rose to call the attention of the House to a subject which was of great importance to the country. He wished particularly that his majesty's ministers would attend to the statement he was about to make, as it was impossible, if a moment's consideration were given to the subject, that there could be more than one feeling as to the necessity of some remedy being applied to the very great evil complained of, as he could not suppose that any member would say that the four northern counties ought to be excluded from the ordinary administration of justice. Every member of the House knew, that throughout the three kingdoms, with the exception of the counties of Cumberland, Northumberland, Durham, and the town and county of Newcastle-upon-Tyne, there were regular gaol deliveries twice a year, as courts of assize and sittings at Nisi Prius were held twice a year in the different counties, with the exception of those mentioned. Bristol, he believed, was the only exception, but he hoped such regulations would be adopted as would give that city also the same enjoyment of the laws as the other parts of the country possessed. Why those counties were deprived of the privileges enjoyed by the rest of the country, he was at a loss to determine. Those counties were as rich, as well peopled, and as deserving of protection as any other part of the kingdom. Would it be said that though those counties were as fully peopled as any others, yet they were less addicted to crime than the other inhabitants of the country? He feared that such a reason as that could not be assigned, for their being deprived of the protection enjoyed by the other parts of the country. It was well known that in the northern counties many persons had been in prison for the last three months, to take their trial, not at the next spring, but at the next summer assizes. Thus a number of persons were to be confined from nine to eleven months before their guilt or innocence could be ascertained. He hoped that the House would adopt such measures as would prevent his majesty's subjects from being in future subject to so very great a hardship as that of remaining so long a time in prison before they were brought to trial. It was true, that in questions which arose out of the navigation, the venue might be changed to London. But in cases where, for instance, a landlord had occasion to eject a tenant, if any objection were taken to the judgment of the court, and a new trial was granted, two years at least would elapse before the question could be decided. He recollected that when he was practising at the bar, many cases in these counties were left, which were called remanents. It might be argued against him, that if the grievances which he mentioned were felt in those counties, the suffering parties would have complained of them. But he would ask, from whom the complaints were expected to come? The grand juries of those counties, who were perhaps anxious to return to their homes, might not be aware of the grievances under which the prisoners laboured. If the persons confined were even roused to a sense of their sufferings as to petition the secretary of state for the home department, he would refer them to the legal remedies to be had in their counties. If they were to petition the House of Commons, their petitions might lie on the table, unless the matter were to be taken up by some person of consequence in that House. The evil of delay had been for some time felt on petitions to the Lords. It had been severely felt on the decisions of the high court of chancery, and yet those evils were allowed to exist for years, though the suffering parties loudly complained of them, and they would perhaps have existed up to the present moment if the matter had not been taken up by some particular members, by whose interference the evil was in a great measure removed.—He did not wish to take up the time of the House for a single moment more than was necessary to the objects he had in view, but he hoped for their indulgence while he brought the case fairly before them, as he was confident that it only needed that the grievance should be fully known to have it redressed. The question of what would be an effectual remedy, was, perhaps one of some difficulty, but he would lay before the House what he conceived would be a remedy and leave them to decide whether it ought or ought not to be adopted. Though the population of these kingdoms was double the population in the reign of queen Elizabeth, and though the property of the country was more than fourfold what it was then, yet there was no farther provision made for the distribution of justice at present than there was at that period. There were twelve judges then, and at present there were no more. No provision had been made for the increase of population, and consequently none for the increase of crime. Though millions were squandered away on trifles, the substantial parts of the constitution were left unprovided for. It seemed as if there was some particular charm in having precisely twelve judges, I and no more. But whatever that charm might be, it had not the power of relieving the grievances of which the northern counties had to complain. In the courts of London and Westminster, there were annually five hundred causes to be tried at the sittings after term, and yet there was only one judge to sit at Nisi Prius in each court; though business had increased nearly tenfold, the same number of judges were left to get through that business as were formerly appointed when they had comparatively little to do. Within his memory the Old Bailey sessions used to terminate in four or five days from their commencement. But now those sessions lasted nearly a fortnight, and when, it happened that the judges were unable to attend those sessions, the recorder and common serjeant found it at times impossible to get through the business without the assistance of the chairman of Clerken-well sessions. From this it plainly appeared, that it was necessary to make some provision for the very great increase of business both in London and the country. It was true that the Crown could, by its prerogative, issue commissions of over and terminer and general gaol deliveries, but it was different with respect to the courts of assize and Nisi Prius; in such cases it was necessary to apply to parliament, and such was the nature of his application. An application, such as he intended to make, could not originate in the other House, as it being a Money bill the House of Commons only had a right to sanction it first. It had been suggested to him, that if another court were established in Westminster-hall, with power to decide on criminal as well as civil cases, in the same manner that the King's-bench did at present, it would be a great assistance to the distribution of justice in the country. But he thought that such an establishment would be too expensive to the country, as it would be necessary to add such a number of officers and attendants to it. The plan which he intended to propose to the House would, he conceived, be much more desirable: at the same time he wished it to be understood, that whatever faults were found in it, were wholly to be attributed to him, as it was one of his own invention. The hon. gentleman then proposed his plan to the House, which he said, had not been suggested to him by any discontented lawyer, as had been before objected, but which originated with himself after the most mature consideration. There was, he observed, an officer belonging to the court of exchequer, who might be made a most useful person to promote one of the objects he had in view. This officer was the curator baron. It was a situation usually given to persons who had retired from legal or judicial situations abroad, and was almost always filled by men of talent. He was sure, however, that the present cursitor baron (Maseres) was eminent for his learning and ability [Hear!]