Star.
London, England, 1818-02-18 00:00:00

PETITIONS OF WARD AND-OTHERS.

Lord FOLKSTONE, on rising to make his pro-
mised motion, moved that the Petitions of F. Ward,
the Evanses, J. Stewart, J. Baguley, and others, al-
ready before the House, be entered as read, which
being done, the Noble Lord said, his motion would
be founded on all these Petitions, though he would
principally fix his observations to the first, which was
that of F. Ward, and he should conclude with mo-
ving, that this and any others of the same kind be
referred to a Committee. When the House had con-
sidered all the circumstances detailed in these Peti-
tions, he hoped they would pause before they would
grant a Bill of Indemnity to shield • those who had
been the authors of so much misfortune to indivi-
duals ; for, if he understood the Noble Lord oppo-
site on a former evening, the Bill of Indemnity
was said by him to be due by Parliament to the Mi-
nisters of the Crown, and was not intended to arise
out of the Report of the Secret Committee. But be-
fore the House granted a Bill of Indemnity to Mi-
nisters, it was necessary to see that the people had
not been damnified by their measures; and on this
ground it was, that he wished for a Committee to
examine into,the allegations in the Petitions. Within
the last 120 years the Habeas Corpus Act had been
suspended ten or twelve times, yet there was only
one precedent of a Bill of Indemnity, and this one
was of their own making ; for, although the same in-
dividuals did not occupy precisely the same situations
as they did then, yet they were the same persons who
were now about to apply for it; therefore they had
set the precedent. They acted wrong in the first in-
stance, and now they take their own conduct as a
precedent for acting so again. Last year the House
were told there were great tumults and an evil dis-
position through the country, and they were called
on to suspend the Habeas Corpus Act, and though
they were called on to prove the truth of their asser-
tions, they never did. The only instance of evils
arising from the proceedings of ill-disposed persons,
to make the suspension necessary, was the breaking-
out in Derbyshire. This was followed by the trials,
and some persons were convicted; but no other in-
stance to call for it had been pointed out. But it
was not so much to the nature of the Petitions, as the
manner in which the Ministers of the Crown had
exceeded their powers, that he wished to call the at-
tention of the House, for if they had not abused those
powers, they had no occasion to ask for a Bill of In-
demnity; and it was evident they had violated the
law in every respect. The suspension of the Habeas
Corpus Act gave them no new power to inflict pu-
nishment on the people; they were only to appre-
hend them under the warrants of the Secretary of
State, and to keep them in custody, if it were not
convenient immediately to bring them to trial. But
they might look in vain for any other power granted
to them under the suspension of the Habeas Corpus
Act. There were regular forms for taking up the
people ; they were not to be committed to gaol by
order of Ministers, and be told, there you may lay
as long as we like. There were regular forms of
commitment, as every Gentleman knew who was in
the Commission of the Peace. They knew the law,
and yet, it appeared, its forms had not been adhered
to. He should not dispute the power of the Secre-
tary of State to apprehend persons in such a way,
but he would say, that it was undoubtedly an usur-
pation—(hear, hear, hear,)—known only within these
one hundred and fifty fears, or from the time of
King William, when one of the Judges, on a parti-
cular occasion, said, that he conceived the Secretary
of State had the power to administer an oath, be-
cause he had the power of committing. It was an
undoubted usurpation, because before that period no
such power did exist. Then how had it arisen ? It
was a perfect anomaly in the Constitution, and ought
to be put an end to. He could not find any Statute
which detailed the particular forms to be gone
through before the Secretaty of. State, or that they
were different from the ordinary forms in cases of
felony and inferior offences. A Justice must, before
commitment, take an examination on oath, and trans-
mit it to the proper Court before which the offence
is to be tried, and the Secretary of State should be
I bound to take the same precaution, weft in a case of

treason, by which security is given that itsr,;,,,.
force or violence shall not be used. But now
peared such undue force had been used ; and tA
respect to the case of the Petition in question,
appear that the proceedings originated with the
gistrates of Nottingham, who began by searchixg
Petitioner's house, and refused to shew their war,•,,„
and that the man was soon afterwards carried',
Orford. He had been told that great exag
were contained in the Petitions ; and he unic,.;,.tit
possible there might be ; but he could not k{? •
serving, that the Secretary of State might gi!
order with respect to these people, to preve.o i 'sty
known how they were treated ; and he had cert,-'
done all he could to prevent the Magistrxtrt -1
seeing whether they were ill-used or not---(hec%

if they were put in irons, he had exceeded the
therefore these people might feel sore and ex pe :si;
chagrin. But they were certainly cundemnej

