Star.
London, England, 1819-12-23 00:00:00

be had inquired and found to be good, nothing dis 4
creditable having been imputed to him, • but by a
convict, who wanted to remain in the country, and
who offered testimony with the expectation of a free
pardon.. and who was sent to .entrap him. He (Mr.
Bennet) well knew the system of spies and informers
• which was acted upon in the County of Lancaster,
And hcw its operations were involved, wheel within
wheel, to the great danger and annoyance of the
subject. He had the letter of the physician who
had seen Chadwick, the man said to be murdered,
and it proved that there was no murder committed,
Tor, indeed, any accusation of the kind made but by
the wile of the deceased, who was in a state of appa-
rent insanity, and who afterwards destroyed herself,
appeared that the man, even then, who was
said to have struck Chadwick, was one Richard
Gough. Lever was not meant. ' The physician.
had been told that the deceased bad received some
Wows, but he found that the report -was • with-
out foundation. He (Chadwick) bad said, that he
bad received some abuse at an alehouse; but it ap-
peared that what he meant-by abuse was only bad
language. itut the wife would not giveitp the idea
which .had first possessed her mind. Many witnesses
proved that no blew. had been struck, aud,_ besides
the testimony of.the physician, tire evidence ought to
hare satisfied any oste who was not influenced by
other motives than the prosecution of justice. He
had reason to believe that Chadwick's son was not
• bound over to prosecute, and that no bill for murder
was preferred by the Grand Jury. The Petitioner,
however, was •sent to jail, and not one of the forty
.witnesses who appeated on the Coroner's Inquest was
called upon to substantiate the charge. The Honour-
able Member again said, that he knew the system of
Lancashire well, aad that he believed the man was
sent to jail for the purposes described. In answer to
the charge of delay, he wished to observe, that the
Petition had been in his possession for some time,
but .he did not think proper to present it until he
could procure a copy of the Calendar. He had told
the physician so. That copy he had not obtained'
until within the last six weeks. The Petitioner was,

very unfortunate, but had given him to understand
that he would not lay the affair before the House
without the evidence of so material a document.

He had done his duty. as he hoped he always should,
and had only to repeat, that be did not ;sledge him-
self to the truth of more than the good character of
the individual, and the illegality of his confinement.
Mr. BROUGHAM said, that he now recollected
the case of the Petitioner at the Assizes in 1812; that
he had been imprisoned on a charge of felony, and
tried for a misdemeanour. The charge of felony
prevented him from the power of going out upon
bail between his traversing the indictment and his
trial ; he was therefore kept in prison. He was of
opinion, however, that a charge ought not tote over
a Magistrate for the course of seven years. What-
ever truth might be in the logical inference of the
Petitioner, that more power should not be granted
to Magistrates, because of such an instance of the
abuse of authority, yet no man could deny thft
so many years should not pass before the charge
was brought forward. With respect to the charge of
felony, he could say, that no bill had been preferred;
and as to the misdemeanour, the man was convicted
oa very paltry evidence—it amounted to very little.
It appeared that the man had used some of the words
imputed to him, half in jest, and more than half in
liquor ; and he (Mr. Brougham) was rather sure that
the Learned Judge had summed up for acquittal.
The day before, thirty-eight individuals had been ac-
quitted, whu were arraigned upon the perjured evi;
dance of a spy. Though the Jury had no shadow of
ground for convicting, yet they were reluctant to ac-
quit, and the next day they convicted every one, and
among the rest the Petitioner.
Lord CASTLEREAGH said, that Petition, of this
kind were brought forward for the purpose of raising
an argument against the Bills before the House; but
a transaction which had taken place many years ago,
lad that also resting upon the testimony of a person
convicted of an offence, could never prove that the
Magistrates of Englund were not entitled to the con-
fidence of the country.
Mr. BROUGHAM explained, and denied that he
had any intention to lower the character of the esta-
bfished Authorities.

The question was then put, whether the Petition
Should be brought up? which was negatived with-
out a division.