. He thought that a great practical good would result from bringing him forward in situations where the judges were at present obliged to attend, though with considerable inconvenience, and with delay to the causes which came before them in another place. He would, for instance, suggest the propriety of having the cursitor baron attend at the Old-bailey, and take his roaster in going the circuit. The present cursitor baron had once filled the situation of deputy recorder of London, which he held for a year, and was therefore well calculated, from his experience to the discharge of such a duty as that which he proposed. At present the duty of the cursitor baron was little more than to receive the sheriff's when they came down, and to examine their accounts. He thought that if this officer were invested with the power of a judge, not to sit in Bank, but to preside at the Old-bailey and go the circuit, it would most materially contribute to the prompt administration of justice, and would at the same time be attended with very little additional expense. The salary of the cursitor baron was, he believed, at present 1,000l. a-year, which, if raised to the usual salary given to the puisne judges, would not be considered as a great expense, when the advantages to result from it were taken into consideration. It often happened that judges who went the northern circuit had perhaps to attend the Old Bailey on their return, and he need not state to the House that from the great distances they had to travel, they were put to great labour and fatigue, in order to be able to return in time. If his plan were adopted, the judges who went the northern circuit would not be put to that inconvenience. He would also propose, that an officer similar to the cursitor baron should be attached to the court of King's-bench, with power save that of sitting in Bank, to that of the other judges; that his duty should be to take bail, sit at Nisi Prius, attend at the Old-bailey, and go the circuit, and also to hear cases of Nisi Prius in term. For it was well known, that the regular business of the term was often considerably retarded in consequence of the necessity of the chief justice attending to try Nisi Prius causes. He was certain that no person could pay more attention to the business of the court, or dispatch it with more rapidity than the present learned lord who presided in the court of King's-bench; but so great was the business in that court, that he conceived it impossible for any person, however indefatigable, to go through it in proper time. Indeed, so impressed were the judges of the truth of this, that they gave up a great portion of their time to the hearing of motions and the arguing of cases at Serjeant's inn, before the terms commenced. If his plan should be adopted by the House, a great deal of this inconvenience would be got rid of. The two officers he had mentioned would be able to take a considerable portion of the trouble on themselves, and would in turn relieve the judges from the labours of the circuits. The expense, he should again press upon the House, would be trifling, when compared with the important advantages which would result from it. When it was recollected that many persons who were under the present system confined nine or ten months in the gaols of the northern counties, upon charges of which they were afterwards acquitted, and for which, even if they had been found guilty, the law would not sentence them to so long an imprisonment, would, by the adoption of his plan, be subjected to a much shorter imprisonment before their trial; he was convinced that the additional expense to the country would be but a minor consideration. He had known many instances of persons being confined nine or ten months on very trifling charges, who would have been sent back to their families at an early period if there had been two assizes in the course of the year instead of one. One man he had known indicted for stealing a game cock, who was closely confined for nine months, and when he was at length brought to trial, there was not a shadow of evidence to prove his guilt. He conceived that circumstances of this kind were evils for which the legislature was answerable, if it did not provide some immediate remedy. The one he proposed, he thought would be found efficient; but he did not mean positively to press that, if any other was suggested, which might answer the purpose as well. It was to him a matter of indifference whether there were five judges or four on the bench, provided the administration was prompt. But as the evil existed, he thought it would be too much to refuse the remedy. It might, perhaps, be said, that the remedy he had proposed would be thought too expensive on the counties; but he did not think it would be found that any such objection would be made by the counties themselves. The several noblemen and persons of distinction in the counties would not feel any objection to entertain the judges twice a year, instead of once. The bishop of Durham was known to keep a most hospitable table, and he was convinced that his lordship would feel no objection to entertain the judges when they came down. He was certain, that if he held the same situation which the worthy bishop did, he should have no objection to entertain the judges four times a year instead of twice [A laugh]. The hon. gentleman concluded with moving, "That an humble Address be presented to his royal highness the Prince Regent, praying that he will be graciously pleased to issue his commission of Oyer and Terminer and General Gaol Delivery for the counties of Westmorland, Cumberland, Durham, and Northumberland, and the town and county of Newcastle-upon-Tyne, twice in every year, and also his commission of Assize and Nisus Prius; and to assure his Royal Highness that this House will make good any expense attending the same."