Secretary of State to solitary confinement-4....
which was beyond the power given him by t:,t.*
and which, in the opinion of many Gent/err
a punishment not inferior to death itseli. Trt
Lerd, to prove his argument, read a case 1%7.i
Journals of the House respecting Lord Castierl
who being committed to the Tower in 1669, ••,1
charge of high treason, and being a Member
House, demanded to be called on to make :;,

plaints. He was accordingly brought 2p. V
complained that he had been
.committed ti s:,E:z.,.
confinement, and desired to have hi: serv.zzi 6:it
him, and his liberty in the prison. Tne Horto
consequence, came to a series of resoh.:y.as,
itl:e
rw.
ing him his demands, and appointing z C...- 2.
to bring in a Bill for the better reg.....a.ic... :.-1
berty of the Subject. The Attorr.ty-(J,.7.rr.1
likewise ordered to prosecute P. 11;.'7: ... 7,-I.r.
Keeper of the Tower, for ill usage to cerui::•it,.
(hear, hear.) He hoped, therefore, t:'.c P.ct:ie. 7.
appoint a Committee to inquire into ...re abllsel:.
tioned in these Petitions. He should ;:se 1 .-...
from the Attorney-General what pc-ye:- ,r.
that could get these persons, once ccrnn.:te.L ,:-...
jail without trial? He believed there vszF r..- :
. . ..

on earth could do it without a violation of

or his Majesty's pardon. Their own rec,:
was an inferior sort of bail, and then it fol;,

this mode of getting them out was as
was unjust, by leaving them with a stigma on
character, which, if they had been
they would not have sustained. High tit 7
the only offence which the law declared

be bailed; therefore, if it were true that th... :,.
were committed on suspicion of that c1i.7... :
were not capable of being let out on bail c.,f am
and thus they must have been set free cuntrer
law. The Noble Lord repeated his arguments.'
no new power had been given to llin,t,.:s or
Suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act, _lra/ c--...:....
ded, that if a man had been kept in prise'

a 1 1.441

year, as be might have been in 11 esunoT!.ir.; tf
being committed just after the Assizes
and then turned out, he would, on bring:-4:
tion, and not being able to prove the fa's.
costs to pay, and get no remedy. iv:r
nity of defending himself. The
ought to take the subject seriously up. z 7.2 ^.
over such violations of the liberty of r.'.e
had been complained of, that all if..

7eaact

the Secretary of State had been directed viimst pas
friendless people, and sot against gentler-en-ye
made speeches ; but he thought the
tlesnan would now see why :Ministers had mini
their measures to such people—it was is
wanted victims—(hear, hear.) But if they !!...
ted their efforts against Gentlemen sv':lo
the law, they would not have submitted to

out in thissOrt of way, but would have
noise ; while the poor people, it might ensi::
posed, would be glad to get their liber.y z
terms. He hoped the House would entertain
don, that the petitioners might be able to
themselves; and he wished that inquiry mil*.
made into the character of F. Ward, that it
inferred what reliance might be placed on hii
gations. He knew that the doctrine of cons.an
men innocent till they were found guilty. hai -.1
been exploded in that House. The Habeas Cc
Act had been suspended in March ; but he ra
contend that it was improper to take ep pez,pi
this manner, unless something more was agairtql
than mere suspicion. But this very dangerou,
had not been taken up by a warrant from the
tary of State ; and if he should turn cut to be
character, he had, according to our ;axis,
right to justice as if he were a good one. 0:.!
whole, he thought it absolutely necessary that:
House should inquire into the allegatioric d te.li I
titian, particularly as to the mode in which vyr...:
had been treated and discharged. He sl.c.:a
fore move " that a Committee be appciii:ea cs

mine into the truth of the allegations cont.i.sei
Petition, and report their opinion thereon.-

