adverting to the dropped order for taking into consideration the Report of the Committee on the Weavers' Petition, observed, that however the House might despair of rendering any benefit to the petitioners, it would not be treating them with due attention to take the subject up at present, when, perhaps, there were members absent who were desirous of delivering their sentiments upon it. He proposed, therefore, That the report should be taken into consideration on Monday next.

acquiesced in this proposal.

remarked, that although it was a dropped order, yet at the present period of the session, it might be advisable to proceed with it.

repeated the reasons which he had stated to induce the House to postpone the consideration of the subject.

expressed his regret that he should not have it in his power to be present on Monday. He still thought that the question, for the discussion of which he had prepared himself, might immediately be proceeded with, the more especially, as it was evident that no measure of relief could be afforded. He was about to proceed with some remarks, on a subject which he stated to be intimately connected with the present, when

interposed, and said, that the question before the House must first be disposed of. The further consideration of the Report was then fixed for Monday.

resumed his observations, with respect to the Report of the Committee on the Wearers' Petition. He was quite convinced that that Report was a proper one, and that no measure, particularly one of pecuniary aid, could be adopted for the relief of the sufferers. To attempt such a mode of assistance would be to throw water on a furnace, the necessary cones- quence of which would be, to increase the fierceness of the flame. Nevertheless, feeling that the question was not one in which the weavers alone were concerned, but that it involved the whole commercial community—feeling that the weavers were but the heralds of the manufacturers, and that the manufacturers would be but the heralds of the merchants—knowing that the whole trading interest of the country was in the utmost dismay—having heard that the strongest representations on the subject had recently been made to the right hon. gent. opposite, by the merchants of Liverpool, by the merchants of London, by the West India merchants, and by all connected with those various branches of commerce—knowing the very unfavourable state of the exchange with foreign countries—having observed the avidity with which the public, catching at a straw, interpreted an accidental remark in a late speech of the right hon. gent. opposite into an expectation of an approaching accommodation with Russia, and of a consequent vent for British manufactures and produce in that country—knowing that the expedient resorted to of issuing Exchequer bills, as a loan, for the relief of commerce, had failed, none of those bills having reached their destined objects, the operative manufacturers,—he could not conceive it possible that the House could be blind to the difficulties of the situation in which the country was placed. The Report of the Committee, although it deprecated any pecuniary aid (in which deprecation he completely concurred), fully acknowledged the extreme distress of the petitioners. Persuaded, as he was, that all this distress was the effect of the ruinous commercial policy which had been pursued by ministers, it would have been impossible for him, had it been in his power to attend on Monday next, not to enter largely into the consideration of the subject, it was impossible for the House to conceal from itself that there was a growing disposition in the country—a disposition which, he confessed his regret, that any administration should be exposed to—to make that compulsory on government which ought to be optional. Still, however, knowing that all the markets for English commodities were closed against them—having observed the final adjudication of the ease of the Fox, by which adjudication the scabbard was thrown away by this country with reference to America—remarking the manner in which the commercial relations I between Great Britain and America had been treated by ministers—having in his hand the documents ministers had refused to produce, and which had since been published in America, comprising the diplomatic correspondence between the two countries—and seeing in that correspondence the most gross and wanton neglect of the true interest of England, he declared it to be his intention before he sat down, to move for the production of all the papers in question. On the production of those papers, he was convinced it would appear to the House that America, a country deserving the highest consideration and respect, had been treated by Great Britain more as an humble dependant on an illiberal protector, than as an equal state. Indeed, the whole of our political relations with America had been carried on as if war were the ultimate expectation. How far the probability of such an event was increasing, the recent intelligence from America might enable the House to judge; although he allowed it to be possible that the occurrence to which he alluded might have originated in accident. The weavers, complaining of deep distress, proposed desperate remedies. A Committee of that House declared it as their opinion—an opinion in which he coincided—that nothing could be done for them. But let the House recollect some prior circumstances. Let them recollect that but a few days before the presentation of these Petitions from so numerous a class of the community, complaining of such unexampled calamity, the right honourable the Chancellor of the Exchequer had amused the House by extolling the financial state of the country, by expatiating on the increase of the Customs and Excise; and, as if in sport, by attempting to impose a tax on that very raw material which was the foundation of the manufactures in which the Petitioners were engaged! It was true that the right hon. gentleman subsequently abandoned his intention; but even this he did in a boastful manner, asserting that the revenue of the country was so flourishing, as to allow him to wave the imposition of the proposed duty. What did the House suppose the distressed manufacturers must think of this empty vaunt? Would it be easy to persuade them that general prosperity and such individual suffering could be co-existent? He hoped the Mouse would do him the honour to listen to extracts from the correspondence for which he was about to move, in order that they might see the necessity of having the whole on the table; not with a view to found any proceeding upon the documents this session, not with the expectation of rousing the apathy of parliament on the subject, but from the conviction that America would soon force it on the attention of this country, and the wish that he, and those who thought with him might, not be found so neglectful of their duty as to have omitted an attempt to lay on the table of the House such papers, as might enable the nation to understand the subject, and might prepare parliament to come to some decision upon it in the course of the next session. It would appear in the correspondence, that on Jan 2, 1810, Mr. Pinkney wrote a letter to lord Wellesley on the subject of the recal of Mr. Jackson. To this letter no answer was returned until March 14. On this tardiness the American minister observed," although I was aware that an answer would not be hastily given, I certainly did not expect such a delay. Unquestionably it was a delay which ought to be accounted for. On February 15, Mr. Pinkney wrote a letter to lord Wellesley on the subject of the blockade, which letter was not answered until March 2. On April 30, Mr. Pinkney wrote a letter on the subject of the Berlin and Milan decrees, to which he received no answer. On May 14, he wrote a letter complaining of the countenance given to the forging of American papers, to which he received no answer. On June 23, Mr. Pinkney wrote a letter to lord Wellesley, referring to his letter of April 30, and requesting a reply to it. To this second letter on the same subject, he received no answer. On July 7, he wrote a letter complaining of the delay in the nomination of a British minister to America. To this letter a verbal assurance of an immediate appointment was the only return. On August the 18th, he wrote another letter, referring to his former letters of April the 30th, and June 23d, respecting the Berlin and Milan decrees. To this third application on this subject, Mr. Pinkney received no answer. On August 21, he addressed lord Wellesey again on the subject of blockade, but received no answer. On August 25 Mr. Pinkney announced to lord Wellesley the revocation of the Berlin and Milan decrees, and demanded the abolition of the British Orders in Council. This letter was not answered until the 31st. On September 15 Mr. Pinkney wrote to lord Wellesley on the three several subjects of the mission of sir James Saumarez to blockade Elsineur, the condemnation of an American vessel, and the impressment of some American sailors. This letter was not answered until Sept. 26, and then only as it regarded the blockade of Elsineur; the matter of the American vessel was referred to sir William Scott, by whom it was subsequently restored; and no mention whatever was made of the impressed seamen, although they were afterwards released by an order from the Admiralty. This last circumstance was a most gross neglect. A minister from a foreign state made a representation to government; of the justice of which their ultimate conduct was an acknowledgment; and yet they did not condescend to notice the representation itself! How would such conduct be characterised in private life? would it not be termed most insulting and degrading to the party towards whom it was manifested? On Sept. 21, Mr Pinkney again addressed lord Wellesley on the subject of the blockade, referring to his former applications, and urging a reply to them. On Decembers, he wrote on the subject of the Fox. To this letter no answer was returned, although the proceedings were suspended until after Mr. Pinkney quitted the country, when the adjudication took place. The last of Mr. Pinkney's letters was dated on December JO, to which not obtaining what he conceived a satisfactory reply, he desired his audience of leave. The hon. gentleman said he thought that after having heard these memoranda, the House would see the expediency of procuring the documents in an official form. But whatever might be the sentiments of the House on the subject, knowing, as he did, the serious evils which existed—foreseeing the dreadful events which might possibly take place in the course of the summer among those who were enduring such evils—being aware that hunger was a sharp taskmaster, and might drive to acts which he prayed God to avert, he felt it to be his duty to move," That an humble Address be presented to his royal highness the Prince Regent, praying that The would be graciously pleased to direct that there be laid before the House, copies of all correspondence between the Secretary of State for foreign affairs, and the minister of the United States of America, during the year 1810."

