassy, Mr. Sericant Owste,,,
Mr. W. Salm, and Mr. ?ilia's, the plotion was agrod w,
and the Committee appointed.
The Saving Banks Bill was read a third time and prsol.
The Irish Assessed Taxes Bill and the Duke of heri s Ar-
nuity Bill went through the Committees, and the Report, were
ordered to be received to-morrow.
The Lottery Bill and the Irish Bank Restriction Bill were
read each a second time ; to be committed to.morrotv.
The other Orders of the Day were then disposed of, after
which the House adjourned at Two.% AJAX&

The following is an Abstract of the Bill intre-
duced by the LORD CHANCELLOR on Tuesday int'D
the House of Peers, intituled—" An Act to yarr
certain of the provisions of an Act passed in the 514
year of his Majesty's rein, intituled an Act to pro-
vide for the Administration of the Royal Authority,
and for the care of his Majesty's Royal Person dining
' the continuance of his Majesty's illness: and for the
resumption of the Exercise of the Royal Authority
by his Majesty :"
The first clause provides and enacts, that, as due attention!'
the care of her Majesty's health may require her occasioral -b.
sence from his Majesty's Ozer of residence, and as it is ear.
dient that at such times one or more Members of her :Maslen!'
Council should personally attend at the King's plAcr of reshiet:ots
her Most Excellent Majoaty may, by any insuument in writiv,
revocable at her will and pleasure, nominate and appoint '3`l.
tional Members for her Corinth a tlic (Arc of 131:

•
a
ditbeer, and the House wankd be counted out. Thi
was merely a trick to spin out the rest of the Session
Mr. BENNET said he was one of those who hat
voted for the production of the City Accounts; bu
• he had been betrayed into a vote. on grounds whirl
be had since found were not tenable. Neither of th
two Members for the City had stated what he consi
dered the strongest argument against the productio
of the Accounts. The Funds to which those Account
related were the private property of the City of Lon
don, and, with respect to them; they were account
able not to that House but to the Court of Chancel-,
There was not a Member of the• City of London bu
could go to the Court of Chancery for the purpos
of stopping any improper expenditure of.these fund:
In making this Order he considered the House t
have got into a scrape ; and it could only get out c
it by complying with the motion of the Honourabl
Baronet. If they went into a Committee up stairs
they would then see what the nature of the pro
;
pert was.
wzs.
r. Alderman WOOD said, when the Honourabl
,Member..fbr Surrey (Mr. H. Sumner) charged th
City of London with embezzling and misapplyini
53,0001. he supposed him to allude to the Bridg
House Estate. But he would maintain that then
was not- one penny of the funds of that Estate em
ployed by the City of London for its own purposes
The City had lent the money, indeed, to the Com
missioners of Sewers for the County to which chi
Honourable Member belonged, with his approbation
and when that money should be wanted it would b
repaid. The Honourable Alderman vindicated the
conduct of the City of London, which, in comini
forward for an additional grant of 54,000/. acte.
only agreeably to the wishes of a Committee of the
House, of which the Honourable Membei for Surre:
was a Member.
Mr. WYNNE supported the right of the House t
call for any accounts, provided a sufficient case wer
made out. But with respect to London, the origins
intention of calling for money 'had, he believed, bee
abandoned ; the right of the House was confined t
the necessity of the case, as it did not sit like th
Court of Chancery, to call for accounts, unless som
great instance of abuse were made out. He cor
cluled with a remark respecting the hearing c
Counsel, as made by the Right Hon. the Speaker, g
the commencement of the arguments.
The SPEAKER apprehended he had not bee
heard or understood by the Honourable Gentlema
in the few words he had offered ; he should thereto'
repeat them. The motion was for a Select Con
mittee to consider the Petition. The Petitions
prayed to be heard by Counsel ; and an Honourabl
Member had said he thought it best to refer the Pi
tition to a Committee, as being more convenient.-
. What he had said was, that he conceived that to it
precisely the place in which the prayer of the Petitic
mrs could not be complied with, as it would t
hearing Counsel in a Cenunittee against the Orden
of the House. lie did not mean that there was an
objection to the motion in point of term, as it wi
for the appointment of a Committee to consider th
Petition, Now such a Committee would be comps
tent to examine legal men, that they might have th
benefit of their information ; but they must examio
them as witnesses, and not as Counsel.
Mr. WYNN explained.
Some further conversation ensued between Messr
N. CALVERT, CALCRAFT, S. THORNTON, LAMI
BRAND,. and Sir J. GRAHAM. The result was, a ITr
tual unckrstanding to put an end to the business a:
together, instead of coming to a division.
Serjeant ONSLOW thea withdrew his motion ft
the previous question.
Sir WAL CURTIS withdrew his motion for th
appointmmt of a Committee on the Petition ; he the
moved, that the Bill before the House (for a grant c
54,0001. to finish the New Prison) be read a secon
• time this day six months ; and Mr. H. SuNturn move
the discharge of the Order for the production of th
Accounts ot the Corporation, all of which were agree
to. The general understanding seemed to be, that
the City declined to press for More money from th
public, the House had no right to make them prc
duce their accounts.
REFORM IN PARLIAMSNT.
Sir F. BURDETT presented twenty-three Petition
from various parts of the kingdom, praying for
Reform in Parliament ; which were read and ordere
to lie on the table.
Sir F. BURDETT then gave notice, that he shoul
shortly bring forward a motion on the subject of RI
form in Parliament.
new ASSESSMkNT ON WINDOWS.
Lord LASCELLES rose to call the attention c
1 the House to the very severe operation of the nei
assessment on windows, on tenements of poor countr
shopkeepers. By the new survey, under orders froi
the Tax Office, the whole shop, and the small tent
anent attached to it in various parts, had been rate
et the rack rent, and the assessment has been so cot
aiderably raised, that even the Commissioners of
tricts were of opinion relief ought to be granted, an
had sent to the Tax Office for instructions ; but tl
answer was that they could not grant relief. Ti
)
1 Commissioners bad desired to bave a Committee I
s the House to take into consideration the Assesse
Taxes, relating to shop windows ; and for this f
t • was about to move. It was also a grave subject •
complaint, and it appeared to him very extraord
nary, that the Crown Surveyors went about th
country, to the distance of SO miles in a district, c
idle reports of persons having more windows tha
they paid for, or renting houses cheaper than the
ought to bt, and assessing the tenants for the How
Tax at such a rent as they chose to-fix. Another con
plaint was, that children seen carrying a small pare
for their parents who kept shops, were put down an
charged as servants. He was aware that nothin
effectual could be dean this Session, but the appoin
meat of the Committee would be an earnest to th
public that their complaints would be inquired int
as soon as passible.
The motion was agreed to without any oppositiot
and the Committee appointed.
NZOOTIAMILS SECURITITS.
Sir S. ROMILLY, after a very few words on th
importance of the subject, obtained leave to bring i
a Bill to afford relief to bons fide holders of negocia
ble securities, without notice that they were given fo
usurious considerations.
RAPE sian.
Lord LASCFLIAES -wished to ask an Honourabl
• 4.,
A.O„.