said, he would not enter into a discussion of all the matters which the hon. gentleman had introduced, but he did expect, that when the hon. gentleman had brought the subject before the House, he would have been prepared with some specific plan to remedy the evil of which he had complained. He was not, however, prepared, even if the hon. gentleman had proposed such a remedy, to enter upon it, without that mature deliberation which such a subject required. He objected to the motion, because he thought it brought forward too suddenly alterations which required the most serious consideration before they were made, and because the hon. mover had shown no grounds to prove that any emergency existed which would render the proposed alteration immediately necessary. He admitted, with the hon. mover, that the Crown had the power of issuing special commissions, but he confessed he was not aware of any particular circumstances which rendered their being issued on the present occasion necessary. It might be important to inquire what legislative measures should hereafter be adopted on the subject. But as the motion then before the House went suddenly to alter a long established mode of administering justice, and that too without any sufficient cause being adduced, he thought it his duty to move the previous question.

expressed his surprise at the opposition of the hon. and learned gentleman to the motion of his hon. friend. He had expected that an amended motion, rather than the previous question, would have been submitted. The address was proposed on the ground of a notorious defect in our judicial system; and whilst he admitted that the administration of justice was pure, he wished also to see it prompt in every part of the country. A prompt administration was of the essence of justice, for delay might render its decisions useless, whatever were their wisdom or integrity. The northern counties, whilst they contributed equally to the burthens, laboured under various disadvantages; but the one now under consideration was peculiarly grievous. They were not at a greater distance from the seat of government than Cornwall, where the assizes were held twice a-year. It might be said, that they were held but once at Bristol; but at Bristol, a man committed for any offence might remove himself, if he thought fit, to the county gaol, and by this means accelerate his trial. With regard to the proposed mea- sure being a great departure from the ordinary course of justice, and from the present constitution of the courts, he could see it in no such light, though he should perhaps have preferred to see it brought forward in a more simple form. He could not imagine any solid objection to the direct and immediate extension of the Spring assizes to the four northern counties. The difficulty and expense would be nothing, when weighed against the interests and the rights of their fellow-subjects. If the sum of 400,000l. had been given away to Spain (a measure which be was happy to think he had voted against), for the suppression of the slave-trade at the expiration of two years, surely the sacrifice of a few thousands a year could not be considered excessive, when the object was, to communicate to the four northern counties that prompt and frequent distribution of justice which was enjoyed by every other! A thousand inconveniences arose out of the present defective system, not only from the delay of justice, but from the absence and death of witnesses. Every British subject was entitled by Magna Charta to the most prompt decision of his case which could be devised by the wisdom of the legislature. "Nulli negabimus, nulli difteremus justitiam," was the language of that fundamental statute, and he would beg the House to reflect how far the mode of administering justice in the northern counties was consistent with the principle of the "nulli differemus justitiam." He was sure that if the House consented to put the previous question on a subject of such importance, they would be guilty of a gross dereliction of duty.

thought, that the House were not prepared to enter into such a subject. He was persuaded they could not see their way so far as to venture to address the Crown upon an alteration which would render necessary a very extensive change in the constitution of the courts of Westminster-hall. Unless, indeed, there were an addition, if not of actual judges, at least of temporary ones, to act, as substitutes, the alteration could not be completed. The hon. gentleman had opened to the House a method by which the change might be effected, without making any great derangement of the present state of things; but he was quite unable to go along with him in the whole of his reasoning; and the House, he was sure, would feel it quite impossible to adopt the general proposition, which tended to make so material an alteration in the whole system of Westminster-hall. He apprehended, indeed, that the hon. gentleman had acquitted himself of much of his duty by calling the attention of the House to the question. He did not mean to dissent from the proposition, that it was proper that some alteration should be made. He did not mean to imply that it was not desirous that there should be an administration of justice in the parts which the hon. gentleman had mentioned, twice a year instead of once; but he thought that, instead of the motion he had made, if he had moved for an inquiry, it might have been preferable. There had been one, not long ago, into the administration of justice in Wales; and if the hon. member had brought his motion forward in that way, he should have had no objection to it; but in the manner in which he had brought it forward, he had jumped to his conclusion at the very outset, and had not presented his arrangements to the House in any other manner than by the very clear statement which he had made. As to the previous question, by adopting that mode on the present motion, they were not neglecting the question, but merely declaring that it was not then to be put; and as the House had not made their minds up, he thought that mode the most advisable.

said, he had brought forward his motion merely for the purpose of having the matter considered. He had thought it his duty to bring the question before the House, and it had struck him that the way in which he had done it was the best in which it could be discussed. He was sure the House could and would entertain it. It was of no consequence to him in what manner it was done, provided its object was effected; and therefore, with the leave of the House, he would withdraw his motion, He only wished to impress the House with the necessity there was of having something done on the subject.

agreed entirely with his hon. friend. The irresistible case which he had made out in favour of pure justice was such as could not but carry its object. He was extremely glad to find that there was no objection made to it, but with regard to the proper mode of proceeding. He could not help strongly urging on his hon. friend the necessity of a motion for an inquiry.

agreed intirely with the motion of the hon. gentleman. He had received a letter, indeed, which convinced him that some alterations in the administration of justice was absolutely necessary in the north of England.

congratulated the House that an inquiry would shortly take place. The machinery for the desired alteration was already in existence.

said, that he had always been impressed with the expediency of having the assizes in the northern counties twice in the year, and thanked his hon. friend for the motion he had submitted to the House.

, although he felt that some measure was necessary, yet was glad that his hon. friend was about to withdraw his motion, to which he could not have consented, considering the near approach of the spring assizes, and that no person who had a suit would be sufficiently aware of the new arrangement.

then withdrew his motion, and gave notice that he would to-morrow move for a committee of inquiry.

