rose to make some observations on a statement which had been made by an hon. baronet (sir F. Burdett) on a former night, respecting a person named Williams, who, in a letter to that hon. baronet, represented himself to have been an American sailor, and to have been pressed and sent on board the Enterprize. He did think the hon. baronet had been satisfied with the mere mention of the fact, relying as he supposed he would, upon the Admiralty making the necessary enquiries into the case. The hon. baronet however, having incidentally alluded to it on a subsequent night, he felt it necessary to make some statement on the subject to the House, and actually came down to the House for several days for that purpose, but had not the good fortune to find the hon. baronet in his place; and although the hon. baronet was not now in the House, he could no longer delay the explanation which he thought it incumbent on him to make. On enquiry he found that, in truth, there had been a seaman impressed of the name of John Williams, and that this person had applied for his release upon the ground of his being an American. In consequence of this application, the Admiralty gave instructions that necessary enquiries should be made into the fact alleged; and on examining the man he declared himself to be an American, and said he had been discharged from on board his Majesty's ship the Namur on that account. It so happened, however, that one of the gang recognised him to have been a deserter from the Namur, and he himself admitted that he had deserted from that ship two months before. Finding, therefore, from this discovery, that there was no ground for his discharge, he was not permitted to quit the service. This fact shewed the necessity of caution on the part of the Admiralty, before they hastily listened to such claims. There was nothing for which the Admiralty were so little desirous as impressing American seamen, or for retaining them, when they were impressed, from the trouble which naturally arose from their claims for discharge. The usual course was, therefore, that when an American seaman was pressed, he immediately applied to the consul of that country, who applied for his release, and if on investigation, the application was found to be just, an immediate discharge took place. He hoped this explanation would be satisfactory, as well to the hon. baronet, when he heard it, as to the House.

bore his testimony to the correctness of the statement of his hon. friend.