trusted the House would not be disposed to entertain such a motion as that made by the hon. gent without any previous notice having been given, and more especially when the hon. gent. himself stated, that he did not conceive his motion could be followed by any thing in the present session, but merely the production of the papers. If ever there was a case in which a notice of motion was peculiarly requisite, it must be when no other proposition was speedily to follow. If it were necessary to do any thing immediately, that necessity might be reasonably urged to induce the House to entertain a motion without notice. Here, however, there was no such necessity, and he was persuaded that the House felt too strongly the benefit to public business, which was derived from the practice of giving notices of motions, to depart from their usual course on the present occasion. The hon. gent. could have had but two motives in bringing forward this subject. The one was to make a speech, the other to obtain the production of the papers in question. In the first part of these objects the hon. gent. had succeeded; and with respect to the second, as he himself declared, that it was not his intention to found any motion upon the papers during the present session, it appeared unnecessary to produce them until the next session. Such would have been his argument at any period, but if there ever was a time at which it was peculiarly incumbent upon the House to resist a motion of this nature, it was the present period, when no opportunity had been afforded for judging of the effect which might be produced by Mr. Foster's mission to America. Vet, at such a moment did the hon. gent. come forward with his tirade. At such a moment did he tell the American government not only that their interests, but that their honour, had been injured by Great Britain. At such a moment did he attempt to give an impression of the negociation which had taken place, of such a nature as might be fatal to the negotiation which was still carrying on. With respect to the hon. gentleman's observations on the different parts of the correspondence, the present was not the period for commenting upon them. When the negociation should be terminated, that would be the time for discussing its merits, and not while it was pending. Indeed, those observations might well have been spared. Thinking, as he did, that the whole of the existing evils of the country arose out of the commercial policy of the British government, the hon. gent. had a right to avow that opinion; but at the present critical juncture, when the hon. gent. himself had admitted that no parliamentary proceeding could immediately follow his motion, he was not justified in making remarks, the tendency of which could at least not be beneficial. With respect to that portion of the hon. gentleman's speech, in which he declared his opinion, that the existing evils grew out of the commercial policy of the British government, did the hon. gent. consider that there was at least considerable doubt, whether, had this country not pursued the system which had been adopted, her trade would not have suffered as complete an exclusion from the continent as at present? In that case, the same pressure would have been endured by this country, as she sustained under the existing circumstances, with this aggravating consideration, that the enemy was suffering no inconvenience whatever, but that from the advantage of neutral carriage he was relieved from the pressure which he endured at the present moment, a pressure which he contended, was infinitely greater than that sustained by Great Britain, and which he was satisfied could not much longer be endured by the enemy. He urged this the more Strongly, because he did not wish those unfortunate individuals who were suffering in this country from the suspension of commerce, to be impressed by the hon. gentleman's speech with the notion that their evils were attributable to their own government alone; that there was nothing in the conduct of France which had a tendency to occasion those evils; but that their own government were the real and sole enemies of their interests, Did the hon. gent. consider "the effects of such a representation on the minds of the sufferers The hon. gent. had alluded to a misrepresentation of what he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) had said on a former night, and had dwelt on the alacrity with which the observation had been interpreted, as holding out the prospect of an accommodation between Great Britain and Russia. Certainly he had held out no inch expectation. What he had stated was simply, that, in the present aspect of affairs in the north of Europe, it would be impossible for Buonaparteé to make those exertions in Spain and Portugal to which be might otherwise be equal, as it might be dangerous for him to send all his force thither, leaving the other quarter without an adequate guard. This was the extent of his statement. The hon. gent. reproached him for the favourable description, which, on a former occasion, he had been enabled to give of the finances of the country. How was this reproach founded? Would he have been justified, because there existed considerable distress among the manufacturers, in stating the receipts of the Exchequer at an amount less than that to which they had reached? His duty was to lay before the House the actual situation of the finances of the country, and not to misrepresent that situation. The hon. gent. reprobated the duty which had been proposed on cotton wool, although that proposition was afterwards withdrawn, not from the slightest conviction that the manufacturers would have sustained any injury from it (for he was persuaded that it would not have diminished, by a single pound, the consumption of the raw material), but because a disposition to think that it would be injurious to their interest, had grown up among the manufacturers themselves, and had been encouraged by those to whom they looked up for advice and support. He should certainly oppose the production of the papers at present, although the motion was one which might perhaps be repeated, with great propriety, in the next session of parliament.

