Star.
London, England, 1818-01-30 00:00:00

1
s

day at a certaid place. Couldiny one say that these
recognizances would hav4een required from the
persons in question if the Aa of last Session had not
passed ? Therefore it was plain the recognizances
bowed from that Act. In all the cases in question,
the recognizances had been given under the choice
which he had mentioned. There was, indeed, a se-1
parste case which had not yet come before the
House, but which soon would be ; he meant the cams
of a London Justice, who had tad three personil
arrested before the Act was p . But in every
Other case, the recognizance' had been entered into
under such a choice. In all other cases of arrest, the
thing was not done in:the dark, and when the man
was liberated, he might of course seek his remedy it
I ow. But hetv the power was merely to detain per-
s ms, and therefore recognizances taken from persons
detained under that power weiWtaken on different'
terms. Their legality or illegality was a question
purely of law. What the House had to consider
was, that they were entered into by choice, and un-
der certain conditions, and the question now was.
whether the persons who had made the election ofl
submitting to the conditions, should be, now when
the Act was repealed, in a worse situation than those
who had chosen the alternative of remaining under
confinement ? Thinking that it would be most un-
just to have them remain subject to recognizances af-
ter the Act was repealed, he conceived it incumbent
on the House to adopt the proposal of his Noble
Friend. _ _ _

_
The SOLICITOR GENERAL thought the Hon.
and Learned Gentleman, who -spoke. last, was mis-
taken as to the Act of last Session. Suppose that
Act had not been passed, would it not have been com-
petent for the Secretary of Stars to commit persons
m certain cases ? The question was whether this
Act conferred a power on the Secretary of State to
take recognizances from persons committed ? The
Act conferred no such power. Its operation was
merely to deprive the subject of his remedy in cases
of committal. The House was now about to restore
that remedy. What then was the proposal submitted
for discussion ? It was (what was quite irrelevant)
.to pronounce upon the legality of recognizances re-
specting which the Act about to be repealed had no
operation whatever. The legality of these recogni-
zances was as much open to discussion as ever, whe-
ther the Sill now before the House passed or not.—
This, therefore, was not the proper season for discus-
sing the validity of the recognizances, and as to the
propoial which related to them, it was out of place,
and could not rightly be adopted on this occasion.
Sir W. BURROUGHS wished, with great sub-
mission, to observe, that the Honourable and Learned
Gentleman (the Solicitor-General) had not answered
his Honourable and Learned Friend (Mr. Brougham).
The Secretary of State was armed with no power to
demand recognizances ; and in taking them in this
case he hat usurped a power which did not belong
to him. The individuals detained ought either to
have been released or brought to trial ; but the Secre-
tary of State hat} thought fit on his own authority to
annex conditions to the release. The Honourable and
Learned Gentleman seemed to think that the Secre-
tary of State had a right by the common law to dis-
charge on recognizance. But this was not the case.
When persons were arrested on a charge of high trea-
son, no Magistrate or authority, except the Court of
King's Bench, had any cognizance, A Magistrate
had no power in such a case to take any recogni-
zance or admit to bail. If an inferior Magistrate had
not a right to take bail, then he had not a right to
take any ,recognizarice ( Hear, hear.)—lt had been
admitted that there was no serious ground for detain-
ing any of the individuals—but did it serve any tem-
porary purpose to take their recognizances? ( Hear,
hear. )—lt served a party purpose to Government—it
served their views—tt kept up an alarm in the country.
Mr. LOCKHART was of opinion, that in taking
these recognizances Ministers were acting in sub-
stance under the BilL
Sir SAMUEL ROMILLY thinking the Suspension
Actliid existed much too long, and that it would
hovel:leen better if it had never existed at all, he
should not certainly give any opposition to the repeal.
They were pasting the Bill With great propriety, dis-
pensing with all forms. They did so because it was
a matter of extreme injury that the suspension should
nor be repealed immediately after it ceased to be ne-
cessary. Now how long had this extreme injury been
allowed to continue? Was the Suspension Act neces-
sary last night—last week—a month—or two months
ago ? ( Hear, hear, hear.) When the _ question was
before the House last Session, it was proposed that
the Bill should expire on the Ist of December ; that
if it should still be found necessary to vest Ministers
with these extraordinary powers, the judgMent of
Parliament might be taken on the subject. If the
Bill had only been in force to the Ist of December?
Parliament in all probability would 'not' have been
called* to meet, and the Act would havebeen allowed
to expire. By not advising Parliament to be called
sooner than the 27th of January, the country had
been existing in a state in which it oughenot whore
been existing. Because Ministers had not thciught
proper to advise the assembling of ParliaMent, the
country had been exposed to tlae-misfprttallt7Of eslst-
ing under powers, for the continuance of, pihich there
was no necessity. These powers had liven. actedion
till within a very few weeks of the time when Minis-,
ters knew that they would have to account for their
comluct. The fact is, that no necessity existed for the
Bill since the month of June last. lie has" not, since
June, heard of any signs—he would not say of insur-
rection—but of dissatisfaction existing in any part of
the country. In that month of June it was that the
conduct of Missionaries employed by Government
WAS exposed—(heir, hear.) As sons as their conduct
was brought under notice, these persons were discon-
tinued in their employments, and since that time they
had heard of no discontent—no dissatisfaction—no
conspiracies—(hear, hear, hear).
Mr. BRAGGE BATHURST said,. the Honour-
able and Learned Gentleman (Sir S. Romilly) had
viewed it as a self-evident proposition, that if the Bill
had continued in force only to the Ist of Dsceniber,
Parliament would not have been assembled for the
purpose of obtaining its continuance; but he pro-
tested against any such admission. In alluding to
persons in the employment of Government, he pre-
sumed the Honourable and Learned Gentleman natant
the person of the name of Oliver. If he alluded to
that person, he could only say that his conduct was
such that it would bear the strictest investigation.