Lord CASTI2EREAGH. said, on riFing r 7110
some observations on the motion of the NJ!,:eI.A
he must first ask whether this motion were cot, :s
with the notice he had given t7i the Rau.c ! As A
understood the Noble Lord, he said it \re: A 5e
petent to him, if the House granted him t1...e Itc-."1
to inquire into the L,.zgations cf that Pe...Acr. 0
he did distinctly understand him to near. ~et*:•-1
the case of Ward. But though he !-.ad a::::,:J 0
course, by taking all the Petitions f,;r his ...--.:.si.:i.
not follow that he (Lord Castlereagh) s:T.:.:1,11
his-intention of offering some obscrva...tris
case of Ward; nor should he hesitate tc cpr
motion of the Noble Lord on the subject t.:::',:/'
sent Petition, as he should distinctly and s,-.:•:=.*
on all the others. As to the Bill of IndAr.r.:.
though the Noble Lord had attached Frmt.: -
gently to this subject, he had not been acc.:;,
his researches ; for he had stated that c:-I.: c•:",
cedent existed, which was made by the pe:9;--.1
in Parliament, for their own protection. 1'.:e...'
Lord must allow him to set him right. 'e:...:'
should do by stating the converse of his prop ,:',
But he apprehended he should be much more co!
if he called on the Noble Lord to shew itn: ,-.:1
case of the Suspension of the Habeas Corplis •I'•

which there w-as not a Bill of Indemnit-.
would refer back to King William's time, he
find that there were then passed no less thal
Bills of Ir.deninity. He %%add find also
were passed in the rebellions of 1715 and
in short, that they invariably followed even Nr
tii%)ll of the ll4beas Coipus Act.-(ilr3r,

all those cases where the mischiefs to be provided
minst had led to the nesessity of putting extraordi-
-4.F powers into the hands of the Ministers of the
rown, for the protection of the country and the
biect. But did the Noble Lord suppose that his
isiesty's Ministers wanted a Bill of Indemnity for
lying exercised those powers ? This, he would tell
e House, was in no degree the situation of Mini-
. The case was, that they had been entrusted
the greatest powers that ever could be imposed
hem, that of interposing to issue State warrants
apprehending persons suspected of Treason, and
Bench was bound to take notice of the proceed-
,. and to stand between the prisoners 'and the
y. But he protested against its being believed'
Ministers had committed any arbitrary acts.—
nild positively deny that they had committed
aduals to custody without satisfying themselves
oath of the circumstances which rendered their
:tsion justifiable--(Hear, hear). He would
deny that any person had been committed on
evidence of the person who had made so much
•in that House, or that his Noble Friend (the
.tary of State) had done any thing except under
advice of the Law Officers of the Crown—(hear).
to the Suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act, the
• had, by a great majority, recognised the mea-
and had thereby imposed on Ministers the task
• had fulfilled ; and they would have been trai-
to their trust and to their country, if they had
tated to put the law in force. The measure was
to in consequence of the unanimous opinion
two Secret Committees ; and the Noble Lord
allow him to say, that there was not among
Members of those Committees one dissentient
as to there being a bold and organised conspi-
for the purpose of overthrowing both Church
State; and that these conspiracies were basely
ied on the distresses of the people, for the pur-

of directing physical force against the Constitu-
and the Country—(hear, hear). This was the
md, therefore, on which he would argue the ne-
itv of the measures that had been resorted to.—
would go along with the Noble Lord in asserting
all the substantial forms of law had been adher-
to ; and he would say, that if they had not been
ided to, they would not have been defended as
had been. But did the Noble Lord mean to

that such persons were to be placed in the same
inn as if no such Bill had been in operation ;

where there was evidence, that there should be
doubt whether it was to be considered or not?
the Secretary of State were bound to give up to
Leh all the evidence on which he had commit-
such persons to prison, the House must feel in
t a perilous situation the country would be placed.
would put a case. Suppose the Secretary of
had received information of a plot of an alarm-
,;ion, on condition only that nothing should
them to give up the names of the persons who
communicated the information, and that they
nevertheless to be brought into a Court of Jus-
Was he to be prevented from issuing his war-
? And if it were not only necessary, but his
den duty to do it, was he afterwards to be corn-
to justify in a Court of Law the evidence on
the apprehension had taken place ? It was,

alw-ays necessary to put between him' and
ich of duty to individuals, a Bill of Indem-
Such a Bill had always been wanted, or how
11 it be possible for the Ministers of the Crown
' means of protecting the country, if they were
ung forward, in their own defence, the evidence
whiLlt they had acted ? It was, therefore, not a
for protecting Ministers, but one for protecting
lives and persons of individuals who had come
'rd and given information upon oath, on coddi-
that their names should not be disclosed.--