stated in explanation, that he had not given notice of his present motion, because he had become possessed of "the correspondence as published in America, only within the last forty eight hours. When the right hon. gent. opposite (Mr. Canning) had the seals of the foreign department, although as much indisposed to grant papers as any man, he never refused his assent to their production on the assertion that they had already been published in another form. He denied the possibility of his remarks producing any ill effect on the negociation with America. The object of his motion was to prevent the right hon. gent. from putting into the mouth of the Regent at the opening of the next session such assertions as he had put into his mouth at the commencement of the present session. The right hon. gent. taunted him with hostility to his own government. If "he had sworn allegiance to ministers, the accusation might have been well founded; but his allegiance was due to the throne; he would not call ministers the government; nor did he see when by their commercial folly they had brought the country to the state in which it at present stood, why he was called upon to palliate their conduct, and to represent things otherwise than as they appeared to him. To ministers he would say, that the distresses of the merchants and manufacturers originated in their conduct, and then turning round to the merchants and manufacturers he would say, that they had contributed to bring those distresses on. They had cheered at the Royal Exchange when the negociation for peace was broken off. To themselves a considerable portion of their misfortunes was ascribable. He never extolled the conduct of the enemy. What he contended was, that while that conduct was unjustifiable, the consequent proceedings of ministers were unwise. Affecting to tread in the steps of Mr. Pitt, ministers had fallen into the trap which he had cautiously avoided. Unless the country could retrace its steps, it was undone as a commercial, and would be undone as a warlike people. He declared that he would not withdraw his motion, although he should not give the House the trouble of dividing upon it.