He believed he had done no mischief in any ser se of
the word, but on the contrary great service. He eras
not an accomplice, but a person accidentally intro-
duced to a knowledge of circumstances, which, as
was his duty, he communicated to the Government.
If the Honourable and Learned Gentleman coupled
the cessation of the troubles with the cessation of the
employment of Oliver, he would tell him that there
was no foundation for his assumption. The vigorous
1./measures adopted by Government were the cause and
the real cause why they heard no more of disturbances.
Sir SAMUEL ROMILLY wished to set the Right
Hdnourable Gentleman right. He had taken it for
granted that he alluded to the employment of Oliver.
But he supposed Government employed several in-
struments of the same kind. It was stated in the
last Report of the Secret Committee of the Lords,
that persons had promoted treasons who were sent to
detect them. He did not allude particularly to the
miserable individual whose name had been mentioned
by the Right Honourable Gentleman.
Mr. TIERNEY said, after what had fallen from
the Right Honourable Gentleman (Mr. B. Bathurst),
they were to understand that a danger did exist up
to the 28th of Jinuary, when the last person was
discharged—a danger which rendered it unsafe tore-'
peal the Suspension of the Habeas Corpus. That
point Ministers were therefore pledged to make good
—if the Suspension existed one single day beyond the
necessity for it, the King's Ministers weve guilty of
a crime against the liberty of the subject—(Hear)—
According to the Right Honourable Gentleman, the
Reports of both Houses of Parliament were wrong—
it seemed the Spies had never, as stated in these Re-
ports, promoted any mischief—(Hear, hear),-*—He
was to prove that the Spies employed by Govern-
ment were never, in one instance, the cause of mis-
chief. If the Report of the Committee established
these two points, it would be a most valuable Report.
The Bill then went through a Committee, the Re-
port was brought up, and taken into consideration.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER then
moved the third reading.
Lord FOLKESTONE believed that this was the
proper time to propose his clause for vacating the
recognizances. This clause was not to prevent the
parties from obtaining a remedy in a Court of Law:
it was only to relieve them from the recognizances,
even supposing them legal. He then moved a clause
to that effect.