(the Petition of Thomas Houlden having been read, see p. 310) proceeded to call the attention of the House to a case, as it appeared to him, of the last importance to the rights and privileges of every British subject. Although he had been anxious to press this Petition upon the immediate attention of the House, it had not been originally his intention to do more than move for a committee to enquire into the truth of the allegations contained in the Petition, and as that Petition was, at best, but an exparte statement, to give the individuals complained of a fair opportunity to meet that complaint with their exparte statement in return. This he had done not only from an anxious wish that impartial justice should be done to both sides, but because he had perceived that the friends of the opposite party were not then ready to reply to the charges that were preferred, and which he wished to give them every opportunity of answering in the fullest and most satisfactory manner possible.—He stated this to the House as his apology for having deferred from time to time, for so long a period, a case of such great moment—a delay, however, to which he would not, even under such circumstances, have submitted, had the complainant still continued in confinement. Mr. Houlden, however, was now no longer a prisoner, and the motion he should submit would be for a select committee to enquire into what had been, and now was the mode of treating all persons confined in Lincoln castle, and what was the state of that gaol at present. He believed he need scarcely assure the House of his sincere wish at all times to resist, and put down every tendency to a spirit of insubordination against those persons entrusted with the immediate custody of prisoners, or any feeling hostile to that respect, and reverence due to the magistraoy of the country. But in proportion to the wish he had to support the due weight and au thority of the magistracy, in the same proportion must he be anxious to stigmatize all corruption, connivance, or negligence that tended to degrade it.—It would be for the committee to judge how far the magistrates referred to in the Petition were guilty of all or any of these offences—there certainly was no description of persons imprisoned who had a stronger claim on the compassionate attention of that House, than persons confined for debt.—When they saw, year after year, the legislature interposing between the rigour of the law and the unfortunate debtor; when they saw that legislature resorting to the most violent measures to cancel and annul the penalties of solemn obligations for the very purpose of rescuing the debtor from the severe pressure of those laws; when they witnessed all this, they could not but feel that the case of a poor debtor, complaining of grievous hardships and oppressions, in aggravation of his punishment of imprisonment, had strong and peculiar claims upon their attention.—It might be objected that the same laws that deprived the debtor of his liberty, afforded him protection in confinement: it was true, no doubt, that the prisoner might have his action; but it was not equally certain that he had the means of carrying on the expences of a suit, or that if he had not those means, he would be willing to sue for redress in the humiliating character of a pauper.—Having made these general observations, he should now proceed to state, very briefly, the circumstances of this particular case. It appeared that the petitioner, Thomas Houlden, was brought before a magistrate (whose name, though he had omitted to mention it on a former occasion, he would now state, as there was no doubt some friend present who would be able to defend him), Doctor Caley Illingworth, who on a complaint preferred by the gaoler, ordered the petitioner to be removed from the apartment in the prison which he had hitherto occupied, and to be confined, though but a prisoner for debt, in one of the cells appropriated to common felons; and it further appeared, that the petitioner was left to remain closely confined in this cell for eleven days and nights successively; and it also appeared, that during that period he was denied the use of pen, ink, and paper, and that no friend whatever was permitted to have access to him. What the mighty offence was that had called down upon him the indignant severity of this Doctor Caley Illingworth should hereafter be explained, and it should be also satisfactorily proved that this confinement in a cell for eleven days and nights, would not have even then been put a stop to, had it not been for the unexpected intervention of a certain circumstance which could also be very intelligibly explained. But he could not help asking what was the authority under which the magistrate meant to shelter such an act of oppression?—He knew of none, the common law, he was confident, gave none; but it had been contended for, he understood, and that even by lawyers, that all this authority was derivable to the magistrate under the operation of the 31st of the King. He had read the act attentively, and had found in it no such authority. It did give certain powers in the controul of houses of correction to the magistracy, but such prisons as the Castle of Lincoln, county gaols, were, he contended, the prisons of the sheriffs, and not of the magistracy. If this power had been given by that act, it would have been given in plain and direct words, and if the power had not been given, it was in vain to talk to that House of what this or that lawyer thought of the construction that might be put on the act, when it was evident to any man who read it, that no such construction was within the meaning of the legislature, at the time it was enacted. But even had the power existed, it ought to have been exercised, like all other power, with discretion; and not capriciously, and as in this case with a wish to find the person guilty. The offence of the petitioner was simply this: He had refused to be supplied with a bed by the gaoler, and wished one of his own to be brought into the prison. This was no indulgence. He had a right to this accommodation by virtue of the 32d of Geo. 2, chapter 28, section 4, a provision obviously made with the view of protecting the prisoner from the rapacity and extortion of the gaoler, who might otherwise insist upon his own price for an accommodation so indispensable. The petitioner, however, was threatened with being turned over into the pauper's ward, in case he brought in his own bed. He was then thrown into a room containing seven beds and thirteen prisoners. It was in summer, the weather uncommonly hot, and the room very close. To this room were two doors—an inner and an outer grated door. One night, after the petitioner had been sent to this room, the inner door was closed as well as the outer, and thus the usual opening between the room and the outer door was closed. It was not improbable that the petitioner (though it was not so stated) might have expressed, in strong language, his indignant sense of such an act of oppression directed against himself, because he did not succumb to the extortion of the gaoler. Be that as it might, he and the remaining thirteen were, innocent as well as guilty, shut up in this room—the usual circulation of air denied them, all on account of the supposed contumely of one, and in consequence of what then passed between the petitioner and the gaoler, the former was brought before Dr. Caley Illingworth, who could not find sufficient in the statement of the gaoler to justify the exercise of power he wished to resort to, and expressed his concern to the prisoner that he could not punish him. This regret, however, could not have been of long duration, for he was again brought before this Dr. Caley Illingworth, and was sentenced, in two days after, to close confinement in a felon's cell. Here he remained eleven days and nights, and might have remained indefinitely long, had it not been for the arrival of the intelligence of a conversation which had taken place in that House, on the subject of Mr. Finnerty's Petition, complaining of abuses in that prison, on the part of the same gaoler. On the arrival of this news, the petitioner was immediately discharged from his cell. And here he could not help congratulating the House upon this instance, among numberless others, of the great benefits resulting from public discussion. He had often voted in minorities of even six and sixteen, where the discussion upon the question on which they were out-voted had, by becoming public, led to a correction of the abuses to which it related. He thought that these circumstances did lay grounds for suspecting both extremely corrupt motives in the gaoler, and most criminal connivance in the magistrate.—(Hear!)—The hon. gentleman who cheered him would have every opportunity, and no doubt come prepared to vindicate both gaoler and magistrate; but he could not forget what had been stated in Mr. Finnerty's Petition, and never contradicted, that one of the magistrates, in the presence too of another magistrate, told Mr. Finnerty that he had heard that in other prisons prisoners by paying for them could get better apartments than others; and that if he gave three guineas a week he might get better; and that on Mr. Finnerty remonstrating that he had not the means to pay so high a rent, the other magistrate observed, that he understood a subscription was going forward which might enable him to do so.—He could not forget that the member for Lincolnshire, who came down prepared to answer every other allegation, was obliged to suffer that to remain wholly uncontradicted.—He had heard of a meeting of the magistrates on the first of May, who portioned out the nine sleeping rooms for debtors in the following manner:—seven to those who could pay for their beds, and the remaining two to all the rest that could not pay. By an order of those magistrates, places and cells had been appropriated in Lincoln gaol for refractory and disorderly debtors. He knew not the authority under which they made such an order, and he spoke as a lawyer. He understood also, that the gaoler of Lincoln castle had a fixed salary of 300l. a year, independent of all other emoluments. An hon. and learned friend of his had recently mentioned in the House a case of a debtor in the agonies of death, who died in the night time before any one dared to disturb the repose of the gaoler, although he would not say that the debtor might not have died, whether a medical man had been timely called in or not. He had heard other facts even more disgraceful, which he would not trust himself with stating, although accounts of them had been published in the newspapers and had not been contradicted, at least through the same channel. It had been lately said, that the gaol was in an insurrection—if so, it was an insurrection of complaint. But the prisoners had addressed their complaints in the humblest and the most respectful language. Such gaols and prisoners were, he contended, the sheriff's, whose duty was not merely one of parade to ride on a caparisoned horse into the assize town before the judge, with white staffs and trumpets sounding, but to consult the ease and comforts of his prisoners, for his they were, as far as that comfort was consistent with their confinement. Fortunately those new lights had not broken out when the great Howard was induced even to violate the law (he being a dissenter) and to take upon himself the office of sheriff, to enable him to perform those acts of charitable and beneficial reform which he could not otherwise have effected. He should conclude with moving, "That a Select Committee be appointed to enquire into, and report to the House, what has been, and now is, the condition and treatment of prisoners confined in Lincoln Castle, and the conduct and management of the said prison; and to report the same, with their observations thereupon, to the House."