then, these individuals must be protected,
:h protection was of such importance m the!!
that without it they would not have given their
or the Ministers of the Crown must be
, not to punish them for their own misdeeds,
for refusing to give up those who had enabled
to detect the conspirators. He therefore const-
, the B;11 not to favour Ministers, but to protect
who had served the country, and had thereby
their own lives in jeopardy. And now, with
Terence to the Noble Lord, he should protest
. the Committee of Inquiry, for their powers
not competent to bring charges, and the indtvr-
, to be examined could not be upon oath, and
would expose the Committee to the difficulty of
'ving verbal evidence from all the persons, on
no proceeding could be founded. As to the
sips those persons had undergone, he should
the allegations a direct denial ; though he ap-
there would be nothing in the Bill of
In-
to prevent any individual from bringing his
before a Jury—(Hcar, hear).—The Suspension
the Habeas Corpus did not authorize any power
severity ; and with respect to all that class of
Taints that related to imprisonment and hard-
he wished it to be understood, that there was
necessity for any inquiry by the House, for the',
its of Justice were completely open to the corn-
ssnts. But this had long been the fertile source'
declamation and misrepresentation, both in that
'se and. out of it. There had been affecting re-
-,tions of persons immured in dungeons, and
Gentlemen went to examine these dungeons,
found them such comfortable rooms as even the
.e Lord himself; if he were obliged to be con-
could not reasonably object to--(lAnghter)--
:,.crefore, the issue of the question of hard treat-
'ere to be tried at all, it ought not to be tried
Eat Haute, which should neither waste its time
degrade its functions by such an inquiry ; for
t ;node, after all, could they adopt, on hearing
1e evidence, but to advise the parties to bring
ase into some other Court ? But a Bill of In-
any had never been heard of in which the House
rot been approached with Petitions as bold in
r language, and as full of unjust complaints, as
present, though the Gentlemen on the opposite
were ready to vouch for what they believed to
'e truth of their contents--(//ear, hear, hear)_.
that did not induce the House to swerve from
duty on those occasions, nor would it on the
\ith respect to F. Ward, he would say,
never was a more flagrant instance of mis.'
delation than the statements, in his Petition of
part of his case. The Noble Lord had said the
endings against him had been wrong, by his be-
attacked by the Magistrates. It was true that
leer =t was by the '.l.lagistrates, but aot on