presented a Petition from James Leach), flannel weaver, of Broadoth-lane, near Rochdale, in the county of Lancaster, setting forth; "That the Petitioner was arrested on the 28th of March 1817, under the suspension of the Habeas Corpus act, at the Georgius-tavern, Hardwick, in the town of Manchester, along with some other men who were entire strangers to the petitioner, by the police officers, and escorted to that prison by a troop of dragoon guards, and put into a cold damp cell flagged with stone, without victuals, for that night; the only furniture it contained was an old bed of straw swarming with vermin; the petitioner remained in that situation for ten days; his victuals, which consisted of bread and cheese, were given him through the iron bars which served him for a window, and his cell door was seldom suffered to be unlocked; on the evening of the 7th of April, the petitioner was ordered out of bed about nine o'clock, and taken into the court with about ten others, and, after their names were called over, justice Heys, said a king's messenger was just arrived for the petitioner and two others, William Kent and George Plant, with warrants from lord Sidmouth to take them to London, to be examined before the secretary of state for the home department, and he wished them to prepare themselves for what they were likely to meet, for he could assure them they stood charged with high treason, and with having under their protection men and arms to wage war against his majesty and his liege subjects; the king's messenger then showed his authority, and ordered to take them off by the first coach; they were then taken back into the prison, and the petitioner was put alone into the felons day-house; in vain he begged to retire to his cell, but the cold flags served him for his bed that night, resting his head upon bars of iron; about five o'clock the next morning, the petitioner was fetched out of this cold and dismal place and heavy ironed on both legs, Kent on one side and Plant on the other; finding that one of his bazels held him too close, he begged of the deputy constable to change it for another, observing that he should not be able to bear it to London; but, damning the proud limbs of the petitioner, he said if he would not behave well with what he had already got, he would furnish him with an iron collar for his neck; they then stepped into the coach for London, and they arrived at Bow-street office about twelve o'clock on the 9th, and after having their irons taken off, and a little refreshment, they were conducted to the secretary of state's office for the home department, and underwent a short examination before lord Sidmouth and other privy counsellors, charging the petitioner with high treason, but did not say what it consisted in; he was then taken to the Brown Bear public-house, and the day following to Cold Bath-fields prison; on Tuesday the 15th, the petitioner was again brought up for examination, and likewise on Tuesday the 22nd, and likewise on Tuesday the 29th; on this his fourth examination before lord Sidmouth, his lordship said he was regularly receiving information against the petitioner, and from such a respectable source that authorized him to commit the petitioner to close confinement till liberated by due course of law, and if he had any thing to say why he should not be committed, he was then at liberty; at which the petitioner said, he had arrived at the age of a young man, and had never violated the law, and whatever his lord- ship's information was that gave him that authority, it was incorrect; his lordship then added, that the petitioner was committed, and at some future day he should be brought to trial, for which he should have timely notice, with a list of the evidence against him;, the petitioner was then taken back to Cold Bath-fields to his former situation: on Thursday the 1st of May, he was removed to Chelmsford gaol, in the county of Essex, conducted by a king's messenger and a turnkey, handcuffed to one Flitcroft, from Stockport; while the petitioner remained in that prison, he was never suffered to sleep with his clothes in the same cell, they were taken away from him every night and returned every morning; his bed was purely searched every morning, and when he attended divine worship in the prison often overturned; that, on the 14th of November, he was taken before a bench of magistrates to enter into recognizances which bound him in one hundred pounds to appear in the court of King's-bench on the first day of the next term, and day by day, and not to depart the court without leave; and the petitioner returned home to his distressed parents, who, by the fatal consequences of his imprisonment, had not reduced them to beggary only, but brought them near to the grave; on the 21st of January, he received a letter signed by John Entwisle, esq. one of his majesty's justices of peace, stating that he was desired by lord Sid mouth to acquaint him, that as nothing had appeared against him in his conduct since his discharge, his appearance in the court of King's-bench on the first day of next term, pursuant to his recognizance, would be dispensed with, and his lordship hoped that his future conduct would never render it necessary to call him into a court of justice; the petitioner can assure the House that he never was guilty of any such treason, or any breach of the law, that it was always his principal motive in promoting peace and quietness; therefore, as an object truly deserving compassion, after eight months of unjust imprisonment, with his health impaired, with an injured character, out of employment, and in a state of starvation, the petitioner most humbly implores and petitions the Mouse to take his case under their most serious consideration, and for such redress as in their wisdom they can grant him."