observed that it was unfair to tell the suffering manufacturers that English commerce was excluded from the continent because ministers would not rescind their Orders in council, when the hon. gent. well knew that the revocation not only of the orders in council issued under the present, administration, but of those issued, and wisely issued, under the last administration, was demanded, as well as those national rights with respect to blockade, &c. which Great Britain had so long and so indisputably possessed.

declared, that most of the principal merchants with whom he had the honour of being acquainted, were of opinion that the orders in council had been most wise and salutary.

said, he had a Petition in his hand from a person confined in the Castle of Lincoln, complaining of the treatment he there met with, as not warranted by the judgment of the court which had sent him there. It was from a gentleman pretty well known to that House, Mr. Finnerty, who had been found guilty of a libel. He had read the Petition through, and as he perceived nothing improper in it, and as it was accompanied by certificates of ill health, and the opinions of his medical advisers that a less rigorous mode of confinement was essential to his recovery, he could feel no hesitation in presenting it. He had in the first instance recommended to Mr. Finnerty to petition the Prince Regent, through the. Secretary of State for the home department. He had accordingly done so, and the right hon. gent. had written to the high sheriff of the county to procure information; but within these few hour no answer had been received. Under these circumstances he had approved of submitting the Petition to the House, and it was precisely the same as that intended to be laid before the Prince. The Petition was then brought up, and read, as follows: To the Hon. the House of Commons of Great Britain and Ireland, in Parliament assembled, the Petition of Peter. Finnerty sheweth— "That in consequence of a letter published in the Morning Chronicle, complaining of grievous injury sustained by Petitioner and by his countrymen in Ireland, Petitioner was indicted for a libel at the prosecution of lord viscount Castle reagh. That upon receiving notice of trial for the said libel, Petitioner found that the witnesses most material to his defence were absent from England, and therefore he had a motion made in the court of King's bench, for the postponement of the said trial, which motion was rejected; contrary, as he understands, to the usual practice of that court. Petitioner being unable to establish any defence in the absence of his witnesses, thought it expedient to let judgment go by default, without, however, any consciousness of guilt, being, as he offered, when brought up for judgment, ready to prove by the most irrefragable testimony, the truth of his allegations; particularly with respect to the infliction of torture in Ireland in the months of May and June, 1798. That Petitioner was, notwithstanding, sentenced to 18 months imprisonment in Lincoln Castle, where he has experienced, and continues to experience, a degree of rigour unprecedented in modern times—unauthorised by the terms of hi" sentence—and in direct hostility to the mild and merciful character of the British constitution. "That upon the night of his arrival at this castle in the month of February, petitioner, although evidently in a bad state of health, was committed to a felons' apartment, where he is still compelled to remain. That finding his appeal to the jailor's consideration quite ineffectual, petitioner had a remonstrance presented to the visiting magistrates of the prison, of which the following is an abstract: " 'I am confined upon a ground floor, in a cold gloomy apartment, the door of which is nearly opposite to my bed, and opens into a yard about twenty-five feet square, enclosed by a wall about thirty feet high—so high, indeed, as to exclude the free current of air. In the centre of this yard is a grate, from whence issues the most offensive smell, owing, as I understand, to the common-sewer of the debtor's prison, which runs underneath, and which smell annoys me even in my cell. By this smell I am prevented taking any exercise in that yard, while I am denied the opportunity of enjoying air and exercise in the area which surrounds the prison, and to which all the other prisoners are admitted throughout the day, excepting only the common felons and myself. Of this privation I have the more reason to complain, because from the state of my health, being subject to indigestion and violent spasmodic affections in the stomach, I have been uniformly advised by all medical men, whom I have had occasion to consult, to seek the enjoyment of fresh air, and to take as much exercise as I could bear. Such has been the opinions of Doctors Lipscomb, Wright, and Stanton, whom I have consulted in London; and such also is the opinion of the physicians to whom I have had occasion to resort since my arrival here, and whose certificate is annexed. Such treatment as I complain of is, I am persuaded, as contrary to the intention of the Judges by whom I have been sent here, as it is I submit, inconsistent with that to which any man committed for a misdemeanor, ought to be subjected.' "That about a week after the petitioner's arrival here, he was, in consequence of this remonstrance, visited by the magistrates, one of whom, in the course of conversation, observed, that they (the magistrates) could not compel the jailor to accommodate petitioner with rooms in the front of the prison; adding, that he understood another person confined for a libel (whom he named) paid three guineas a-week for his accommodation in another prison. To this observation petitioner said, that he could not afford to pay so much; upon which another of the magistrates observed, that his (Petitioner's) subscriptions" were likely to be considerable." In a few days after this visit, petitioner was allowed to take exercise for three hours each day, which according to his request, was fixed at from eight to nine in the morning, from one till two in the afternoon, and from five till six in the evening. But this arrangement was soon after altered, and an order issued, that such petitioner should take exercise for 3 hours in succession, namely, from eleven till two o'clock. Against this order Petitioner again remonstrated; but the orders respecting the treatment of Petitioner have throughout varied in such a manner, as to justify Petitioner in stating that they are dictated by a spirit of oppression. "That, for a period of nearly five weeks, petitioner was not allowed to go into the area for the enjoyment of air and exercise at all, inconsequence of which his health suffered so severely, that the medical gentleman who usually attended him, thought it necessary to call in another physician; and Petitioner-despairing of any redress from the magistrates, had the certificates of these two gentlemen transmitted to the sheriff, copies of which certificates are hereunto annexed. The sheriff in reply, as petitioner understands, communicated his opinion to the magistrates, that petitioner should be allowed the air and exercise recommended by the physician, but still petitioner has been allowed only one hour each day, namely, from one until two o'clock; and if it rain at that period he is not permitted to go out at any other hour, his application to that effect having been peremptorily refused. Upon one occasion, indeed, Petitioner being severely afflicted by a headache, to which he has been, subject for some time back, sent a request to the gaoler that he might, in consequence of his illness, be allowed to go into the air of the Castle-yard, even for half an hour, in. lieu of the hour from one till two o'clock—but this request was rejected. That this allowance of air and exercise granted to him, petitioner most sensibly feels, and his medical attendant has so represented it, but in vain. "That there are various other instances of oppression and injustice, of which pe- titioner has to complain, but by the repetition of which he does not think it right to trespass upon the patience of your honourable House. Your Petitioner, however, cannot overlook this circumstance, that about a fortnight after his arrival here, a person who came from London to attend him in his illness was excluded from the prison, and a prisoner appointed to attend him whose integrity he has cause to "aspect; but whom, nevertheless, he cannot dismiss, because no other person will be admitted, even the person who dresses his victuals being refused admittance. That under such circumstances petitioner appeals to your honourable House for relief, trusting that you will not sanction such severity as cannot be justified by the sentence passed upon him, such as he presumes to assert was not in the contemplation of the judges by whom that sentence was passed, such as was wholly unusual in this country. Petitioner particularly and earnestly requests that your honourable House, in consideration of the very weak state of his health, and the aggravation of his complaints, by the mode in which be has been hitherto treated, and which, if continued must terminate in incurable disease, will be graciously pleased to take such steps that Petitioner may be forthwith removed into an airy apartment, and allowed the air and exercise necessary for the re-establishment and preservation of his health—that such apartment may be easily afforded him, as there is room amply sufficient in the front of the jail, the jailor having set apart 13 rooms for his own use, while his family consists of only three persons. "Petitioner begs leave to represent to your honourable House, that on or about the 27th of May last, a petition, couched in terms such as petitioner hopes were respectful, and signed by your petitioner, was transmitted through the Secretary of State to his royal highness the Prince Regent, representing the situation of petitioner. "That petitioner has waited in the humble hope of meeting redress, through, the clemency of his Royal Highness; but having this day heard that the Secretary of State for the home department, owing to same delay, which to your petitioner suffering under such privations, appear extraordinary, has not yet been able to obtain the information which he professed it his duty to seek, previously to, his offering his advice to the Regent upon the pe- tition presented. Petitioner therefore fearing the speedy prorogation of parliament, has submitted his case to the consideration of your honourable House, not from any doubt of the justice or clemency of his Royal Highness the Prince, upon whose liberality he has the utmost confidence; but from the impatience of a man unjustly oppressed, and suffering under the pains of disease, brought on by the treatment he has received. All that petitioner requires, is an airy apartment, with the opportunity for air and exercise, which the prison yard affords,—And petitioner will ever pray,