. .
• grounds sof high treason. He 'MB stetted on Oath
of being engaged in the Luddite system in. 181.6, and
' a very feat ta-ys after he wat confined at Nottingham
the warrant arrived to apprehend him lot high trea‘
son. He complained of being confined in the same
morn with felons, when sent to prison a felon himself.
Here the Noble Lord read an affidavit from the Jai-
lor of Nottingham, Philip Bailey, who stated that the
cell in which Wil-1 was confined was one of the best
in the prison—it had bed in it, a stone floor, and
arched roof—the walls were dry, and the smell of
which the petitioner complained arose from the fumi-
gation of the prison. Ward never made a complaint
to the deponent, and apparently was not injured in
his health—that no irons had been put on him.' He
was shortly after removed to Oxford. To shew the
temper in which the Petitions were presented, he
should mention, that when he was at Oxford, Ward
wrote to the Secretary of State to desire some changes
to be made in his treatment, which were all granted,
and he had written to Lord Sidmouth to express his
gratitude. On the Ist of August, this person, in a
letter which he wrote to his wife, complained that he
suffered from being deprived the benefit of divine wor-
ship. Lord Sidmouth wrote to the jailer to know the rea-
son of this, who answered, that they had never de-
sired to go to the Chapel, otherwise he would have
taken them (the State prisoners) into his own seat.—
He had also the affidavits of Lavender and other
Officers, who accompanied the petitioner to Oxford,
that he never made any complaint to them. It was
disagreeable to him to bring up private characters;
hut he could not suffer the House to be trifled with,
day after day, that these were men of irreproachable
conduct. The Petitioner had described himself as a
man who acted according to the rule laid down by
linos Ctiatsr—to do unto others as he should wish
to be done unto ; and also as a man possessed of all
the finer feelings.. The confessions, however, of two
who were executed at Leicesterrafor frame-
breaking at Loughborough, where two or three men
were murdered, shewed that Ward urged them to
go on that expedition, as there would be a deal of
money got, for the Loughborugh men would give
100/. to have the factory burnt and Heathcote shot.
Ward paid Mitchell (one of the unfortunate men who
were hanged) 51- about a week after the mill was
burnt down. Ward was Treasurer of the Luddite
Committee. The House might think it fabulous that
men should be paid for assassination ; but it was re-
gulated as systematically as if they had been fixing
the price of stockings. Ward, according to this man's
confession, offered 101. for murdering a laceman in
Nottingham, and 51. for shooting his man. Ward
also wished to have the Judge murdered at Leicester,
and a number of persons were hired for that purpose.
The deposition of a man named Thomas Savage,
who was also executed, corroborated the confession
of Mitchell as to the active exertions of Ward in the
depredations and excesses committed by the Luddites.
He (Lord Castlereagh) trusted the House could no
longer e nertain any rational doubt as to the true
character of Ward, from the dying confession of his
associates. Whether Government had any evidence
to put Ward on his trial or not, was not now the
question. Ward was apprehended on a charge of
high treason, on the oaths of three or four credible
persons. He trusted he had said enough to prevent
the House frombeing run away with by Mr. Ward's
ex-park statement as to his moral character ; and he
hoped he had shewn the-necessity of arming the Go-
vernment with extraordinary powers. He trusted,
too, that the Report of the Committee would shew
that Government had exercised no unnecessary rigour
on any individual who had been confined under the
Suspension Act. If they deprived Government of
the means of obtaining secret information, conspira-
tors would not come forwar I, fot fear of their lives;
especially when, as he had shewn, assassination was
as well organized, and paid for, as any branch of
ordinary labour.
Mr. JOHN SMITH said, that if the Noble Lord's
motion had been confined to Ward's case alone, he
would have opposed it. He had detected falsehoods
in Ward's Petition, and therefore had a right to sus-
pect the whole of it. He appealed to Government,
whether any Magistrates had done their duty with
less rigour than those of Nottingham ? Ward's house
was searched for arms, in consequence of an infor-
mation, on oath, that arms were concealed there.—
The Magistrates had also information that Ward was
perhaps the instigator of that horrible murder at
Loughborough. Mitchel gave the same information
to a Professional Man previous to his trial, as was
contained in his dying confession. But although
Ward was an unworthy man, that was not to induce
him to refuse redress to others. He could not help
suspecting that there had been some undue severity
exercised towards those who were confined under the
Suspension Act. He was astonished that nothing
had been done to bring Oliver to punishment.
Mr. GOLDING defended the conduct of the
Gaoler of Reading as to the treatment of the State
Prisoners in that gaol ; and read a letter from the
Gaoler, shewing that he afforded them comfortable
rooms to sleep in, with fire places, and good feather-
beds and bedding complete. Two of those men,
Sellers and Hulton, had joined in a letter to the Ma-
gistrates of Berkshire, in praise of the conduct of
Eastaff, the gaoler ; but Knight, the third prisoner,
did not.

Sir W. LEMON said, there was not a man, whom
he should less suspect of undue severity than the
Home Secretary ; but he had a paramount duty to
perform, which was to afford the Petitioners every
proper redress.
Mr. GORDON defended the conduct of the gaoler
of Gloucester, who had been complained of in Bagu-
ley's Petition. So far was he from having been put
into a cistern of cold water, he was directed to go
into a warm bath to refresh him after travelling from
London. He was allowed one guinea a week for pro-
visions had a good bed, and was allowed to walk
out every day in the yard. But for all this the gaoler
was anxious for investigation ; and indeed, if all the
Petitions were false, that could be no reason for pre-
venting investigation--(a laugh).
Sir W. GUISE also bore testimony to the kind treat-
ment Baguley received from the Gaoler of Gloucester.
Sir FRANCIS BURDETT said, that he did not
pretend to have a mind so unbiassed upon subjects of
this nature as the Gentlemen who preceded him in
the debate ; for he could not forget, at the time when
he moved for an inquiry into the condu6t of the Jai-
-1 for of Coldbathfields prison, how ready several Mem-
bers of that House were to bear testimony to his good