seconded the motion.

expressed his sincere satisfaction, that an opportunity would be afforded of vindicating the conduct of those respectable magistrates, whose motives and proceedings had been so ungenerously misinterpreted. As the committee would be the proper place to meet all the charges which had been made, he would not now go at any length into the investigation of the contents of the Petition, but satisfy himself with expressing his perfect confidence that he should be able to rebut every assertion which had been made, and to prove that the character of the petitioner was not such as to entitle him to implicit belief. Indeed he was persuaded that the Petition would never have been sent to the House but at the earnest solicitation of a certain third person whom he would not name.

wished to observe, that as there would be no objection to the proposed enquiry, it might be better to abstain from entering into farther details, as the House would be much better prepared for the discussion when all the facts were collected by a committee of enquiry. At the same time, perhaps, it would have been more convenient to institute a general enquiry into the state of the prisons throughout the kingdom, as in that case some legislative measure might be adopted which would be applicable to all for the prevention of abuses. The House ought certainly to be open to the Petitions of the people, but he thought they must feel, that it was wrong, generally speaking, to encourage immediate applications to parliament, passing by the intermediate authorities, whose business it was to hear and rectify complaints of abuse. Were this practice encouraged in its utmost latitude, it would only overwhelm parliament with minute details, and degrade its most important functions. It would have been better in the present case had the petitioner sought his remedy in the ordinary course of law: but it appeared on the face of the Petition that the petitioner had not availed himself of the natural protection of legal authority.

He understood, however, that the magistrates of the county of Lincoln were anxious for enquiry; and it would be expedient therefore to accede to it, without entering farther into the discussion at present.

had heard it observed, that magistrates were not to be permitted to abuse their authority. Now he had served as sheriff of his county, and had been an acting magistrate for the last 25 years, and had never observed any such tendency. He had diligently enquired into the complaints made in the House last year, with regard to this gaol, and he must say that the exparte statements, which then went out to the public, had tended only to inflame the minds of the people, particularly at a period of partial disturbance. He deprecated, as peculiarly mischievous, the representing magistrates as not only oppressors themselves, but connivers at the abuses and extortions of others. He would ask whether such language was calculated to lay the evil spirit that was now walking abroad through the country? He did not mean to say, that motions of this sort might not sometimes do good; there was a wise discretion to be followed, and a rash precipitancy to be avoided. But he did mean to say, that statements of the kind now given were productive of infinite mischief. With respect to the case mentioned on a former might by an hon. and learned gentleman, that of Godfrey, the debtor, what were the circumstances of that case as given on the inquest by Mr. Evans, the surgeon? Mr. Evans stated, that Godfrey had been a hard liver, that he was afflicted with gall-stones in the bladder, which ended in mortification; and that the night before his death, he, Mr. Evans, declared that he could not live many hours. The man could not be saved, and every attention was paid to him. He was ordered spirits because he was accustomed to them, and at the time of his death there were some of them still left in his room. The surgeon saw him the night before, and also at five o'clock next morning. Mr. Evans complained much in his statement of the conduct of Mr. Finnerty. He said, that when he came to give evidence before the coroner, that person offered to strike him, besides abusing the coroner himself. He was sure the hon. and learned gentleman had stated nothing that he did not believe; but it so happened that there was not one allegation made by the hon. and learned gentlemen, which was not disproved by the fact. As to the petitioner Houlden, he had quarrelled with a fellow prisoner of the name of Morris, whom he annoyed so much as to give him no rest night or day. This was the reason for his solitary confinement; it was ordered by a respectable magistrate who was incapable of conniving at or abetting extortion. He (Mr. E.) rejoiced that a committee was to be appointed. In behalf of himself and his brother magistrates, he would lay in a claim for as much philanthropy, as much humanity, as the hon. and learned gentleman could possess. Let not him monopolize all those virtues to himself. He was glad that there would be an opportunity of vindicating the humanity of the magistrates of Lincoln in that House; and till they were proved to have acted unjustifiably, they ought not to be stigmatised.

again interposed, and expressed his anxiety that the discussion should go no further, as an enquiry had already been agreed upon.