Lord CASTLEREAGH said, as there were a ♦a-
riety of facts stated in this clattse of which the Rouse
could have no knowledge, the House could not with
propriety legislate on them at present.
Mr. TIERNEY—the House were bound to adopt
the clause on a principle of humanity.
Lord FOLKESTONE said, the clause scmtained
no statement of facts, except of what were perFectly
notorious.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said, that it was
only the plea which the persons in question had set
up, that they had objections in point of law against
the recognizances, which had prevented him from
moving that the recognizances be discharged. No-
tice had been sent to these persons that their attend-
ance would not be required, though he believed some
of them had left their homes before the notice reached
them. Some of them had applied to him (the At-
torr.ey-General) and he had given • them to under-
stand that their attendance was not then required,
and would not be required--amf he thought he led
given them to understand that their recognizances
would be discharged. Some of them said they had
legal objections to make; and he had then said, " let'
nothing I have said deprive you of the benefit of
your objections, if you have as It was op account
of their objections, he su that the parties re-
mained in town, as they otherwise might haverne
back to the places of their abode. It was the ~obit
tp give persons notice of an intention to call them on
their recognizances, when such an intention existed ;
and notice had been actually given, though, as he
had said, some of the persons had left the places of
their abode to come to London before the notice had
arrived. The recognizances, therefore, were not held
over their heads to harass or distress them. He de-
cided also as a principle, that this Bill of Repeal was
tom amend all that was done under the former Act.
He denied that as a matter of course, because the
Act of Suspension was repealed, all persons who had
been arrested ought to have been liberated. It only
left persons in confinement (if there had been any) in
the same situation as if the Act had never passed.
They had now their right of habeas mints—but the
Minister night detain and bring to trial, in due
course of law, persons who had been previously de-
tained, without it having been thought advisable to
bring them to trial. He did not therefore think it
necessary, either as to humanity or principle, that the
clause proposed should be inserted in the Bill.
Mr. BROUGHAM said, he imagined that the
Attorney-General did not yet understand the plea on
which the clause was offered to the House. It was
Illy virtue of the Act of Suspension that the Secretary
of State had been enabled to exact these recogni-
zances from the prisoners. The persons bound b
these recognizances might go to the King's Bench
and demand to be released from them. But
. might
not the King's Bench 'say' that they had votenmer,
and with their eyes open, entered into them ? Was
it not likely they would say so? The Attorney-Ge-
neral then well knew they were without their remedy.
But what was it that had enabled the Government to
demand their recognizances in such a manner that
the prisoners were compelled to comply ? The sus-
pension of the Habeas Corpus. It was then suspend-
ed, and at the time when their recognizances were
entered into, no man knew how long it would remain
suspended. Look then at the different situation of a
prisoner, while the suspension continued, at the other
Term. In common cases, when the Government had
detained a man, they might offer him his discharge
on his recognizance ; if he refused that, the alterna-
tive was that he mutt be brought to trial. But, on
the other hand, during the suspension of the Habeas
Corpus Act, if a prisoner refused to give his recog-
nizance:, the Government was not obliged to bring
him to trial. He would in that case be compelled
to remain in prison, as the right of suing out his writ
of Habeas Corpus was denied. Was there no diffe-
rence between saying, give your recognizance or you
shall be brought to trial, and saying, give your re-
cognizance and you shall remain in prison ? Here
was the gist of the question. As the Bill before the
House was to place the subject in the same situation
I in which he stood before the passing of the Act, it

was, therefore, not consistent that those from whom
recognizances had been exacted under the Act should
be excepted from its beneficial operation.
The SOLFCITOK-GENERAL said, the question 1
for the Court of King's Bench to consider was, not
whether the recognizances had been voluntarily en-
tered into, but whether the party which had taken ;
them had power so to do? If the Magistrates had
authority to take the recognizances, whether they
had been entered into voluntarily, or by durestse, they
Would be valid. The Act in question had conveyed
'no new power to the Secretary of State, or the Ma-
gistrate, on the subject of recognizances.
Sir SAMUEL ROMILLY'said, that the Solicitor
General had not fully stated the case. The Act of
Parliament which gave the Secretary of State the
power to detain persons in custody, gave him the
power of discharging those persons out of custody,'
and it necessarily gave him the power of compelling
.such persons as wished to be discharged, to purchase
their discharge by giving recognizances. Now this
was in effect a power which he did not at other times
possess. He had not in ordinary times the power of.
sending to an individual, and telling him that a charge
was exhibited against him, and that unless he entered
into recognizances he should be kept in prison with-
out a trial. The persons bound might be said to
have entered into their recognizances voltmtarily, but
this was among those voluntary acts which were dolie
to relieve the agents from a greater evil. The Soli-
citor General had, therefore, fallen into a fallacy, in
saying that no new authority was conferred by the
Act with respect to recognizances. The persons
bound could only be relieved by the act of the Le-,
gislature or of the Crown ; but if the Attorney Ge-
neral would state that he would discharge the recog-
nizances, perhaps his Noble Friend would withdraw
the clause.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said, he was wil-
ling to apply for the discharge of the recognizances
of those persons who did not wish to take the benefit
of legal objections to them.
Sir WILLIANI BURROUGHS.-If, as was evi•
dent from what had been said, these recognizances
were not intended to be acted upon, why had they
been demanded at all—(Hear)?—lt was casting a
stain upon the characters of the persons so discharged,
wantonly, and giving the world to understand that
there was some charge still hanging over them, while
in fact it was never intended to call on them. This
was an abuse of power for which the Secretary of
State was responsible--( Hear).
Lord FOLKESTONE said, that if the Attorney-
General was ready entirely to discharge these recog-
nizances (hot merely to assure the men that, they
would not be called upon), he would withdraw his
clause.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said, the recog, ni-
zances were not required in the knowledge that they
would not be acted upon. They were required to se-
cure the appearance of the parties, and might or
11 might not be found necessary. He was willing to
move the Court for the discharge of all the record-
zances, unless in the case of those persons who mis,ht
wish to take legal objections to them.
Lord FOLKESTONE withdrew his clause, and the
Bill was read a third time, and passed.
GRIEVANCES ENDURED UNDER TILE susPE:cmicrtt OT
THE HABEAS Coßrus.
Lord FOLKESTONE said he held a Petition in
his hand, which was perhaps too long, and not so
worded as he could wish, but which was entitled to
the serious attention of the House. The Petition con-
tained nothing disrespectful to the House. It was
from one of the prisoners whose case had now been
under diicnssion.
The petition was ordered to be brought up, and to
be read. The Clerk began to read:
" It was from Francis Ward, lace-maker, In Nottingham.
He had a wife and four children, and a mother 90 years of age,
all depending on his support. Lawson, a police officer, had come'
to his house, in order to search. He called for his warrant.
Lawson held a paper in his hand which he said was his warrant,
but he refused either io thew it or to read it. Another officer
at this instant came up, and both violently entered the Noose,
eaarniacd a canister with much eagerness, but after along search
declared that they had found nothing of the description they
searched for. He had opposed their entrance into his house, not
with a view to frustrate the objects of law and justice, but from
respect to a rule laid down by no less a personage than Jests
CIIIIST, which prescribed that ' in doing well he should feel no
fear. He had applied to Mr. Enfield for redress in vain ;* he
was told he had no right
.to complain. He went to the police
office in order to see Alderman Swaine. Another Alderman came
in, and ordered him into custody. A third Alderman came, and
advised him to proceed no further in that matter, but to take
good care what he was about. He was goon afterwards brought
before the Magistrates, and then sent into a vile dungeon, where
he had a damp bed, and was almost suffocated by the sulphureosis