said, he had to beg the attention of the House to a petition from another of those unfortunate men who had been the victims of proceedings directed by the secretary of state, armed with the powers given him by the suspension of the Habeas Corpus act; and he entreated gentlemen would do him the favour to listen to the statements which that petition contained, and they would then be aware of its importance, and be disposed perhaps to investigate it. The petition was from one Benjamin Scholes, of Wakefield, where he had resided till July last. He was a victualler and alehouse-keeper, by which business he had supported himself and his family with comfort. In July, however, he had been apprehended by a warrant from lord Sid-mouth, thrown into prison, and notwithstanding the prison of Wakefield was well secured, and well regulated, he had been conveyed to the castle of Cambridge. There he had been detained till January, in which month he had been set at liberty without any more cause for his liberation than had been stated for his detention. In consequence of his imprisonment, he had been ruined, his house and business broken up, and himself materially injured in his health. The learned gentleman said, he had in his possession a certificate from a respectable member of the college of surgeons who had attended him, which declared, that the confinement which the petitioner had endured had caused the illness under which he had laboured. His health was broken, and he was ruined in circumstances; and he had now to state to the House the sole reason of those proceedings which he had been able to discover. A charge had been laid against him by two persons of the names of Oliver and Bradley, for having been concerned in meetings held in his own house for seditious purposes. The particulars of that transaction he should relate to the House. Scholes first became acquainted with Oliver through the introduction of a person of the name of Mitchell, who was travelling about Yorkshire, as others had done in various parts of the country, pretending to come from societies in London, and making use of the names of the hon. baronet the member for Westminster, as well as that of his noble colleague. In the course of their proceedings, Oliver was very constant in instigating Scholes to go farther. Oliver said it was in vain to petition, petitioning was of no use; that they must have recourse to physical force. Scholes in consequence had some suspi- cions of the man, and his answer was, that he threatened to lay an information against him before the magistrates. Then came Oliver's plans; for he being threatened with exposure, no sooner found himself in danger of an information which could be supported by good evidence, than, with his associates, he wrote circular letters to call a meeting at the house of the petitioner. Scholes denied that such a meeting had ever been held at his house. He thought that other circum-stances might throw much light upon that fact. Indeed, he believed that an hon. friend of his had found means to obtain some information on that point; that he had discovered Oliver himself complaining to others of the slackness of Scholes, and of his refusing to allow meetings to be held in his house. The petitioner denied that he ever had been present at any such meeting in his life. Indeed, he stated, that he never had any knowledge of any, but one, for promoting the cause of constitutional reform, which had ended in a petition that had been presented and received by that House. Inquiries had been made, and the result of those inquiries had been in every way favourable to the petitioner's character. The first reason that he had for believing Scholes to be a person of good character was, that he had at different periods filled offices of considerable respectability. He had been employed as deputy-constable in the neighbourhood of Wakefield at a period of disturbance, and, principally by his exertions as deputy-constable, the peace had been so well preserved, that the provisions of the watch and ward act, then in force, were almost directly ceased to be applied. In consequence of the vigilance which he manifested, his services were received with unanimous approbation, and he believed with the thanks of the magistracy under whom he had acted. He had also received the thanks of the deputy-lieutenant. In addition to that, he might state, and to some persons in the House it might be a considerable improvement of his former character, that the petitioner had been upwards of three years a collector of assessed taxes. These things, he trusted would not be forgotten; for he had had means of communication with most respectable persons, and from them he was informed that Scholes had for many years fulfilled the duties imposed on him with the greatest propriety. He had had communications on the subject with the noble lord the member for Yorkshire, who was well acquainted with him, as well as the venerable personage to whom he was related; and he might read one or two letters which would inform them what was the character of the petitioner. [The hon. and learned gentleman then read an extract from a letter which ran nearly thus—"I have taken some pains to inquire into Scholes's case, as I was at first prepossessed with an unfavourable opinion of him. But I am now thoroughly convinced that he has been most unfairly dealt with, and that he has had no more connexion with any illegal or seditious designs than Mr. Wilberforce or the most innocent man in the kingdom; and I have no doubt that this will most evidently appear, if a full and fair investigation can be had of his case."] The suspicions of the man's character which appeared to have been entertained, were the consequences of all such cases. The moment it was heard that a man had been apprehended on a charge of high treason, or of any thing seditious, he was instantly suspected of being a very bad character. The hon. member for Bramber would see that his name had only been introduced as the most striking person of the kind that was suggested to the writer. It was singular, that after all he had endured, the petitioner asked but for the property which had belonged to himself and others to be restored to him. He called for nothing to be done to those by whom he had suffered; he invoked no vengeance upon their heads; he demanded no justice; but he trusted that would not be held as any argument for their turning a deaf ear to what was laid before them; he hoped that they would no longer have evidence so repeatedly proffered, without allowing those who were supposed to possess it to adduce their proofs. The petition was then read. It purported to be the Petition of Benjamin Scholes, of Wakefield, and late a prisoner under the suspension of the Habeas Corpus act; and sat forth, "That on the 2d of July 1817, the Petitioner was taken from Wakefield by a king's messenger, and carried before the secretary of state for the home department, and others, by whom he was committed to Cambridge castle, where he remained in close confinement until the 1st of January 1818; that in consequence of the arrest and detention of the petitioner, his home has been broken up, his business totally lost, and himself at the age of forty is thrown into the world to seek for a livelihood as if he had now to begin life anew; that on the 3d of January, after his liberation, the petitioner was taken ill, so that he has never since been able to do any thing towards the procuring of a livelihood, and that his disorder has entirely been the consequence of his confinement, as a certificate of the surgeon will, testify; that thus injured in health and ruined in business, the petitioner is destitute of the means of supporting himself in the same comfortable and honourable manner which he did previous to the time when he was taken from his home, and he trusts most undeservedly immured in prison; that the petitioner has been informed that his arrest and confinement have had their origin in the information of a person of the name of Oliver, and another of the name of Bradley, who had falsely informed the honourable the privy council, that the petitioner had taken part in several meetings of persons calling themselves delegates who harboured treasonable designs against the existing government; but the petitioner can prove that a person of the name of Mitchell, who had been travelling through the country on a pretence of encouraging constitutional parliamentary reform, first introduced Oliver to the petitioner under the appellation of a delegate from the friends of parliamentary reform in London, and as the particular friend of sir Francis Burdett and lord Gochrane; that the said Oliver strongly solicited the petitioner to become an agent for the sale of the Black Dwarf and other similar publications, which the petitioner positively refused; that the said Oliver first talked to the petitioner of resorting to physical force to obtain reform, as petitioning had proved of no avail; but on hearing such language from him the petitioner threatened to lay an information against him before the magistrates, renounced his acquaintance, and desired that he might never see his face again; that the said Oliver and Mitchell, without any knowledge of the petitioner, did write circular letters to call a meeting of persons from different parts of the kingdom, to be held at the house of the petitioner; but as soon as he heard that a meeting was about to be held at his house for political purposes, the petitioner interfered and discharged them from assembling there; nor, notwithstanding the numerous statements professedly official to the con- trary, has any meeting of delegates for secret political purposes, been held there at that or at any other time since the petitioner has kept the said House; and that the petitioner never had any political connexion with any man living in any unlawful purposes, nor ever attended any political meeting but one, regularly called to consider of a petition for parliamentary reform, which petition was afterwards presented and accepted by the House; that the petitioner can refer with confidence to his past conduct as a full and satisfactory proof of the loyalty and uprightness of his principles; that the petitioner for three years, during which period the mischievous Ludding system was at its utmost height, held the situation of deputy constable of the populous townships of Stanley cum Wrenthorpe, near Wakefield, in which situation his exertions were such, that that district was altogether exempted from the provisions of the watch and ward act, though that act was put in force in all the neighbouring villages by the deputy lieutenants, whose thanks the petitioner received for his active and useful exertions; that during the time the petitioner held the above office all depredations were by him prevented through the precincts of those extensive and populous townships; that the petitioner also held for three years the situation of collector of assessed taxes throughout the same townships, during which period he was honoured with the warm commendation of the receiver-general for his diligence and punctuality in that office; the petitioner therefore humbly prays the House to take the above statements and the present situation of the petitioner into their kind consideration, and that the House will grant him such redress as in their mercy and clemency they may deem expedient and proper; and that the House will interpose their good offices with the right hon. secretary of state, that he may have the goodness to return to the petitioner the papers and old memorandum-book taken from him, which are the property of a poor widow, and furnish the only evidence she has of a debt of 17l., and her only security for its recovery." The petitions were ordered to lie on the table, and to be printed.