wished to say a few words, as he had been so pointedly alluded to by the hon. member who had just sat down, merely with the view of explaining a few particulars, and not for the purpose of prolonging the debate. He would confine himself to the particular case which he had formerly stated. Before doing so, however, he could not avoid declaring, that he perfectly agreed with every thing which had been said by his hon. and learned friend (sir Samuel Romilly). He thought with him that the House could not be better employed than in protecting the most defenceless and the most unfortunate class of their fellow subjects; those who were suffering under imprisonment, including not only criminals but a numerous body of debtors. He trusted that instead of occasioning any mischief, they were setting an example which in the end would be productive of the greatest practical good. But without entering further into this subject, and deferring the details which would more properly come before the committee, he would now allude to the case formerly alluded to by him—of Godfrey the debtor. What he had said had been misrepresented, in so far as respected the professional man, Mr. Evans. He had never said that unfortunate man died through Mr. Evans's Want of skill. He had never said also, what was charged upon him as unfair to wards the gaoler, that had a surgeon been sent for a quarter of an hour earlier, the man's life would have been saved. What he had said was, that an improper delay occurred in procuring medical assistance, and that the presumption was, had no such delay taken place, the result might have been more favourable; and that the proof of the contrary was thrown on the other party. When Mr. Evans was before the coroner, he stated that his being called an hour sooner or later would have made no difference;—but, before Mr. Evans gave this evidence, how stood the fact? He now held in his hands a document signed by twelve respectable persons, prisoners for debt in the gaol of Lincoln, of whom no doubt Mr. Finnerty was one. And here he would observe, that all that Mr. Finnerty had stated respecting a nuisance in the gaol was proved in the event to be completely accurate, notwithstanding the assertions to the contrary, made with so much solemnity by the honourable members for Lincoln. It so happened, that when they examined the sewer a great part of it was found not to be in a perpendicular direction, as had been stated, but to run in a shelving manner under that part of the prison where Mr. Finnerty was confined. Now, though he found Mr. Finnerty's name, therefore, among this number, he was inclined to attach some credit to the document. There were among them several other very respectable persons, and he would particularly mention Mr. Drakard, of whom all that he knew reflected the greatest honour on his character. He would say of him, that he was not a seditious author, but an honest and respectable tradesman, who was punished for an article which he did not write. Another gentleman of whom he had heard very favourably was a Mr. Morris. It appeared from this document, that in a previous conversation with Mr. Evans, he gave a perfectly different account from that which he afterwards gave before the coroner. It appeared, also, that the coroner behaved throughout in a manner which was completely reprehensible, and treated the evidence in particular in a very unbecoming way. The sort of persons whom he insisted on putting on the inquest were the workmen whom he employed about the prison. When one reflected on his conduct throughout this business it was impossible not to be struck with the propriety of the observations made by judge Blackstone on the great powers vested by the constitution in this officer, and the very low hands into which the office generally came. In directing the jurors to bring in their verdict, the coroner stated that they must either find the prisoner died by the visitation of God, or find a verdict of wilful murder by the gaoler. He would admit of no verdict which should state the case as it really took place. This statement he was now making was confirmed by three of the jurors themselves, who, in a certificate signed by them, which he held in his hands, expressly stated they wished to bring in a verdict of "died by negligence of the gaoler;" but on its being put to them by the coroner that they must either bring in a verdict of wilful murder, or by the visitation of God, they were obliged to relinquish their wish. He had several other documents, but it was unnecessary at present to enter upon them. He would say this much, that he knew not one of the assertions which had been made respecting the gaoler or Dr. Illingworth, but would be found as had been represented.

, in reply to the last observation, begged to read a part of the coroner's charge, in which he expressly stated, that the jury had to enquire whether the prisoner died through the neglect or ill-treatment of the gaoler, or by a natural death.

