Star.
London, England, 1818-03-18 00:00:00

PARLIAMENTARY PROCEEDINGS.
•
HOUSE OF LORDS, MARCH 17.
The Ropttlitent Commission to the Mutiny
Bill, •the.Musittylket Bill, the Royal Marine Mutiny
B 11, the Indemnity Bi , the est India Indemnity Bill, the
Office Indemnity Bill, the Madder Duties Bill, and others, in
all thirty-three.
The Commissioners vrcv the Loan Cmaxentos, the Earl of
Semereasear, and Lord Viscount Dlstvatx.
A private Bill was brought up from the House of Commons,
by Lord Laseguas and other Members, and mad a first time.
The Bath Gas Light Bill was, on the motion of the Earl of
ROSSLYN, read a second time, and ordered to be eonsnakted.
The Marquis of
BathsLANDOWN presented a Petition, nurrie.
musty laved, from ; and comprising, his Lordship stated,
the signatures of most of the respectable inhabitants in favour of
the Bill, which was ordered to be referred to the Committee.
His Lordship also presented a Petition from Malden, in
favour of the Chimney Sweepers' Regulation BM, which was
ordered to be referred to the Committee on that Bill.
The Scots Aqua Vitz Licenses Bill was read a third time
and passed.
The Greenland Fishery Oaths Bill was read a second time,
the commitment negatived, and the Bill ordered to be read a
third time to-morrow.—Adjourned till to-morrow (this day).
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
The SPEAKER communicated to the House that the Royal
Auent had been given to certain Bills (vide Lords).
Sir JAMES SHAW presented a Petition from the Debtors
confined in the New Prison in the City, prayin,g the extension
of the same privileges as to the day-rules, as were now enjoyed
by prisoners confined for debt in the King's Bench and Fleet.—
Ordered to be referred to the Committee on Prisons.
The Coal and Culm, and Irish Cork Duty Bills, were read a
first time, and ordered for second reading to-morrow.
The Report on the Longitude and Northern Passage Disco-
very Bill was brought up.—Ordered to be read a third time

to-morrow.
Mr. LAMBTON presented a Petition from the Inhabitant
of Newcastle-upon-Tyne, against Sinecures, Extravagant Pen-
sions, and in favour of Parliamentary Reform.—Ordered to lie
lin the table.
Mr. Alderman WOOD presented a Petition from Rochdale,
fur a Reform in Parliament, and the Impeachment of his
Majesty's Ministers.—Ordered to Ile on the table, and to be
Sir FRANCIS BURDETT presented Petitions from certain
It.habitants of St. Matthew's, Bethnal-green, Ashton-under-
Line, and about 20 other places, in favour of Parliamentary
Re.form.—Ordered to lie on the table.
Sir ROBERT HERON presented Petitions from the Cur-
rier& of Lowth and Gainsborough against the Leather Tax.
On the motion of Mr. Alderman ATKI NS, the House re-
solved into a Committee, to take into consideration the Petitions
. against Mock Auctions, when certain resolutions were agreed to.
The House resumed.
Mr. LYTTLETON wished to know from the Noble Secre-
tary at War, whether the Order which had recently been issued
relative to the Pensions of Officers' Widows, was put in force?
Lord PALMERSTON.—The Order alluded to has not yet
born circulated. It is nod under consideration.
Mr. LYTTLETON then said, that on Thursday, the ect of
April, he would submit to the House a motion relative to this
Order, if it was not revoked before that time.
Sir F. BURDETT gave notice, that soon after the holidays,
he would move that the Petition of Scholes, Lately presented,
should be referred to a Committee.
VISITING MAGISTRATES.
Lord FOLKESTONE observed, that pursuant to
his notice, he rose to move for leave to bring in a
Bill to remove certain doubts, supposed to exist, as
to the right of Magistrates to visit County or Sheriffs
Gaols, under the Act of the 31st of the present reign.