stated, that he had that day received a letter from the high Sheriff) the delay of which was owing to his having been in town, and having left directions behind him, under the expectation of an immediate return, that his letters should not be sent after him. It informed him, that Mr. Finnerty had at first en. joyed only one hour of exercise in the open air, which period was afterwards extended to three. This indulgence, however, it was found necessary to withhold, in consequence of the extreme irregularity and impropriety of his conduct, and which was stated to be of a description not more inconsistent with decorum than with the rules and discipline of the prison. He was in possession also of certificates contrary to those mentioned by the hon. gent. He had, however, no objection to make every further inquiry necessary to prove whether it was possible to relieve the inconvenience complained of, His noble friend (lord Castlereagh) had, it was but justice to say, manifested ever desire to render the confinement of Mr. Finnerty as mild as was compatible with the sentence.

said, he knew not what Mr. Finnerty's conduct might have been; but the charge rested entirely on the authority of the letter received by the right hon. gent. But even if this was the case, he could not see why he should be denied airy apartments. The certificates which he had received were signed by three very respectable physicians, and were therefore entitled to belief. The observations of the magistrates, as recorded in the petition, were under any circumstances highly improper, nor was a want of money a just reason for adding to the severity of the punishment of any offence. The conduct of the sheriff likewise was very indiscreet.