said, he did not wish to take up the time of the House, now that a committee was agreed to be appointed. He rose principally with a view of making one or two observations on the state of the gaols in this kingdom. He had received several letters and communications on this subject; and he thought that it was highly requisite that an enquiry should be made, as had been proposed by the noble lord, into the state of the gaols throughout the United Kingdom. He trusted, however, that the enquiry would not be like that which had been made into the state of Cold Bath-fields' prison, which was an enquiry for the purpose of suppressing and not for discovering the truth. On that occasion no power was given to investigate into any of the facts alleged by him. He trusted that the present enquiry would serve to bring out the truth. He had come down to the House with the intention of making a variety of observations tending to criminate the magistrates much more than the gaoler; but these observations would come with more propriety before the committee. His object in instituting an enquiry into the state of Cold Bath- fields' prison, was to mark the outset of a new species of imprisonment in this country; namely, solitary imprisonment. Early in the next session he would call the attention of parliament to this subject. It was a mode of imprisoning set on foot under the authority of Mr. Howard, a name entitled to the highest veneration; but this notwithstanding he would say, that a more mistaken notion of imprisonment, one which was more unfortunate to prisoners, which was more exposed to abuse, it was impossible for the best of men to devise, and he hoped that they would come back to our old constitutional mode of imprisonment. There was no safety to prisoners but in the free admission of their friends to them. It was impossible to devise any other means by which they could be secured from oppression. The most excruciating tortures might be inflicted on a prisoner, he might be harassed in the most vexatious manner, and yet it might not be in his power to procure any redress, or to state his case, from the circumstances of the very nature of his imprisonment precluding him from having any evidence of the facts. With respect to the gaol of Lincoln, it appeared that a poor man died without medical assistance, when it appeared from the evidence he was known to be in a most perilous situation. He was left in that situation where it was impossible that any medical relief could be afforded him; and that very fact alone shewed a want of feeling and consideration for the case of the unfortunate man in the highest degree blamable. He had in his possession a paper signed by more than a hundred persons, many of whom were most respectable; but it was now useless to trouble the House on that subject. It was alleged by these persons, that the coroner was in the practice of borrowing large sums of money from the gaoler, and was consequently under his influence; that that practice of borrowing money from him even ascended to the magistrates; and that the gaoler had amassed great wealth in his situation, which was worth only 300l. a year. The sum amassed by him, it was said, was as much as 20, 000l. What the magistrates chose to call an enquiry, was completely futile. They used to ask up the gaoler, put a few questions to him, which the gaoler knew very well how to answer, and this they called an enquiry; but this was the way to stifle effectually all sort of complaint, because the prisoner was aware how all would terminate, and moreover that the complaint would be followed with the resentment of the gaoler. It was certainly singular enough that nothing but solitary confinement was taken from the plans of Mr. Howard; and that every thing else in our prisons was directly the reverse of what he had recommended. In this case it appeared that nearly all the gaol was taken up by the gaoler himself, who had converted the court into a garden, who kept cows in one part of the prison, and had converted a considerable space into a warm bath. Now all these things had been expressly pointed out by Mr. Howard as injurious to prisoners, who were thus deprived of air and exercise. Another thing pointed out by Mr. Howard was the use of irons in solitary confinement, which could be of no use in cells but for the purpose of torturing. No one could tell the amount of the torture that must be inflicted by the constant pressure day and night, of irons attached to an unfortunate prisoner. Solitary confinement was for the purpose of preventing the prisoner from being exposed to sources of immorality, and not for any purpose of torture. The object which Mr. Howard had in view, in recommending solitary confinement, was the reform of the prisoner, and to remove him from corrupt communications and improper indulgencies; but the punishment became enormous indeed, when it was enforced not for a month, but for years; and instead of salutary correction was calculated to produce despair or madness. It was greatly to be lamented that this species of coercion should be left so much at the discretion of that class of persons who were generally employed in the management of gaols.

vindicated the conduct of the commissioners appointed to enquire into the state of Cold-Bath-fields' prison. Their report had now lain three years on the table of the House, and the hon. baronet had never thought proper to notice it. That report so completely negatived the assertions in the petition which gave rise to the enquiry, that no doubt could be entertained of their falshood. He agreed, however, with the hon. baronet in what he had said on the subject of solitary confinement. As a magistrate in his country, he had always found it his duty to direct the surgeon to visit regularly the prisoners under solitary confinement, to see whether it had a pernicious effect on their health, or their mental powers, which it sometimes had. He was an enemy to its being continued for any length of time. On the question now before the House, he thought the best way would be, to send down commissioners, and examine the witnesses on the spot.

explained. He had not complained of the commissioners appointed to examine Cold-Bath-fields' prison, but rather of the inherent defect of their commission, which prevented them from engaging in any retrospective enquiry. Was it not proved that Aris, previous to that business, had beat his prisoners, borrowed money of them, or extorted it as a consideration for indulgencies? The commissioners, unfortunately, had no power to enter into these transactions, which, however, were not the less ascertained.

vindicated the utility of solitary confinement, and mentioned instances where individuals had been so sensibly impressed with the beneficial consequences they had reaped from it, that they thanked the magistrates after their liberation, for the opportunity which had been thus presented to them, of meditating on their offences and reforming.