itOaduct, and to 'Produce statements and documents of
the same description with those which had been
quoted to-night. He had said upon that occasion,
that he was prepared with evidence to prove the facts
which he alleged; but a *umber of Gentlemen, who
he had no doubt were imposed upon, rose in defence
of Governor Aris, represented him as a model of hu-
manity—as a person in whom the milk of human
kindnesi abounded to an extent almost approaching
to weakness. He particularly remembered that the
Honourable Member for York had spoken in this
strain of panegyric ; he had represented him as a man
almost too goad for his situation. But what was the
fact with respect to his conduct ? that story, which
Ras only to be paralleled by the story of the prisoner
confined in the Bastile, was connected with his name.
The unfortunate person in the Bastile, suffering ender
the miseries of solitary confinement, had attached
himself to a loathiome bloated animal, a spider, and.
when deprived by the gaoler of that his only com-
panion, was represented to have felt as if he had lost
his dearest friend. The person so eulogised had acted
in the same way. This prisoner was also kept in
solitary confinement. He Sir Francis) should re-
peat a circumstance he had before mentioned in that
House. A poor bird, a robin, which fled by acci-
dent into the window of the prisoner, was his only
companion—he fed it—he amused himself with it—
he became attached to it—but Gosernor Aris coming
one day into his cell, seised the bird, and crushed at
lin his hand. He (Sir Francis) well recollected at that
moment what agony the prisoner expressed on de-
scribing this circumstance. Such was the conduct
adopted by the humane Mr. Aris, the worthy Gover-
nor of Cold Bath-fields Prison, who had so many
and such respectable vouchers for the purity and ten-
dernessof his disposition, and whose fault was stated
to be that of relaxing the rules of the prison, instead
of resorting to any unnecessary rigour----(hear, hear.)
He mentioned this to thew why he was not convinced
by the statements that were now made, when there was
so much room for deception, and when solitary confine-
ment was become so general throughout the country.
The Member for Nottingham (Mr. J. Smith) must
excuse him for saying that all his observations re-
specting Mr. Ward's character had nothing to do
with the question. Mr. Ward might be a very bad
man, he might'be any thing he pleased to represent
him, the murderer who committed the late atrocious
act at Greenwich if he pleased, but the only ques-
tion now was, whether he was legally committed
for High Treason?—(hear.) What could be more
absurd than to say, that the House would not even
inquire into such grievances as were complained of?
(Hear, hear.) The Noble Lord (Castlereagh) had said
so little on the real subject, that little could he said
in reply to him. He did not think. it at all neces-
sary to grapple with the legal part of the question—
no, there he was to be secured by a Bill of Indem-
• ; but he had represented it as a waste of the
time of the House to appoint a Committee of In-
quiry upon these Petitions.. It was not so under all
circumstances ; for when the same Noble Lord was
anxious to protect Jailers and their Officers—when
he was anxious to guard his own conduct, it was'
then no waste of the time of the Noose to appoint a
Committee—(leer, hear.) The Petitioners were said
to have acknowledged that the jaolers behaved welL
That might possibly have been the case; but the Noble
'Lord should have recollected the words of the rat

" &Idotn is steel or gaoler the friend of man!"
Abuses might arise under the authority of such per-
sons; they were stated to have arisen. If the Noble
Lord was ignorant of them, the more was his shame,
and the greater the call for investigation. The maxim
Qusfacit per alias facit per se"—was founded in
our Constitution. But, whether it was or not, the
Noble Lord's character had been made use of in
passing the Bills which invested him with such ex-
traordinary power ; and was it fair to withdraw it
now, when the acts which had taken place wider
their operation came to be considered ? (Hear, hear,
hear.)—lt was stated that the gaolers had used iron
bolts in cases where they were unnecessary, when
persons were confined in these infernal solitary cells,
from which escape was impossible. He should like
to know, was that the fact?—(Hear.) It was stated
that a man of the name of Ogden, aged 74, was
loaded with irons, so heavy as to cause a fracture—
he wished to know if that was true?—(Hear.) It was
also stated that two men were chained together in
the same bed ; were those correct representations ?
The statements of Gentlemen that such or such a
gaoler was a humane individual, would not satisfy
the country, as an answer to such charges—(hear).—
The assertion that it was a warm bath, instead of a
cold bath, was not a satisfactory reply to cases of
such a nature as were imputed to the agents of Go-
vernment. His Honourable Friend behind him had
said the gaoler thought the bath was comfortable,
but the man who was placed in it differed from him
in opinion, and thought it was not so. Was this an
answer to his complaint ? He was glad to find it
acknowledged that the gaolers in general acted with
humanity towards the prisoners. The Noble Lord
had said that there was no truth in the Petitions,
and had expressed a hope that the House would be
of the same opinion ; but he (Sir F. Burdett) would
call upon the House to recollect how the Ministers
had paraded their responsibility at the time when the
Habea! Corpus Act was about to be suspended—(hear.)
He would ask them to recollect how unwilling the''
Noble Lord declared himself to be to undertake the
serious charge, which, however, he was induced to'
do for the good of the country—( Near, heart .--When
the dangerous consequences of such powers were in-
sisted on, the answer was, that the character of Lord
Sidmouth rendered those fears unnecessary. All that
might be very true, but it should be carried to the
proof. Those men were taken up for breaking the
law ; they said they were anxious for inquiry—inno-
cence was naturally anxious for inquiry—(/fear).—
The jailers themselves were said to be anxious for in-
quiry—but the Ministers were above it. They who
should be the most anxious for inquiry, disdained to
submit. Such was the principle of our now consti-
tution
as developed by the Noble Lord. 'Abe Noble
Lord was a Proteus in argument. 11'hen he wanted
a Bill of Indemnity, there was nothing like a Com-
mittee of Secrecy—a Committee appointed by him-
self—(hear, hear, hear).—But when another Commit-
, tee was required for a different purpose, from which
Flacemen and Pensioners were, he hoped, to be ex-
. eluded, it was then beneath the dignity of Parlia-
. meat to inquire. The Noble Lord had said he did
not wait a bill of Indemnity. No, he wanted it for