moved, that the Petitions of Francis Ward, William Benbow, John Knight, Samuel Haynes, Joseph Thomas Evans, William Ogden, John Stewart, and John Bagguley,^* who had been imprisoned under the act for the Suspension of the Habeas Corpus, praying the House to investigate the treatment which they had received, should be entered as read, which was done accordingly.—His lordship then proceeded to observe, that when he presented the petition of Francis Ward to the House, he had stated that he should afterwards move to have that and the other petitions, presented on the same subject, referred to a committee of the House, when they might take into their consideration all the circumstances detailed in those petitions. He was anxious, as early as possible, to bring this case before the House, because it had been intimated, by a noble lord, that a bill of indemnity to the servants of the Crown would be asked for as a matter of course; that the question was to be brought forward, not for the grave and serious discussion of the House, not as a measure that was to depend on its own merits, and to be rejected or approved as the conduct of his majesty's ministers should warrant; but as a measure which the ministers were entitled to demand of the House, and which the House, in its legislative capacity, could not refuse. It appeared to him, that a strange confusion prevailed in the minds of several persons with respect to that bill. They seemed to think, that it' was really due to the ministers of the Crown, as the noble lord had stated, without any previous investigation; but if he knew any thing of the principles of our constitution, he would be bold to say, that it was the duty of the House, on this occasion, to take care, not so much of the ministers of the Crown, as of the liberties of the people. Before they suffered themselves to give any countenance to a bill of indemnity, they should see that the people had not been damnified: they should first appoint a committee to examine the grievances which the petitioners had stated, and to ascertain whether the ministers had not exceeded their powers. Nothing could be more hostile to the spirit of liberty, nothing more destructive of that generous system which our forefathers had delivered down to us, than the doctrine that a bill of this nature should be passed as a matter of course.—

^* For copies of the said Petitions, see p. 104, 192, and 412.

The Habeas Corpus act had, within the last hundred and twenty-four years, been frequently suspended—no fewer than nine, ten, or twelve times; but these suspensions had been followed by a bill of indemnity only on one occasion, and it was curious that that bill of indemnity was asked by the same gentleman who now asked for one; for though they did not occupy the same situations which they now occupied, it was the same individuals who applied then that applied now. So that the only instance of a bill of indemnity was a precedent of their own: they acted wrong in the first instance, and now they thought to benefit by their own wrong: they were calling upon the House to screen them from the consequences of their late violations of the law, merely, as they stated, because they had been protected from such consequences before! But he wished to observe to the House, that bills of indemnity, in cases of suspension of the Habeas Corpus act, were altogether of modern date—he had taken some pains to look into the proceedings of parliament, and he could find no precedent earlier than the 40th of the present king. It was always to be borne in mind, that the House had yet had no satisfactory proof of the necessity for vesting ministers with the extraordinary powers which the suspension of the Habeas Corpus had conferred on them. When they applied to the legislature for the bill by which this was effected, they asserted, that sedition and treason prevailed in several counties, and that the ordinary powers of the law were not sufficient to repress them. This was the ground upon which they desired to be intrusted with extraordinary powers. But what had been the result? The only instance which could at all be adduced of any outrage having arisen from the evil spirit which was said to prevail was, the frame-breaking at Derby and Nottingham, followed by the trials for high treason at Derby, where three individuals suffered the punishment of the law. No gentleman had shown that any other case of treason had been found to exist. It was evident, therefore, that the dangers of the country had been exaggerated beyond their proper dimensions; and that they might have been removed, had government taken a different course from that which they had pursued. But as to the manner in which ministers had exercised their powers, the very fact of their asking a bill of indemnity was an admission of their having abused them. From the beginning to the end of the business, it seemed to him that they had violated the law in every respect; and he was at a loss to know how gentlemen would justify themselves in the eyes of their constituents—in what manner they could reconcile it to their, own consciences—to grant an indemnity under such circumstances. It was admitted on all hands, that ministers had received, by the Suspension act, no new powers of apprehension and release—they had only received the additional power of retaining persons arrested, without bringing them to trial, beyond the term fixed by law for that purpose. They had no new power of taking up persons without warrant issued in the usual manner. There was a regular form and process in which only men could be arrested; they ought to know the accusation against them, and to be themselves examined. This was the case with respect to every inferior crime—the subject was regulated by law-books and by acts of parliament. Not one of the regular forms had been complied with in the present case. He would not at present dispute the power of the secretary of state to issue warrants to apprehend persons on a charge of high treason; but he must observe, that this power, said to be vested in the secretary of state, was undoubtedly an anomaly. It was a usurpation, and not above a hundred and fifty years old. It had been disputed at the time of the Revolution, and it was only by a decision in the time of king William that it was confirmed. One of the judges declared on that occasion (as appeared by sir Benjamin Shower's Reports), that he conceived the secretary of state had power to administer an oath, because he had power to commit. It would have been a much more legitimate conclusion, to have inferred that he could not commit, because he could not administer an oath. Lord Camden said, he founded his opinion entirely on that decision. But, as he had already said, he did not now mean to dispute the power of the secretary of state to commit. It was a right, however, of modern practice, which some of the greatest lawyers had pronounced to be a usurpation, and a perfect anomaly—and if that power was continued, they ought to put an end to the anomaly by giving a power to the secretary of state to administer an oath. But if the secretary of state had