Whether, it was thought by some, that such a power,
should exist in the Magistracy—whether it was
thought, by others, that such power should not exist,
or whether it should exist in some cases, and not in
others ; all, he should suppc se, would agree as to the'
propriety of having the law on the subject clear and'
explicit, and no longer capable of doubtful or forced
interpretation. As the object of his motion was to
settle the question, he could not expect any opposi-
tion. Certainly the Bill which he would feel it his
duty to introduce, would give to the Magistracy of
the County the right to visit common gaols. But if
the Gentlemen opposite did not wish to afford that
right, or to limit its exercise in certain cases, it would
be open to them in the Committee to submit enact-
ments to those purposes. That doubts now existed
on the subject was undeniable, and his great object
was to put an end to them. The House had in its
recollection, that during the last Session, he had
submitted a Motion to its consideration, relative to
the refusal given to the .Magistrates of Bet kshire,
who wished to visit the Sheriff's gaol. .That motion
having been refused, he had preferred an indictment
against the Gaoler of Reading. The verdict of a
July had since acquitted him—(hear, hear.)—With
respect to that verdict, having himself attended most
minutely to the trial, he must say, that if the charge
of the Judge who presided, did not actually direct,
it bore so strong to the one side as to lead to that
verdict—Vicar, hear.)—He felt that he would not
have done his duty, if he had not complained of
what fully and solemnly struck him as the partiality
of the Judge, not a personal partiality, but a marked
partiality to one side of the question—(hear, hear.).
Ills impression of his conduct, he felt at the time—
he felt the stronger the more he considered it, as be-
ing demonstrated in the whole of the summing up.
Though it was a question, on each side of which, it
appeared to him, a great deal might be advanced—
though it was a subject the most removed from any
very decisive opinion, yet it was remarkable, that
the Learned Judge who tried it, who confessedly
had turned his attention to it, had consulted autho-
rities, yet could not find any one argument, but,
what bore on the one side. That he verily believed,
that on any question where the Government was the
one party, and himself the other, that he should not
stand a chance of a verdict—.(Hear, hear.)—The
Noble Lord proceeded to read the preamble and the
enacting clauses of the Act of the 31st of the pre-
sent Reign, and contended, that although a great
proportion of the clauses referred to the regulations
of Houses of Correction and Penitentiaries, yet some
of the clauses especially adverted to the regulation
of common prisons. There was one, for instance, to
regulate the fees of the gaolers of Sheriff's prisons.-
4Zhere was another on the question, which ordered
thbgaoler of common or Sheriff's prisons to make
certain returns to the Court of Assize of the state of
tl.e prison, which said returns were to be signed 11
one of the visiting Magistrates—(hear, hear.)—But
this Act of. the 31st did not apply to common or
Sheriff's gaols, why did the Legislature pass it? If
these prisons were excluded, the Act was wholly un-
necessary. By the 24th of George the Third, Houses
of Correction and other prisons of that character,
were open to the Visiting Magistrates—so that as ap-
plicable to them, it was not wanting—(hear, hear.)
The Noble Lord adverted to the proceedings at the
trial at Reading, and of the appearance of the Lieu-
tenant of the Tower, with his portmantua stuffed
with warrants, for the sole purpose of establishing
the interpretation to be put on the terms, safe and

close custody—(hear, hear.)—lle (Lord Folkestone)
denied the propriety of the interpretation that had
been put on these words, and instanced an Opinion
of Ind Chief-Jusice Coke to the contrary. In the
common acceptation of the English language, the
word close, did not bear the meaning of- solitary—
(hear, hear, hear.)—From the year 1791, when per-
sons awe imprisoned under the Suspension of the
Habeas Corpus, down to 1801—no interpreta-
tion was put upon it. The Visiting Magistrates had
always access, and indeed under the recent Suspen-
sion m various other counties, no such obstruction'
as was given to the Berkshire Magistrates, took plat..