did not know what powers were vested in the magistrates or gaoler to convert the prison into a House of correction, and inflict solitary confinement at their discretion. This appeared to have been done in this instance, and an acquaintance of his had informed him, that in passing through Lincoln, he had wished to see Mr. Finnerty, but was refused admittance. It likewise seemed to him that the Secretary of State was not a proper person to be appealed to, or any of the executive ministers of the crown. Enough had certainly been said to induce the House to take the Petition into full consideration, and extend to the prisoner all the relief and accommodation that was consistent with the nature of the sentence.

said that a friend of his had been denied access to Mr. Finnerty.

thought that the allegations contained in the petition were of a nature that required an answer very different from that which had been as yet given. There could be no doubt that Mr. Finnerty had entered the prison in which he was now confined in a state of health much impaired; a circumstance which in itself ought to have been sufficient to have ensured Mr. Finnerty every possible indulgence consistent with his situation. Indeed, he thought, that this might have been rendered without any very extraordinary exercise of humanity. But instead of this, it appeared that he had been treated with downright cruelty. It was, indeed, a statement of cruelty so excessive, that in his opinion it would be to the disgrace of the House if they suffered it to remain on their table uncontradicted and unremedied. There were some parts of the, Petition to which the right hon. secretary had given no answer; one especially, which appeared to him to require the fullest explanation, if indeed it could admit of any; and that was, that the gaoler, with but three in family, monopolized to himself the exclusive use of thirteen separate rooms; while Mr. Finnerty, at the manifest risk of his life, was to continue for eighteen months confined in a damp and noisome cell. He would ask, was this to be endured? Was it to be endured that a gaoler was thus to assume the power of making an infinite difference between punishments which the courts of law originally meant to be the same. Upon what ground did this gaoler take it upon him to refuse Mr. Finnerty's friends access to him? Was this a part of his sentence? and were they to leave Mr. Finnerty in such a precarious state of health as he then was, to the discretion of a man who seemed so capriciously and cruelly to have abused his trust? He felt himself bound to entreat, from the right hon. Secretary, some distinct declaration upon this part of the subject, pledging himself to interpose his authority in the remedying what appeared to be a system of oppression. Another circumstance, not very satisfactorily explained, was the great lapse of time that had intervened between the time of the letter of the Secretary of State to the sheriff, and the receipt of the sheriff's answer; such delay might have been of fatal consequences in cases where the health of the individual aggrieved had more rapidly declined.—As far as the present question personally related to Mr. Finnerty, he confessed that he was one of those who did not think it the less deserving their attention on that account. He did not stand forward to defend Mr. Finnerty's violation of the laws of his country, for which violation he was now making so severe an expiation; but however culpable Mr. Finnerty had been, he could not forget that gentleman's past life. At a very early age, when a mere boy, he began the world by turning the advantages of a good education into the means of honourable subsistence for himself and family; it was his misfortune while yet a boy, to live in times when it was criminal to complain of oppression; times which every honest and honourable mind must have witnessed with indignant regret; times in which such a system of oppression and persecution was pursued, as must, if persisted in much longer, have ended in the ruin of the country—in such times, and under the impulse of those feelings which they were but too well calculated to excite in every ingenuous mind, did Mr. Fin- nerty pass the limits of temperate discussion, and so bring down upon himself the weighty visitation of the law. To this offence Mr. Finnerty had been led by those sentiments which in periods more favourable to the cause of liberty, have distinguished the brightest characters in the history of this country. He had been in that instance, as well as in a subsequent one, right in principle, a rooted attachment to the cause of his oppressed country was that principle; and it was a principle from which, however punishment might remotely flow, disgrace never could. In this country, as in his own, the same principle had led him into the commission of a similar offence. He had in both cases told the truth beyond the licence of the law, and in this case, as well as in the former, he suffered in the cause of his country, which was the cause of truth and justice. He thought it, therefore, extremely harsh that a man so suffering for telling the truth, unjustifiably should be classed with the greatest culprits and felons in the admeasurement of his punishment, at the insolent discretion of a gaoler. There was besides a circumstance in the sentence of the court on Mr. Finnerty, which must have operated with peculiar severity in his case. It was well known that Mr. Finnerty had been for many years employed in this great city in a way most flattering to his literary talents, and, he believed, as productive in point of emolument as it was honourable. What, then, must have been the sufferings of this unfortunate gentleman, not only to have been thrown into goal for eighteen months, but to be banished to so remote a distance as Lincoln, from the scene of his industry, and thus cut off from his literary connections, and perhaps the means of common subsistence? Under all the circumstances of the case, he thought it most particularly deserving the attention of the House. He concluded, by entreating of the right hon. Secretary to take the most speedy and effectual means of putting a stop to the system of oppression, by which Mr. Finnerty appeared to have been so shamefully persecuted.