‡

the power to issue warrants to apprehend persons on a charge of high treason, he ought not to do this without attending to certain forms. He did not find any statute or any other guide to determine the form to be gone through, before the secretary of state could issue such warrant; but he could not doubt that the same forms ought to be observed in cases of high treason, which were used in the case of all inferior crimes; and he knew that the forms of proceeding, in the case of inferior crimes, were pointed out and directed by law. A justice of peace, before committing, in the case of inferior crimes, must take the examination of the party, and the oath of the accuser, and transmit them to the proper court where the person so committed would have to be tried. Was the law to take all these precautions in the case of inferior crimes, and to be blind in the case of higher offences? and was the secretary of state to be absolved from the necessity of taking the precautions which every magistrate was bound to take? But in cases of treason itself, justices of peace, in ordering commitments, were bound by act of parliament to proceed in the same way as in the case of inferior crimes. A justice of peace could only commit for treason as felony and breach of the peace, and proceed in the same manner as in cases of felony, or breach of the peace. Now none of these forms had been observed with respect to any of the persons whose petitions lay on the table. With respect to the individual whose petition he had first presented, Francis Ward, the proceedings against him had originated not with the secretary of state, but with the magistrates of Nottingham.—The officers began searching his house without showing any warrant or authority whatever. The proceedings in that case appeared indeed to have been irregular from the very beginning. Next, with respect to the treatment of those persons in prison, he knew he should be told that on this subject there was great exaggeration— and it might be so. He himself had happened to see the directions sent down by the secretary of state to one of the prisons where several of these persons were confined. It was a particular order that irons should not be used unless necessary. But though the secretary of state gave such directions, he took care that the magistrates should not be allowed to see whether these orders were attended to or not—whether or not the persons were subject to ill treatment—and therefore, notwithstanding the order, he would say, that the secretary of state was responsible for every instance of ill treatment contrary to It is own directions. But supposing even that their ill treatment was exaggerated— supposing even that the evils which they endured might be described too emphatically—it was by no means wonderful, that men taken as the petitioners were from their families, and detained so long in confinement, should be very impatient under their imprisonment; and express that impatience in terms of strong resentment. But there was one part of their treatment which was not exaggerated—their solitary confinement —a thing unknown to our old law—and in the opinion of many persons so grievous a punishment, that it was not inferior to death itself. He begged leave to read an entry from the Journals, to show the idea which was formerly entertained of solitary confinement. It was in 1689, and it referred to the case of lord Castlemaine, who was confined in the Tower under a warrant of the secretary of state, on a charge of high treason. In a petition to the House, of which he was a member, he desired that he might have the liberty of the Tower, and that he might not be kept in close confinement; and the House being informed that he was not allowed to see his friends or servants, an order was made that they should be admitted to him, that a bill should be brought in to regulate the imprisonment of the subject,^* and that Mr. Attorney General should prosecute the keeper of Newgate; such were the resolutions of the Commons at that time; and he hoped that the House would follow the example, and appoint a committee to examine into the truth of the matters alleged in these petitions, and take measures for giving redress. But he contended also, that the manner in which the petitioners was discharged was as contrary to the practice of the law, as the manner in which they had been committed to prison. He would ask the attorney-general how persons could get out of gaol who were committed to be delivered in due course of law, without pardon or acquittal? They could only come out by due course of law, except

^* See New Parliamentary History, Vol. 5, p. 406.