While this Petition was read, as there was much
noise in the House,
Lord FOLKESTONE aid, that as the House did
not seem disposed to attend to the Petition, which was
a long one, he should state the object. It was not of
his detention in common with others that the Peti-
tioner complained : it was the treatment he had met
with, unauthorised by the Suspension Act. That Act,
it was well known, authorised no other kind of treat-
ment than was lawful: before. The Petitioner's house
had been searched without the production of the war-
rant—an act which he would hate been authorited

in resisting.
Mr. OSBORNE rose to order, and said that k was
irregular to interrupt the reading of a Petition, in or-
der to make a statement of its contents.
Lord FOLKESTONE said he had only done so
for the convenience of the House, as it did' not seem
to be attended to. It was his intention to move that
it be printed.
Mr. B. BATHURST observed, that as the Noble
Lord had assured them that there was nothing im-
proper in it, there could be no objection to print it.
The Clerk, after standing for some minutes to hear
the sense of the House, resumed the readini, of the
Petition ; but .when he had read a few lines further,
he was desired to state the Prayer of the Petition,
which entreated the consideration of the •House to
the hardships the Petitioner had endured.
Lord FOLKESTONE, in moving that the Petition
be printed, said, that the House would be guilty of
a great dereliction of duty, if they did not inquire
into the grievances set forth in it. He meant, there-
fore, to move the appointment of a Committee to in-
quire- into the grounds of complaint. If no objection
was made to the measure, he would move now. If
any objection should be made, he would give notice
on a future day.
Mr. BENNET thought it 'would be much mere
convenieg to give uotice, -as many ether parsons had

stifered in precisely the same way as
man. Ile had occasion to know. and 1
bring forward proofs, that the mint
and inhuman treatment was exe:
,tion of the Suspension Act: such a, '
impure cells, loading with ity-,ns, and ot.y:'
the same kinJ. As the representathc .
liament, they were bound to inquire—as i.:
they must feel bound to induire—i..o °e
grievances of Engli,limen—(hear, hew ro
Lord CASTLEREAGH hoped -1-lat
Lord would give due notice of hi .
Ldid FOLKESTONE rate r;tlle.l
on the same subject. It Wa, I.mrn crve.-„,
of Nottingham, ncighbo•irs and erill,oe-•
cis Ward, who stated ; ‘'•
sober, hard-working mil, very re,i-ect..h•_
to his situation in life, :rid by ird
enter into any schemes h. the
injurious to the peace acid good order e!
(praying that relief might be grantA h;n,
steps might be taken to prevent the
for the future.—Ordered m he prirtel.
• Lord FOLKESTONE then zare nnti-
day se'naight of a motion to Teter the Petitiv
specting Ward to a Committee. To the r.,
mittee he should move to refer any
same nature which should be mean time nir:tr..
REFORM 01 SICOTCO SOROUCTIc
Lard A. HAMILTON, in giving nntirt
would on the 12th of February move for 6e pn
tion of papers connected with the reform f s
Boroughs, begged that the House w,H,i
alarmed at the word - reform," for it a,
case necessarily connected vith the reo•i--.:,
House. He gave notice that on the
move for the production of the pap._:., in t
sion of Government respro.ing the P,.,:otit
trose, in which the work ofietorm E.;clC%
Lord C A STLE E AGM rxt being
the subject, could not sa whir2ier
tioned could b.: Foduced.
Lord A. HAMILTON hared
no objection to their prduck.ii.
0:+ AND :u't PaY,r.•.T
Mr. V. FITZGERALD rn..v:!.l
in a Bill to suipc:ld the opera:.,!. A
!ast Session re,i7e:7t;ng Grand Jury ('-
Ireland. He (+served th it tl-e
Surveyors) had r..-1 yet
many candidates for
new Act no Presentrneit
suing Spring Assizes, as
veyors was necessary. sez i •
arise from the
merits at these Assizes, .4:.l
posed to suspend tile:tt