Mr.. Oliver—for his Spies and IntorMets. U'hat was
it possible-that in England, when a man was accu•
ard, he should not know who was his accuser? When
Gentlemen voted such a dreadful power, they were
bound for their own sakes to take care how it was
used. • He hoped the Noble Lord would not quash
the inquiry in the way attempted. He quoted Magna
Charta and the Petition of Right, and concluded with
observing, that if their provisions were to be sus•
pended, he would rather such a power was vested
exclusively in the Crown, than that it should be ev
ercised by the Representativei of the People, to whom
alone they could apply for
Mr. WILBERFORCE acknowledged having re.
presented Mr. Ails as a man of humanity, and gave,
as his authority, Mr. Owen, the Chaplain-General.--
He hoped the Honourable-Baronet would deal as
candidly with him, and give his authority' for the
story of the bird. There were, he confessed, some
money transactions in which Mr. Aria wet concerned
which justified his removal, but he did not recollect
that any act was proved against him which amount-
ed to an impeachment of his humanity. With regard,
to the question, he observed that it was not upon all
cases that they should enter into inquiry, and he
submitted whether there could be a stronger pre•
sumption against any cases than those which were
just stated to the House? If there were any thing in
'any of the cases that required investigation, their
supporters could not adopt a worse mode than by
coupling them with others for which. there was no
foundation. Let Gentlemen of character inquire into
their merits, and if they would state on their own
responsibility that they were Important, the House
would no doubt feel disposed to entertain them.
Sir FRANCIS BURDETT, in explanation, said,
that the story of the bird originated with Mr.
berforce Bird.