( Hear, hear.)—But even if the usage had antiently
been different, as was endeavoured to be established
by the production of the warrants, at the trial, the
Statute of the 6th of William the Third, which
afforded access to the Counsel of prisoners detained
on charges of Treason, violated it. The Act of the
31st, the one now under consideration, violated that
usage still further, by extending the power of access
to the Visiting Magistrates--( hear, hear.)—The
House would feel that this Act was one of a series of
Laws introduced at a time when the attention of
Parliament was more directed, than it was hereto-
fore, to the correction of abuses in prisons. Should
it now deprive the Magistrates of the County of the
right of inspection over gaols, they would become
nurseries of crime and abuse--(Hear, hear.)—He
concluded with moving for leave to bring in a Bill,
to explain certain doubts as to the Statute of the 31st
of the King.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL expressed the asto-
nishment which he had felt at hearing the Noble
Lord in the f!ouse of Commons accuse, in plain
terms, the Learned Judge who had tried the cause
in question, of partiality. It was impossible that any
man, exeicising the functions of that high office in
the State, could have a more serious charge brought
against him, for it implied every thing that was base
and unworthy. If an individual who had sworn to
administer the law with strict impartiality lent him-
self to any purpose, political or otherwise, he did
that which ought to subject him to universal repro-
bation. Although he (the Attorney-General) was
not present at the trial, he had the most accurate in-
formation of all that had passed—of the patient
and laborious attention, without any interruption on
the part of the Judge, to the learned and inge-
nious, though fallacious statement of the Noble
Lord's Counsel, and to the evidence in every point
of the Noble Lord himself, (in which evidence there
were certainly very extraordinary parts, although he
had not the slightest idea of insinuating that they
were not founded in truth), as well as the patient
and laborious attention which he gave to the state-
ment on the part of the defendant. And this last he
supposed the Noble Lord would not deny, that the
Learned Judge was bound more especially to do,
when a man was charged with a crime (whether by
the Noble Lord or any one else) who had (he spoke
it parenthetically) been punished already on exparl,e
evidence, by the Magistrates of the county in which
he was faithfully discharging the duties of his sta-
tion. If ever there was an individual entitled to call
on a Learned Judge for protection from the preju-
dices excited against him, that was assuredly the
man. When, therefore, the Noble Lord vented a
charge of partiality against a Learned Judge, let
him not be quite sure that he hirhself, at two suc-
cessive Quarter Sessions, did not exhibit great bias,
partiality and prejudice; more especially when he
and the other Magistrates voted this person guilty
before he was tried—a person placed most un-
doubtedly in a situation of the greatest embarrass-
ment and difficulty, having the whole—no-, that
would be an unjust accusation against the Magis-'
tracy of Berkshire, but a large portion of the Magis-
trates of that county pressing him on one side, and
the orders of the Sheriffs and the directions of the Se-
cretary of State pressing him on the other—a person
too (he was sure there was no one who could con-
tradict the assertion), who, from the first moment of
Ibis appointment to the situation which he held, and
during the whole of his previous life, had borne the
highest character, and who, in the exercise of the
functions of his office, had never been exceeded by
any of his predecessors in his claims to the approba-
tion of his superiors, to the respect of his equals, and
to the gratitude of the unfortunate individuals who.
were committed to his custody. So far, however,
was the Learned Judge from having manifested any
partiality towards the defendant in this case, that if
he (the Attorney-General) might presume to furl
any fault with his conduct, it was, that he had not
stated the law quite so strongly against the prosecu-
tion, as, in his humble judgment, would have been
warranted. The House would suppose, from the
statement of the Noble Lord, that the question was,
whether or not the Magistrates (visiting or other)
had the right of entering the jail of Reading for the
purpose of visiting it? No such thing ;—The Noble
Lord himself had visited it ; and was told he might
visit it again. That, however, he himself said, was
not his object. His object was to see if he had a
right to hold communication with the State Priso-
ners confined there. Although he (the Attorney-
General) admitted, that the Statute of the 31st of
, the King was in some respects strongly constructed,
yet, in his humble opinion, there was not the slightest
doubt, that the clause in question had nothing like
the meaning attached to it by the Noble Lord; nor
was such a construction ever put upon it until the
Noble Lord's time. If, indeed, it was actually liable
I to such a construction, instead of opposing the Noble
Lord's motion, he should feel it his duty to move for
leave to bring in a Bill to 'repeal the Act. What!