..e r

z.e of

Mr. ABEkCROILY t!: ..;
the Right Hon. Gemi.2m.ir. iird r.r.t
don to propose any sub,titute
heproposed to suspe:‘,!. Ti. v.-n 3 t
the more, as the system cf Irish i

ments was on all .harals corm_..
loadly for same Legislative reme.!:
Reports from two cerarel Commie
been laid before the Hee--
man who heard him tnust be imps.,
eessity for -such a measure. He ceuls'.
sincerity of the Right Hon. Mover, who le
ginil author of the Act which he now p
Stipend, nor the disposition of rho Irish Governs:
tQ Cary it into execution ; but it seemee. -Aran,
that where there were places to dispose
land,there should not I.e found a sufficient mere:
candidates. Yet the difficulty of finding S 2 Survr!-.1
was one of the main causes alleged f..r this m
for the other cause, namely. the limitation ei
grant of presentments to the Summer Assizes. e.,
be easily removed without suspending the present
Mr. VESEY FITZGERALD assured the ft:
and the HonourableGentleman, that he felt eirre
anxious for the success of this measure ; but
so many difficulties in the way of its execution. •
the Government consequently embarrassed. be then,'
himself bound in candour to propose its susp-re
which, however, it was to be observed, was ord-F...
continue during the present Session, within•
period he hoped that a more practicable meae.
would be devised. The Honourable Gentleman r.:
rely that he was not disposed to withdraw from '•
principle of the measure to which his MotiJn refe:v:
but to render tl.at principle effective, he must ea
for the support of other Gentlemen who felt an .
rest in the concerns of Ireland.
Mr. PEEL vindicated the conduct of the
Government, who were decidedly anxious ice
Principle of this measure; but to render that muse!
effective, thirty-two fully competent Serreyon
necessary. In order then to ascertain the compee-e
of the candidates for this office, three respeaei
Commissioners were appoiated, and the rcia.:
their examination was most discouraging ; tiaer:7!
it was found necessary to suspend this trita.s.2-'r.
hp.hoped that the disposition of Government ce-I
hardly be questior.ed, when it was recollected
abandoning the measure it abandoned the pat:a...-.7
of appointing 32 Officers, some with 9001. and
with 600/. a year each.
After an explanation from Mr. Antimony.
Sir HENRY PARNELL agreed in the pr •;'"
of the proposed Suspension. not so much for t..:
sons stated by the Right Hen. mover, as from
considerations. But he hoped that another an,:
efficient measure would be brought forward by
one connected with the Government, for 'if it
from any other quarter, its success would be pr '
matical. He trusted that such a measure
speedily proposed, for if delayed until a late r.: -
the Session, he foresaw that it would fail. As; :"
difficulty of providing eompetent surveyors. L. 7••
lieved that several could be easily found in !I,
try. This he was hal to ceaclutle trom the far.
the surveyor who superintended the eper.t.,:v.L
of the great road to liolyhead had for tu o
1.501. a-year. Surely then, this pet stn, : -
such could be found in England, would • -•
willing to go to Ireland upon salaries of Jr -
to six hundred pounds a-year. But the Oran '
system in Ireland was nateriouslv so •
corruption, fraud, ar.d par;urv, that the .
could not, without a gross desertion ~:'slut
such a system to go on. Under this srstem r • ...1
than half a millior. was annually levied in le
and the error of Parliament heretofore had b,,.::•••.
it thought too much of those who imposed ea t. •
and too little cif those who paid it. The systca: -

;n4.Nn ;:x