Sir SAMUEL ROMILLY said, that though Bills
of Indemnity were passed before in such cases, they
never wire passed orr the mere report of a Commit-
lee. They were bound to inquire whether the alle-
gations of the Petitions were founded in fact. The
Noble Lord had said, that an Act of Indemnity would
not protect persons who had conirnitted abuses under
the Act ; but he had alluded to the Bill of 1801,
which was taken as the precedent for this; and that
Bill' provided, that all personal actions brought
against individuals, for offences of such a nature,
should be discharged and made void. The Learned
Gentleman expressed his surprise that those who
were acquainted with this Act, which was to be taken
as a precedent; could still assert that actions could
be maintained against the jailors and others com-
plained of by the Petitioners. He did not mean to say
that some acts described by The Petitioners were ille-
gal, although they were grossly unjust and inhuman,'
for certain Statutes legalized solitary imprisonment.
But who could justify, upon any principle, the trans-
fer of a prisoner from one prison to another without
any appearance of necessity. The Noble Lord (Cas-
tlereagh) had, it appeared, made 'some preparation
to meet the debate of this evening, but his prepara•
non was evidently imperfect, for the Noble Lord's
statements applied only to two or three cases, while
it was known that there werenoless than eleven Pe-
titions before the House. But surely it wouldisot be
admitted that the falsification of the statements of
these Petitioners should exclude the others from the
firtt tcrelatm theuttenticnfof the House. Bach a
doctrine would not, he presumed to think, be main-
tained by any just or rational man. For instance,
why should the fallacy of other Petitioners be allow-
ed to prejudice the case of that poor man Ogden,
upon whose hands, at the advanced age of seventy-
four years, 301 b. weiglir of iron were placed, while
he was suffering from a rupture, as appeared from
the statement of the humane surgeon of the prison.—
Any proof of the falsehood of other Petitioners would
not, he wished to believe, persuade the House to re-
ject the consideration of such an extraordinary in-
stance of:cruelty. But there were other cases, parti-
cularly thosil•frith regard to the sufferings at. the
prisons of Gloucester and Lincoln, which were not
at all impeached by the statement of the Noble Lord,
who seetned to'have made his arrangements to meet
the case of- Wafd.' alone. The Noble Lord's mode,
however, of Meeting that case was not such as could
avail in any Court of Justice. For in what Court
would it avail for the acquittal of the accused, that
he himself denied the truth of the accusation.? . Yet
such was the meaning of the argument adduced by
the Noble Lord and' others,- Who had supported his
cause in the course of the evening. His Learned
Friend (Mr. Wilberforce) had alluded to the conduct
of Aris in such terms as clearly shewed that he (Mr.
Wilberforce) was very much imposbd upon with
respect to that Gaoler ; and when an intelligent
mind was thus deluded, such delusion furnished a
strong argument to justify doubt •as to the state-
ments of Gaolers, and to warrant the proposition
for inquiry into the case before the House. His
Honourable Friend had observed, that if a Member
of that House should himself inquire into the alleged
misconduct of a gaol, he would think any statement
with regard to such misconduct entitled to attention.
Yet when his Noble Friend, who brought forward
the present motion, submitted a motion for inquiry,
with respect to the conduct of Reading Jail, into
which his Noble Friend had himself particularly en-
quired, the Honourable Gentleman had thought pro-
per to vote against it—(hear, hear, hear.) But he
hoped his Honourable Friend would feel the pro-
priety of retreading his steps, and accede to the peri
sent motion, which proposed only to inquire•into the
grOunds of the Petition. Ile could not, indeed, sup-
pose it rational to resist inquiry upon such an oc-
casion, or to maintain that, because a Member of
that House could not be found to vouch for the truth
and accuracy of every statement contained in the pe-
tition, the Petitioner should, therefore, be refused
the opportunity of proving his case. If the Petitioner
were guilty of the charge fur which he was impri-
soned, why, he would ask, was that Petitioner net
brought to trial ; and when he complained of prose-
cution in his prison, upon what ground should his
complaint be rejected, because the person upon ”horn
he charged the prosecution denied its truth—or
why should the Petitioner be wholly discredited,
while his jailer was implicitly believed ?—(hear.)
But according to the Noble Lord true-, it was un-
worthy of that House, and degrading to its func-
tions, to enquire into cases ct this nature. What,
was it unbecoming the duty and dignity of that House
to moire into the most serious elnr:Tes of ininstice
and cruslty ? (1/(:,, He' believed that tht:

Inc
the grea
them, tl
apprehent
Bench w,
s. and tc
u.ntry. Bu
t ginister,
e would pa
.•viduals tc
oath of I
prehension
.• deny th
evidence
•ise in that
rotary of
e advice of
to the Su
ouse had, I
re, and ha
•v had ful
s to their
itated to
.orted to i
two Seci
d allow
Member
sce as to t
v for the
d State ;
nded on I
of dire(
and th
und, the
.situ of th
would g
t all the
to ; and ;
ended to,
yr had bec
, that suc
tinn as
• where ti
doubt v
the Secret
Bench all
such pers
at a penlo
would j
e had rec
• descriptic
ce them
commui
neverthi
Was hi
:? And
Iden duty
led to justi
ch the al
ore, al,
breach of
Such
.d it be y
ind means
bring fora
which the
I for prote
lives and
and and
that th
er, then,
ich protei
that wi
iation,
sed, not
for refus
to dete
the B'
who h;
ced their
deference
• t the
not co
•is to be
would
*ving v
ch no
dships
I the all
• ended
nity to
• before
• the Habl
severity
plaints
ps, he w
necessit
• ..rts of .1
inants.
declama
use and
sentatior
Gent
!found
Lord
r d, couli
g t'u7efor
g 'ere
..at Hor
degraE
t mode
e evid
° case it
'47 ha,
rat be
y r iangm
present,
were
e truth
1 that di
duty c
• t. v
a there n
tati
•, part
eedings
ttackec
V Lim arr