said, that his right hon. friend, the Secretary for the Home Department, had done him but justice in giving him credit for his wishes, respecting the mitigation of Mr. Finnerty's sufferings. When he had first heard of that gentleman's application upon that subject, he did not feel himself prohibited from interposing with his Majesty's, government, for the immediate and effectual repression of any undue severities which might have been experienced by Mr. Finnerty. In claiming every exemption from such oppression, be thought that the petitioner was asking not for indulgence, but for justice. Neither could any proceedings that might be taken in consequence of this Petition, be considered as a mark of indulgence to the Petitioner, it would be in effect but remedying a wrong, restoring Mr. Finnerty to aright. In saying this much of the motive of the present application, which appeared to him, if Mr. Finnerty thought himself aggrieved, to be a very justifiable appeal, he could not help alluding so Jar to the remote cause of the Petitioner's present situation. He had not, he trusted, been remarkable for following up with any vindictive animadversions, attacks of a certain nature, but the one made by Mr. Finnerty, was, he must say, so gross a libel, not merely personally upon him, but upon the administration in general of Ireland at that time, that he thought his passing it over in silence might have been misinterpreted as a tame acquiescence in the truth of charges so extremely heinous. He had, therefore, no alternative left him, but such an acquiescence, or the discharge of a painful public duty; in the discharge of it he had been influenced by no private motive. The House would do him the justice to admit, that in attacks of that kind, merely affecting himself personally, he had not proved himself extremely querulous; but in the present case, had he passed it over, he should hare really thought himself guilty of a great breach of public duty; that duty, however, having been now discharged, he should have great pleasure in forwarding every means for the removal of any oppressive usage, which the Petitioner might have experienced. Nor, indeed, should he have been unwilling to have been instrumental in applying to the fountain of mercy, had not the repetition of Mr. Finnerty's assertion of the truth of his statements of torture, &c. in the petition now upon their table, tied up his bonds effectualy from any such interposition. It did not however preclude him from joining With the House in providing that the wrongs of which the Petitioner complained, should be redressed.—Having said so much upon the question, as affecting Mr. Finnerty and himself, nothing that had fallen from the hon. gent. who spoke last, should tempt him to go then into the discussion of the conduct of the Irish government during the times so warmly alluded to; but this he would take the liberty of saying, that upon that question, when brought before parliament in a way likely to be subservient to the purposes of truth, he should be prepared to meet that hon. gent. or any other, and to prove to the satisfaction of the House and of the country, that the general conduct of the Irish Administration (he spoke not of individual instances of cruelty, which nothing could justify), was at that time fully justifiable.

said, that this appear-ed to him to be a case of the very last importance; there was one material fact which had not been at all explained by his right hon. friend the Secretary for the Home Department. When this person was sent to the castle of Lincoln, there to be confined pursuant to his sentence; the gaoler locked him up in a solitary cell appropriated to felons—upon what authority did the gaoler venture to do this? the prisoner was not sentenced to solitary imprisonment—a punishment concerning which, however, he believed, there were no small doubts, as to whether there were any sanction of it to be found in the laws of England—but be that as it might, if there was such a distinction, was the imposing of it to be left in the hands of a gaoler? This would be a power beyond any thing exercised by the King's bench. That court sentenced one man to twelve months imprisonment—another to eighteen—another to two years—but what was the difference of a few months more or less confinements compared with that of solitary confinement, in a felon's cell, shut out from every intercourse, and even the means of earning subsistence wiihheld; and was this fearful discretion to be left to the whim of a gaoler? This was not the case of a private individual; it was the case of the public; this was putting into the hands of every gaoler the severest punishment that could be inflicted on a British subject short of death. Another consideration was that the punishment of the rich man would be essentially different from that of the poor man, though confined for the same offence, and under the very same sentence: from gaolers it might not be so wonderful; but what were they to say to magistrates who could have the face to tell this wretched man, that for three guineas a week more he could he accommodated with a better apartment? What! was this language for magistrates, who officially stood between the prisoner and oppression, to make use of in answer to an application for redress? This was a circumstance which could not rest there; it was certainly very late in the session, but late as it was, he thought that this fact and others, particularly the power so shamefully usurped by the gaoler, ought to be made the ground of a parliamentary enquiry.

declared that his hon. and learned friend had said every thing he meant to have said upon the subject. If the gaoler could put a man in solitary confinement, how was that man to get redress? He gave, perhaps, a letter to the turnkey to put in the post-office, and he threw it behind the fire—how then was it to be known? The man might die, and the gaoler might report him as having died in a fit, and bring in all his turnkeys to swear to it. He wished to know, who was answerable for all this? which of the five parties already mentioned in the course of the debate had the responsibility? was it the Secretary for the home department, the court of King's bench, the magistrates, the sheriff, or the gaoler?