was it possible to suppose, that this or any other
Statute gave to any and all the Magistrates the right
of entering the King's jails, and holding communi-
cation when and how they pleased with the priso-
ners confined in those jails on charges of High
Treason ! That all these common jails were the
King's, for the benefit of the State, was established,
or rather recognised (for the establishment was too
remote to be traced) by the earliest statutes. The
Sheriffs having been for a time dispossessed of their
ward of these jails, the statute of Edward 111. re-
stored things to their ancient footing. In the reign
of Henry VII. there was another statute of a similar
description, in *hid' those jails were expressly termed
" King's Jails." What evils might not result from
admitting the interpretation given by the Noble
Lord, to the statute of the 31st of the King ? There
had been, and there might again be, times of treason
and rebellion, in u-hicji, on the question of a disputed

succession, or on other topics, there might be a very
divided opinion among the better orders of the com-
munity. What would be the consequence if the
whole safety of the means which the law had pro-
vided for the custody of persons accused of High
Treason, were in such times to be beaten down,
because by the existing statute the Magistrates had
the power to visit the jails, in order to see that they
were in good repair and well conducted, and nothing
further, and by no means to bold such communications
as those to which the Noble Lord imagined they were
entitled ? The ancient warrants for commitment to
gaols, in the difference of terms which they exhibited,
proved the distinction between persons imprisoned
for other crimes, and persons imprisoned for High
Treason. In the one they were ordered to be kept
safe, in the other to be kept close. Even in modern
times, so lately as 1794 or 1796 (he did not remem-
ber which) a person was committed by the Court of
King's Bench on a charge of High Treason and other
offences, and the warrant directed that he should be
kept safe and close as to the treason with which he
was charged ; and as to the other matters with which
he was charged, that he should be kept safe. The
object of this close confinement was to cut off that
communication with others which might promote the
purposes of a conspiracy detrimental to -the State.
He (the Attorney-General) humbly contended—nay,
he confidently contended, that the Learned Judge
was perfectly right in • his construction of the law.
Were he not so, he repeated that the Statute ought
to be repealed. He had the highest respect for the
Magistracy of the country. He was perfectly aware
of the importance of their duties, and of the exem-
plary manner in which those duties were generally
discharged ; but to say that because a man happened
to be in the Commission of the Peace, he had there-
' fore a right to do that which would be destructive
of the rerogative of the Crown, and dangerous to
the safety of the State, was to advance a proposition'
which never ought to be, and he was persuaded never
would be, listened to by Parliament. The Noble
Lord said, that previous to the Statute of the 31st of
the King, there were Statutes empowering the Ma-
gistrates to go to the Jails. Yes, but for what pur-
pose ? One Statute gave the Magistrates the power
of whitewashing the Jails once a year. Another gave
them the power of repairing them, &c. But could
any man contend that such Statutes as these vested
in the Magistrates the power of destroying the pre-
rogative possessed by the Crown, of keeping priso-
ners charged with high treason in the way specified
in the warrants for their apprehension? He objected
to the Bill proposed by the Noble Lord on two
grounds. If it was meant to say that there were any
doubts as to the rights of the Magistrates to visit the
Jails for the limited purposes he bad described, he
denied that there was the slightest foundation for
those doubts ; and in that point of view, therefore,
the Bill was unnecessary. If it was intended to carry
the measure a jot further, and say that the Magis-
trates should be allowed to do what the Noble Lord
tried to do, he contended that the Bill would be most
detrimental. He wished to call to the Noble Lord's
recollection, that"the unfortunate defendant in the
cause, about which so much had been said (for un-
fortunate he must call him, standing in the predica-
ment in which he had been placed), had told the
Noble Lord, that if he would converse with the
pri-
soners in his presence, he would not refuse to allow
bim to do so. On this, however, the Noble Lord
himself called to that person's recollection the orders
he had received, not to admit the Magistrates gene-
rally ; and he then receded from his offer. Why did
he state this ? To spew that the Noble Lord's ob-
, ject (it might be a meritorious one in is ow opi-
' nion) was not to exercise the power which was actu-
ally vested in the Magistrates by the Statute of visit-
ineg the Jails, for the purposes therein distinctly sire-,
ciged ; but to assert the right of the Magistrates to
destroy the prerogative of the Crown to keep in safe
custody persons charged with high treason—to assert
the right of the Magistrates to access, intercourse,
and communication with persons so committed to
safe custody : a construction of the Statute of which,
until the Noble Lord fancied that it bore it, no one
had ever thought it capable, or at least had ever ac-
ted as if he thought so. On these grounds he felt it
his duty to give his decided vote against the motion.