rose in reply, and observed, that an hon. member had made observations, which clearly insinuated that he (sir S. Romilly) vaunted of his humanity, but he appealed to those who had watched his conduct in that House or out of it, or upon any occasion, whether he had ever been guilty of that meanness, to boast of his own humanity? The hon. member had drawn a picture intended for a representation of him, (sir Samuel,) but it was a most disgusting one, and he hoped it was unlike, for he would say that those men who talked most about their own humanity and consciences, were commonly men possessing least of either. The fact was, however, that the hon. gentleman came down to the House with a speech prepared in his pocket, and taking it for granted that he (sir Samuel Romilly) would say something about his humanity, he had introduced those expressions which the House had heard, and rather than lose them, had suffered them to remain without any propriety of application. It had been supposed also by an hon. member, that he was a mischievous person, one who wanted to unsettle the state of the country. Now, what had he done? He had presented a Petition to that House, which, had it been put into the hands of any members of it, would have been equally presented;—at least he would say, that any member who would not have presented it, was unworthy to represent the Commons of Great Britain.—He would tell the hon. member, however, who it was that was most likely to prove mischievous on an occasion like the present; it was those friends of the persons whose conduct was arraigned, who pretended to stand up in their defence, and yet could say nothing even in extenuation, but who confined themselves to ascribing undue motives to members of parliament who felt it their duty to call the attention of the House to such subjects. He was justified in concluding that nothing could be urged in defence, because nothing had been urged, notwithstanding there was a meeting held at Lincoln, on Monday last upon this occasion, and when if any thing could have been advanced, it certainly would not have been held back. All that had been mentioned by the hon. gentleman opposite, was, that the petitioner was liberated after eleven days and eleven nights confinement, upon writing a letter of contrition to the gaoler, so that it might be inferred, if such letter of contrition had not been written, his confinement would have lasted for eleven weeks, or eleven months perhaps. Good God! was that a defence?—it was said that Houlden was put into solitary confinement, on account of a quarrel which he had with a fellow prisoner. But because prisoners quarrelled, was there no other way to keep them separate in a large gaol, but by shutting them up in cells, and denying them the use of paper and the sight of their friends? Surely such statements as this were calculated, if any thing was so, to excite and inflame the public mind. A noble lord, also, whom he did not then see in his place, (lord Castlereagh) expressed his surprise that the petitioner did not apply to the visiting magistrate for redress; but if the noble lord had read the Petition attentively, he would have found that the visiting magistrate was the very person of whom complaint was made. How then could the petitioner appeal to him? With respect to appointing a commission, he could not concur in that; for he thought that when great public abuses, like the present, were under the cognizance of the House, they ought not to delegate their authority. He concurred entirely, however, with the hon. baronet upon the question of solitary confinement, and so much did he think it carried to undue excess by the magistrates at quarter sessions, that he should, at some future period, move for a return of all persons sentenced to solitary confinement, at the quarter sessions. He had known instances where persons had been sentenced by the magistrates to two years solitary confinement—a sentence much more severe than would have been passed at the assizes. He did not mean to cast any imputation on the magistracy, of whom, as a body, he thought most highly and honourably; but there were some circumstances connected with their decisions, that seemed to render enquiry necessary.

explained. He was quite convinced that the hon. and learned gentleman could not have read his own Petition, so completely did he mistake the matter.

said, that he was supposed not to have read the Petition; but he thought that he might say with more justice, that the noble lord had not taken the trouble to look through the statement of facts which it contained.

defended the magistrates from the attack of his hon. and learned friend. Their conduct in general gave satisfaction to the whole country; and he was certainly astonished, that in times like these, his hon. and learned friend, whose character gave his opinions great weight in the country, could have brought himself to throw out those insinuations which he could pledge himself were totally unfounded. As to the particular motion, he was very sorry that he was not in the House to hear the debate. He certainly came down to attend it, but after what had occurred, he should not oppose the committee, though he could not help thinking, that those on the spot, the magistrates, were snore competent to investigate the business than a committee of the House of Commons. The magistrates had, with respect to county gaols, a superintending power over the sheriffs. (No, from sir S. Romilly.) He respected his hon. and learned friend's authority, and therefore should not insist on his statement; but at any rate, in his opinion, the magistrates ought to be supported.

said, that he was astonished at the injustice with which he was treated by the hon. gentleman, while at the same time that learned gentleman did him the honour to call him friend. He denied that he had endeavoured to throw any discredit on the magistrates. He had done them general justice, not perhaps in as courtly, but certainly in as honest terms as the learned gentleman.

spoke in favour of the committee. He thought his hon. and learned friend treated most unfairly.

felt the same impression from the speech of the hon. and learned member as those on his side of the House. He thought that the magistrates were calumniated; and he had heard no explanation which did away that feeling.

, vindicated the hon. and learned gent. (Sir S. Romilly) from the imputation of having intended to convey any disrespectful opinion of the magistracy of the county.

spoke for the committee; and the question was then put and carried.

The following gentlemen were among the names of the committee; sir Samuel Romilly, Mr. Brougham, Mr. J. Smith, lord Folkestone, sir Francis Burdett, Mr. Davies Giddy, Mr. Wilberforce, Mr. Wellesley Pole, Mr. Ellison Mr. Bankes.

proposed, that the name of the Solicitor General should be added to the committee, lest the gentlemen on the other side should afterwards find it convenient to adopt the late practice; and when they dreaded a particular report, endeavour to add five or six other names to it.

opposed the addition of the Solicitor-General's name. The committee, as it stood, was made up of both the parties in the House, and there was even a majority of those gentlemen who generally voted on the other side.

begged to be excused from the appointment, as it was very unlikely that he should be able to attend the committee.

then withdrew his motion.

then proposed that the name of Mr. Wellesley Pole should be withdrawn, and that of Mr. Lygon substituted in its stead, because there was too small a proportion of county members. To this sir Samuel Romilly objected, observing, that there was no member in the House better qualified to sit upon such a committee than the right hon. gent., from the extent and accuracy of his knowledge with respect to prisons.

The House divided on the question of substituting Mr. Lygon's name, Ayes 36; Noes 27; Majority 9.

