The Statesman.
London, England, 1823-05-17 00:00:00

THE ST,

On the monomer Mr JOHN 130CGIIEY, the Mastert•
and Apprentices' Rill went through a Committee, and the
Report was ordered to be 'welted on Wednesday next.
Lord F. OSBORN presented a petition from an ladir i-
deal named John Clarke, of Skipton, Yorkshire, complain-
ing that Ito bad been committed to gaol for want of sureties,
and received no compensation whatever for six hundred days
of hard labour. •
Mr. S. WORTLEY said a few words ; after which We pe-
tition was ordered to lie on the table.
Lord F. OSBORN presented a petition from Mr. Martin
100, a Magistrate of Yorkshire, complaining that pri—
soners in the intervening period between their committal sod
their trial were subdected to the punishment of the Tread.
The Noble Lord complained of the employinent of
females at the Tread-mill, and wished to know I f the prnotlei
was sanctioned by the Right Honourable Gentlemad (Mr.
Peel.)
Mr. Secretary PEEL said, that he could see no objEction
to the practice, ender certain regulations.
Mr. DENMAN thought that the system of keeping pri-
soners at hard labour before trial, was hi7hly objectionable.
Mr. S. WORtLEY elnclieated the principle. end read an
extract from an Aot of Parliament in support of it.
Mr. DENMAN maintained that; by hew, prison pre could
not be kept at hard labour before trial, except for the pay-
If their food.

ment of .neir too..
• • Lord MILTON thought that there was a material
entre between thopersiihment in Gaols and blondes of Cor-
rection.
Mr. PEEL' said that a proper distinction was always oh-
salved in the eons of persone convicted and those who were
sot, so far as regarded tabour.
The petition seat thenived, and ordered to He on the
table.
- Thl LORD ADVOCATE of SCOTLAND moved that
Me Commissionary Count of Scotland Bill be recommitted
on Wednesday 'text.
'•• Lord A. HAMILTON objected generally to the mutter
in which the BIN was letrodseed.
• • The LORD ADVOCATE defended the -be
taken with respect to the Bill. He eon a-peeped"
the motion till Fridg, next:
-1110. HUME said-n to* weed*, and the BM was then Or-
detest to-be reemailitted on Friday.
A petition was presented from the Inhabitants of Newel's-
Ile-under-Line, praying for the total Abolition of Slavery 10
the West Indles.---Laid ma the table. '
' Mr. HUME presented a petition from James Botcher,
engaged in the spirit-trade in Scotland, complaining of
harsh treatment from the Eseise officers there, and pray-
ing for an inquiryinto the facts stated in his petition.
Ilia complaint was, that the petitioner, after being sour-
mooed, received the offer of a compromiee. The P.xcise
officers were in the habit of suturnoning too many, and
then, when they found their charge not **stainable, they
offered a compromise. It was differeat In the Cnstnms,
for there no party wasisummoned until the eplolon of his
Majesty's Advocate for Scotland was taken.
The LORD KDVOCATE said that he was not se-
quainter wits. the facts set forth in the petition..
-they were true, they certainly constituted a case of bee
With respect to the complaints of the Han. Mew-
lwr in refereoce to compresuiees, it was his opinion that
it was more convenient for the party summoned to sub-
mit to an award than to go to a Court of Justice. lie
had no objection to the reception of the petition.
Mr. H. DRU3IMORD 'aid he was glad that the peti-
tiern•was. presented. Tlte.facts stated to It. as well as
the observation of the Hon. Member who presented it,
irere well worthy of the attention, of the Learned Lord.
The petition was ordered to ipt printed.
11L4VE TRADE.
Mr. Secretary CANNING laid on the table some pa-
pers, which he said were additional articles relating to
the power of capturing vessels found to be engaged in
the Slave Trade.
'CH MI, BARON OF TH E EXCHEQUER IN IRELAND.
Mr. W. WYNN brought up the Report of the Com-
mittee on the charges against the Chief Barou of the
Court of Exchequer in Ireland, contained in the Report
of the Commissioners of Inquiri into the Courts of Law
ip that tonality. ".
• Ile Report being laid on the table,
Mr. S. ICI CE said that the propositions which he sub-
mitted to the House two years ago were fully a !stained
by the papers now laid on the table. He had then stated
that the Iteprt of the Commissioners of Inquiry into
the Offices, Fees, Emoluments, and Abuses in the Courts
of Law in Ireland, contained a charge of the most seri-
ous character against a high legal officer. Now that
those propositions were affirmed after a most solemn
examination by a Committee of that House, he hoped
th.t government would not let the burden of the farther
prosecution of those charges rest on any private mem-
ber, but would themselves take such steps as the case
disclosed in these papers required.
Mr. Secretary CANNING said he could not let pass,
witboot a remark, what bad fallen from the Honour-
*hie Member. if that Honourable gentleman meant
to say, that whenever any Member brought a charge
against an officer, and afterwards got that charge affirm-
ed by a Committee, then the tfovernment ought to take
on themselves the farther prosecution of it, he did
not state what was in accordance with Parliamen-
tary usage. He did not recollect that when Mr.
Burke brought his accusation against Mr. Warren
Hastings, and got his charges affirmed by a Committee
of the House, he then withdrew, and reqnired the tiro
veromeot to take charge of the further proceedings. He
did not recollect that Mr. Whitbread, when he brought
his charges against Lord Melville. withdrew, and re-
quired the Govenuoest to take on themselves the further
prosecution of them. lie would maintain that it was trot
the duty of Ministers, as Members of the Executive Go-
vernment to take the charge into their owe hands. The
Hon. Member was aware that he had but two courses.
to purstmeither by Address to the Crown for the removal
of the Individual, or by Parliamentary impeachment,
both or tither of which were as competent to the lion.
Member as to the Government. An Address for au int-
pee. hmeot would be better in any bands than in those of
members of the Government, because it would be sup-
posed that the individual would-be borne down by the
whole weight of the power of the Crown. He could
tell the Hon. Gentleman that no member of his Majesty's
government was prepared to take up this question. He
euuld steak with certainty for himself, end 'he beHeessi
Ile might answer with equal certainty for his colleagues.
It was, therefore, for the Hon. Member to consider whe-
ther he brought charges which be was not prepared to
follow up.
Sir J. NEWPORT said that those charges had ema-
nated froma cousinissiow appointed by the Crown, and
Ministers ought not to refuse proceeding on them,
now that they were suppotged by a Committee of the
House.
Mr. W. WYNN said that no instance could be found
in which one Member brought an accusation, and when
he got that supported by the Repor of a Committee, then
withdrew, tit:tieing the prosecution of it on governutent.
In such a case the individual charged might with reason
ss his Right Hon. Friend said. complain of the whole
power of the Crown being( directed against him. Did
not the charge against Lord Melvillee arise out of a Com-
mittee like the present, and yet the Member who made
that charge did not shrink from the prosecution of it ?
Charges of that nature were always best managed in the
hands of private Members but he hoped all party:feeling
would be foreotten.
Mr. A BEACROM sy said, that as those charges arose
oat of au inquiry hy. a Commission appointed -by an
Address to the Crowe, if they were to be prosecatiel by
Menther of his able, which was the minority, it would
:have the appearenee•of a patsy question, and would tall
in gaining the attention and supoort of the Member, of
Ibe.afinistitrial brothel.
Mr, I','ANNINti In the face of the House and of the
country. dirtied infetenee of the Honourable and
Learned Cientleisan. fit did deciareAbat if titaido our-

... ....r :f~.