admitted that the conversation alleged to have been held with the prisoner by the magistrates was, on their part, very reprehensible, but there could be no doubt, that even in saying what they did, their motive could not hare been of any base or unworthy description.

in explanation, stated, that the one hour's air and exercise had been at first enlarged to three hours at different times, one hour each time, and that on certain gross and indecent improprieties having been committed by the prisoner, that time had not been lessened; but it was thought advisable that he should take the three hours exercise at once, from eleven till two, every day: the cold of the apartment had been remedied by a baize door. If was a mistake to represent Mr. Finnerty as under solitary confinement. He was under no such thing. As to the complaint made by an hon. gentleman of the severity of banishing the petioner to a gaol so distant from the metropolis, it was in compliance with the earnest applications of the prisoner's friends that he was not sent to a prison in the immediate vicinity of London, but sent to a country gaol, and one which was con- sidered the healthiest in England. He understood that the offensive smell complained of did not exist. He professed-himself, however, ready to recommend the adoption of every measure likely to promote the health and accommodation of the prisoner, and at the same time consistent with the precautions necessary to prevent a recurrence of the same indecent irregularities to which he had alluded.

said that it appeared from various statements of Mr. Finnerty, that the gaoler had acted towards him in the most brutal manner possible, answering all his applications for redress by messages through the turnkey conveyed in terms the most insolent and scandalous. He hoped the right hon. gentleman would engage to get Mr. Finnerty one of the front apartments in the more airy part of the prison.

could not give any other than the general pledge he had given, qualified by the conditions he had annexed to it.

hoped, now that the right hon. gentleman had promised every thing necessary to remedy the grievances complained of by Mr. Finnerty, the object of the petition had thus been gained and since that was the case, he trusted the discussion would not continue the whole night. An hon. gentleman had favoured the House with a high and elaborate eulogium on Mr. Finnerty, and had certainly in the course of it brought certain merits of that person to light which he had never before heard attributed to him. He hoped, however, now that the wishes of the House were known upon the subject, that there would be no necessity for any more eulogies upon the great services and great talents of Mr. Finnerty.

said, in explanation, that in what he had said of Mr. Finnerty, he did not affect to pass any eulogy upon him. He had merely stated what he understood to be facts; and if those facts were of a nature so praise-worthy as to amount in effect to an eulogy, he did not see why the statement of them should have been so offensive to the hon. gentleman's delicacy. He might, however, call it eulogy if he pleased; but while it was true, he should not be ashamed of it. He did not think it ought to be withheld from Mr. Finnerty merely because he happened to be at that time an unfortunate prisoner pining in a cell. His motive, in saying what he had of Mr Finnerty was to do away that prejudice which he feared had been but too active against him in this country, and which was, perhaps, in part the cause of the oppressions under which he now laboured, and which it would be to the disgrace of that House to have heard, and not remedied.

in explanation, said, that he did not doubt the statement made by the hon. gentleman; but had said only that he had attributed to Mr. Finnerty qualities by which he had never before heard of his being distinguished.

agreed with the noble lord who had expressed himself so handsomely on this question, that this was an application for justice, not indulgence. He wished to set the right hon. Secretary right as to one point. He was present when the sentence was passed on Mr. Finnerty, and the jail then mentioned, he perfectly recollected, was the castle of Lincoln. He contended that the statement in the petition amounted to an allegation of solitary confinement. A learned friend of his had applied for admission; he at first got a flat refusal, but on his pressing his right of access, he was told that Mr. Finnerty did not wish to see any body; this evasion would not serve; his friend insisted upon Yes or No, and intimidated them into their duty. The teamed gentleman then proceeded to comment upon the great hardship and injustice of lodging in the hands of a gaoler a power he might so easily pervert to satisfy the mean purposes of private pique. He insisted that the allegations of Mr. Finnerty respecting the dampness and noisome smell of the room were perfectly correct. Let the magistrates or gaoler who doubted them be treated with a night or two's lodging in the same apartment, and perhaps they might be then better disposed to agree with him. A common sewer passed, through the middle of the room immediately under the flooring, and emitted a most noisome effluvia.

said, he now recollected another friend of his who had called, and had been refused access to Mr. Finnerty. He was however admitted to him at a subsequent period; and so dark was the room at mid-day, that Mr. Finnerty was obliged to read the letter he brought him at the grate by the light of the fire.

repeated what he before said as to the advice he should give for the redress of Mr. Finnerty, stating at the same time, that he had understood that the persons charged with the custody of the gaol of Lincoln had in general discharged their duty with fidelity and attention to the general accommodation of the prisoners.