Mr. STURGES BOURNE, after the able speech
of the Honourable and Learned Gentleman, would
not argue the law of the case ; but would confine
himself to the statement of a few facts. The Noble
Lord had told the House that he went to the jail at
Reading with a view to gain admission to the state
prisoners confined there, and that having been re-
fused admission, he indicted the jailer in conse-
quence. But the Noble Lord had not told the House
another circumstance, which, if true, was a most im-
portant
feature in the case. And here he would ob-,
serve, that that evening was the first time since he
had sat in that House that he had heard an attack
on a Learned Judge, not in the shape of a charge
which that Learned Judge could answer, but in a
speech which he could not answer, of the most serious
description, imputing to that Learned Judge direct and
gross partiality, nay, farther, declaring that if lie had
a cause in which Government were the other party, he
was convinced that, whatever might be the merits of
the case, the verdict would be given against him.
Now when such an accusation as this was preferred
against an individual filling so high an office in the
State, it was worth while to inquire whether or rot
the accuser himself stood on fair grounds. The Noble
Lord had not stated what he (Mr. S. Bourne) under-
stood had occurred, although he could not believe
it—namely, that at the Quarter Sessions fur Berk-
shire the Noble Lord persuaded the majority of the
Magistrates to punish a man first by turning him
out of the office which he held, and then to bring a
prosecution against him. Nor was that all. Ile lied
been told, that the Noble Lord and his associates
were not content with the usual publication o the
Resolutions of the Quarter Sessions, with the names
of the Magistrates passing them ; but, while the trlal
of the individual in question was pending, caused the
insertion of the Resolutions of the Magisxates of
Berkshire, pronouncing him. guilty of the charge on
which he was about to be tried, in the County News-
paper. Nor was that all. He had been told, that
to those Resolutions were attached, not only the
names of seventeen Magistrates who voted for them,
but the names of thirteen other Magistrates who
voted against them : and this he repeated, pending
the trial of the person charged. He hoped that the
Noble Lord would say that he had been raibiaformed,

I
f
E
I

On t
solved 1
• •Pinst
The
I -
Mr.
tary at
relative
Lon
born ci
Mr.
April,
Order,
Sir
he wol
should
Lo
•
his ni
i I I Bill t
II ' 1 to th'
Gaol
11, . Whe
shout
thoul
Or VIJ
! other
prop
; expli
inter
settle
tion.
duty
the 1
the I
right
be o
men
on ti
was
•
reco
• subr
the
who
havi
ag.ti
Ii Jut;
recp
min
of tl,
it b,
ver4
I, 1 hay
levb
of t
par
rhi
.. .
he I
ing
/\ , The
aPi
''.
i.. tho
ver
the
lea(
riti
wh
i I tha
OM
I ' sta
I N
I° en.
en.
i set
prl
Of
1 ' 1 of
f I
of
rel
`:i
, I tb
' cc
th
i !I S 0::
th
I
th
r... 1
of
I ll
VI I
pl
~ , ,t 11
i I , tri
i 1 tel
' i th
i
,•.,
1 - •,.,..
~.•.
1 ..
~• . P
4-