The House then continued debating an hour with closed doors, on the motion for adding the names of Mr. W. Bootle, Mr. Holme Sumner, and Mr. Hobhouse, which was at length carried without a division.

rose and said:—Sir; I have been induced to bring forward the motion which I shall now submit to the House, upon a consideration of the report of the committee to which the Petition of the East India Company for a loan of two millions and a half has been referred; this report confirms the allegations of the petitioners, that large sums of money have been raised in the East Indies by the credit of the East India Company, that a part of the sums so raised has been discharged, and that by the terms of the obligations for other parts of such India debt, further sums to a large amount will be shortly payable in this country, and that bills of exchange to the amount of two millions and a half; which were drawn in the East Indies in discharge of this India debt, will become due and payable here on or before the 1st of January next. Now, Sir, it is no where stated, neither in the petition, nor in the report of the committee, what may become due, what further demands may be made on the home treasury subsequent to that period: it is to supply this defect that I bring forward the present motion. The embarrassments under which the East India Company are now applying for re lief to parliament, have arisen from claims made upon their treasury here by creditors in India, holding securities which gave them the option of being repaid in England, under what were termed optional loans. The short history of these loans is this: previous to 1798, the Indian debt of the East India Company was purely local, the money raised in India was to be re paid in India, and the lender had no power vested in him to demand repayment in England. Until that period, the money raised by the governments in India was an Indian concern, and simply an India debt; but the great difficulties the governments in India experienced about this time, in raising the extraordinary supplies to maintain the expensive military establishments, to carry on the extensive wars in which they then engaged, compelled them to have recourse to every expedient they could devise to allure and entice subscribers to their loans. They adopted the plan of borrowing money for 10 years (decennial loans) and what made these loans peculiarly eligible, was the condition which gave the creditor the option of being repaid his principal and interest in England if he chose to demand it; by this condition the creditor not only got the highest rate of interest, but at the same time effected a remittance to England, and all the loans from 1798 to the present time have been raised with this condition. Since the discussion of this subject in the Committee of Supply, I have had occasion to refer to authentic documents, and I find that the whole India debt on the 1st of May, 1809, amounted to 30, 876, 788l. Of this debt there was demandable in England 1S, 533, 358l. Of this there has been either commuted in India, or paid off in England 5, 261, 000l., leaving still outstanding demandable in England 13, 239, 358l. I am aware that a great part of this balance has been since liquidated or transferred, but as the public are to be called upon to assist the East India Company in the payment of the balance, it is right that there should be a correct and precise statement of the account; I say, Sir, that public money will be wanted to meet these demands, because I find in a letter from the directors of the East India Company to the Select Committee, dated 8th of April, 1810, this statement, "That the commissioners for the affairs of India, and his majesty's government, have been for several years quite aware that if any considerable sum of India debt should, in consequence of the optional clause be transferred to England, the Company would necessarily require the public aid for the liquidation of it." Under these circumstances it appears absurd to term this an Indian debt, and it is a little extraordinary that with this knowledge of the embarrassments which were approaching, those to whom the controul of the affairs of India have been entrusted, neglected to provide for the result. I shall, however, confine myself to the object which I have more immediately in view, which is to require a clear and explicit statement of what portion of the 18 millions and a half of India debt demandable in England has been already paid off, what portion has been commuted for other securities which have not this optional clause, and what remains outstanding which may by possibility yet be brought to the home treasury for payment; convinced as I am, that by giving his Majesty's ministers this opportunity of stating fully and unreservedly the real and true state of this description of Indian debt, the only one that can affect the home treasury and require public aid, I give them the best title they can have to the attention of parliament. I shall therefore move, "That there be laid before this House, an Account of the amount of all the loans raised by the East India Company at their several presidencies in India, on conditions vesting in the lender a right to demand bills on England for repayment, from the 1st of May 1798, to the 14th of May, 1808, distinguishing, what part of this debt has been already paid off, what part has been commuted for, or transferred to, other securities; lastly, what part of this debt still remains outstanding, demandable in England."

made a few observations, the purport of which was, that general measures for the financial arrangement of the affairs of the Company were in progress, which made it unnecessary for him to go into particulars; at the same time he should make no objection to the motion. It was consequently agreed to.

brought up the report of the Committee of Supply. On the Resolution, "That a sum not exceeding 78, 344l. 12s. 9d. be granted to his Majesty, to be paid to John Palmer, esq. being the balance of the percentage due to him on the net revenue of the post office, from the 5th day of April, 1793, to the 5th day of January, 1812, "

objected to it on the ground of extravagance, in granting so large a sum of the public money to an individual for services which, in his opinion, had already been sufficiently rewarded. He said that since the year 1793, Mr. Palmer had received, as a compensation for his services, not less than 80, 000l. nearly 60, 000l. of which had been paid to him as a pensioner of the public, after he had ceased to perform any duty whatever. The eminent services of lords Nelson and Wellington had not been so well rewarded; and the sum now proposed was, in his mind, so exorbitant, that no one could advocate it who had any regard to the interest of the public. It was not founded on the claim of justice, but on circumstances which he was sorry to see brought forward at the present moment. He was somewhat surprised that his right hon.

friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer should have given his sanction to it.

said, be had followed the example of his late right hon. friend and predecessor in office, who had given his sanction to the measure; but reserved to himself the right of opposing the Bill when it should come before the House. This was the mode which it was his intention to pursue.

said, he thought such a mode of conduct would be "more honoured in the breach than the observance." With respect to the question itself, his opinion was, that Mr. Palmer had not been correct, but when the impediments thrown in his way, by those whose duty it was to assist him, were fairly considered, he thought he was justly entitled to have his original agreement fulfilled; and he hoped those members who had heretofore voted in favour of his claims, would not suffer themselves to be led astray by the argument of the hon. gentleman. The cases of lords Nelson and Wellington were not at all similar. The annuities granted to those noble lords had the honour of the peerage attached to them, and the services were at an end before the remuneration took place; but the public had received, and continued to receive, immense benefits from Mr. Palmer's services, not only in the celerity, but the security of correspondence, and by an addition to the revenue which was almost beyond credibility. No one could have persuaded the. House of Commons to grant such a sum as 78, 000l. if it had not thought Mr. Palmer had a just claim to it; and as that claim had been sanctioned by repeated large majorities of the House, he should certainly vote for it now.

defended the claims of Mr. Palmer, as founded on the contract. He considered that this contract was binding upon the justice of the House, and could not be violated on the part of the public, merely on the ground of some mis- behaviour of Mr. Palmer in his office. On the legality of the contract, there was the authority of the written opinions of four most eminent lawyers, Sir James Mansfield, Mr. Erskine, Mr. Adam, and sir Vicary Gibbs. If the claim had failed in a court of law, it was from the technical difficulty of shaping the action, and not from any deficiency in the validity of the contract, if it were between man and man. A valid contract could not with justice be got rid of, even by the mis- conduct which had been stated. It appeared, however, from the provocations which Mr. Palmer had received, and the machinations in the post office against him, that he was naturally irritated to some misconduct. It was said, that for this misconduct he might have been prosecuted. Why was he then not prosecuted? It could not be said, that he had compromised his claims in order to escape prosecution. Although he conceived it most mischievous to lavish away the public money on persons who had rendered no services to the public, he considered it equally mischievous to set the word economy against the just claims of any individual who had rendered important services.

conceived it a most extraordinary effect of solicitation on the part of the friends of Mr. Palmer, when he saw that those who were usually the most watchful guardians of the public expenditure, now came forward in support of this claim, and did not hesitate to grant so large a sum as 78, 000l. to this individual, independent of annuities, which might amount to eight or ten thousand pounds a year. Notwithstanding the authority of the four lawyers who had beets mentioned, he was clearly of opinion, that the antecedent conversations between Mr. Pitt and Mr. Palmer, terminated in the latter accepting as his reward, a certain office with a salary of 1, 500l. a year, besides a per centage on the increase of the Post-office duties. From this office and its emoluments, he was afterwards displaced on account of the grossest misconduct, apparent on the face of his own letters. The learned gentleman then read a long letter of Mr. Palmer to his secretary Mr. Bonner, which proved clearly that when he was comptroller of the Post-office, he encouraged frauds with the view of disturbing the whole business of the office, and to perplex his superior, lord Walsingham, who was then post-master general. Such a scandalous violation of his duty in the office, certainly justified his removal from it, and the loss of all the emoluments attached to it. It might, however, be thought somewhat hard, if even for this gross misbehaviour, he should be entirely deprived of any reward for the plan which he had suggested. It must be recollected, however, that he had ever since been receiving the large pension of 3, 000l. per annum. He contended that it was an office which was Mr. Palmer's reward, and that the per centage was part of the emoluments of that office which he had forfeited by the grossest misconduct, which, however, he was much surprised to hear the hon. baronet speak of as quite natural.

, in explanation, denied that he had ever said that Mr. Palmer had not been properly removed from his office. His argument bore entirely upon the per centage to which he conceived him entitled by the contract.

said, that however lightly the Solicitor General now spoke of the opinions of four lawyers, he must beg leave to prefer the written opinions of Mansfield, Erskine, Adam, and Gibbs, to the verbal opinion of the hon. and learned gentleman. The letter which the hon. and learned gentleman had read to the House was not at all new to them, although, perhaps, it had never before been read there with so much emphasis. This letter and the others had been before those lawyers who had given an opinion favourable to the claim. It appeared to him, that Mr. Palmer had been hardly dealt with. The House of Commons had decided two or three times in his favour, but by some trick of the minister, the decision was rendered unavailing. At one time they took it out of the Appropriation act to prevent its being passed; and at another time they advised the Prince Regent not to grant the money on the Address of the House of Commons merely. They suggested great doubts of the propriety of granting money to Mr. Palmer on the Address of the House of Commons, but they had no doubts at all about advising the Prince Regent to grant money to pay the debts of the Prince of Wales. He certainly wished to check useless expenditure; but when there was a claim of justice, it must be satisfied.

spoke against the claims of Mr. Palmer on nearly the same grounds as the Solicitor-General.

The House then divided—