by pardon. Letting them out on their own recognizances, was only letting them out on an inferior sort of bail. Now, he would contend, that the manner in which the petitioners were allowed to come out was as illegal on the part of the officers of the Crown, as it was unjust towards the petitioners themselves. It was illegal because it was contrary to all the statutes from Edward the first; and unjust, because it left the parties with a stigma on their characters, which, if they had been tried, would most probably not have attached to them. The first statute on this subject was that of the 3rd of Edward 1st, commonly called the statute of Westminster. This act went to replevins, the only sort of bail known at that time; and from this it was argued in favour of the power of a secretary of state to commit, that the power which the king formerly possessed had been transferred to the secretary of state. A magistrate could not bail in a case where he could not commit. By a subsequent statute of Philip and Mary, it was enacted, that all the offences were not bailable which had been enumerated in the statute of Westminster; and that a magistrate could not discharge a prisoner upon his recognizance, if committed on a charge of high treason. So that if it was true that these persons were committed for high treason, they could not be let out on bail, much less on their recognizances.— and their discharge was contrary to law. If it was said, that had this been illegal, the court of King's-bench would have objected to the proceeding— he could only answer, that the court had only then to consider of the recognizances, so that the question of the legality of their discharge was non coram judice; and as to any argument deduced from the voluntary appearance of the prisoners in the court to have their recognizances discharged, and the acknowledgment of the legality of the preceding thereby implied, the answer was, that no subsequent act of the prisoners could have any retrospective effect, so as to render legal what was net previously decided to be according to law. But even admitting that magistrates had the power of bailing for high treason, they did not possess that power as lately exercised; for in the case of the prisoners, one magistrate had taken their recognizances in some instances, whereas by the act of Philip and Mary, in all bailable offences it was necessary that the bail should be given before two justices, and one of those the justice who had taken the examination. The mode, therefore, in which these persons were discharged was contrary to law, as well as their discharge itself. It was obvious, that if this system was pot stopped, the secretary of state would possess a dreadful power of punishing without trial. An hon. and learned friend of his had lately expatiated, with great truth, on the evils arising from the delay of justice in the Northern counties. Suppose that in one of those Northern counties which had been alluded to—Westmoreland for instance— a man were committed by the secretary of state a week after the assizes; there he might lie for eleven months, and upon the near approach of the next assizes might be bailed by a magistrate, who had no right to do so, and discharged, without having any remedy for his long imprisonment. Such a case might arise at any future period in the four Northern counties, if the principle lately acted upon were admitted to be law. It was true he might bring his action for false imprisonment; but if no more information were given him of the charge against him than had been given the men who had been confined under the late suspension act; that is, if he was not allowed to know the facts with which, or the persons by whom, he was charged—two or three witnesses might be brought forward who would swear to particular facts, and he would have the costs to pay. It might appear strange, that he who was so decidedly against the state imprisonments—who thought the arrest and treatment of the persons who had suffered by them were uncalled for and oppressive —should yet complain of their discharge; but on a little consideration it would be allowed that he was perfectly consistent. He complained of the manner in which these men were discharged, because it took from them all remedy—because it deprived them of all means of clearing their character, and obtaining compensation for the losses they had suffered, and the hardships to which they had been subjected. But this was not his only motive, nor was it the only duty of the House to see these men righted. It was the duty of the House to take notice of the violation of the laws, and to punish those who were their violators, though the petitioners had had no connexion with the transactions in question, and had no com- plaints to make against the government. In alluding to what was said in a former debate, that no person of consequence was imprisoned under the suspension act, that no gentleman was arrested who could make his complaints be heard through the medium of his speeches, that no victim was made whose fate and sufferings could excite the attention or call forth the indignation of the country, he declared his belief that such a position was true; and that his majesty's ministers were well aware of the security they derived from the low rank of their prisoners. They seized upon them because they wanted victims of some kind to justify their measures, and it was not safe to lay hold of others who would not have submitted so quietly to their fate, or have accepted of their discharge on such conditions, who could neither have been imprisoned nor turned out of prison without creating some noise. Not only was the rank of these victims such as to preclude them from making their complaints be heard with effect, but the House was told that their complaints ought not to be listened to, because their allegations were false.— It had been argued, that they could not be believed, and that therefore their petitions for inquiry laid no sufficient ground for the present motion. Even admitting the premises of the gentlemen opposite, he could not see the justness of their conclusion. If the allegations of the petitioners were as false as they were contended to be, he still thought his motion ought to be entertained, in order to have them disproved, and to show to the country that ministers, in the exercise of the extraordinary powers entrusted to them, had not proceeded with unnecessary rigour or acted contrary to the authority of law. He had been told that Francis Ward, whose petition he had made the ground of his motion, was a bad character, and therefore unworthy of the attention of the House. But he would ask, on what ground the charge was advanced? Had he done any thing which had been proved against him?—Had he been convicted of any offence? On the old maxim of law, which he was sorry to see discountenanced by some members of the House, every man ought to be presumed innocent till he was found to be guilty; and this person ought therefore to be considered as honest and credible till he was convicted of being the contrary. He would not only rely on this general doc- trine, but he would say that he had the authority of government itself for declaring that this Ward was not a dangerous character, if the secretary of state might be judged by his acts. The Habeas Corpus act was suspended in March, and the object of it (an improper object, in his opinion), was declared to be to confine dangerous persons. Yet Ward was not apprehended till late in June, after the disturbance in Nottingham, and the outrages in the neighbourhood, which was represented as in rebellion. He had a right therefore to conclude, that Ward was not a person of a dangerous character, or he would have been previously apprehended (if the secretary of state had not suffered him to continue at large, that he might become one of his victims); and that having been apprehended he would have been brought to trial, instead of being discharged. But he did not think the question of the character of the man, as it applied to the present motion, a matter of any consequence. It might be more advantageous, if an impression on the feelings of the House were regarded, that the first petition which should be brought forward, should be from a man whose character stood clear; as, for instance, the man whose petition had that night been presented by his hon. and learned friend. As a matter of justice, it would be better perhaps, that if the cases themselves were equal, that if this man, whose character was not clear, should be first attended to by the House, because such a person was less likely to receive assistance and protection from others in obtaining justice. A testimonial had been sent to him with the petition of Ward, by persons who stated themselves to be his neighbours, but who were not known to him (lord F.) to the good character of Ward. He should not, however, take up the time of the House with any arguments on this subject, for he did not ground his motion on the character of the petitioners but on the breach of the law which had taken place in their persons, and he thought the House would see the absolute necessity of inquiring a little into the treatment of those who had been apprehended, imprisoned, and subsequently got rid of in the manner he had described, He hoped the House would agree with him, and he should move, "That a Committee be appointed to examine into the truth of the allegations of the said Petitions, and report their opinions thereupon to the House."

said, on rising to make some observations on the motion of the noble lord, he must first ask whether that motion was consistent with the notice which the noble lord had given to the House? He had understood the noble lord formerly to allude to the case of Francis Ward, and to give notice that he would move for a specific inquiry into the allegations of his petition. He had, however, widely departed from that declared intention, and had introduced into his speech the discussion of, more comprehensive topics, connected with the general measure of the Suspension act, and the cases of all those who had been imprisoned under the powers which it conferred. But though the noble lord had altered his course by taking all the petitions for the basis of his motion, it did not follow that he (lord Castlereagh) should alter his; nor would he do so. He would particularly advert to the case of Ward, which the noble lord threw in the back ground, and for inquiring into which, had the noble lord confined himself to it, he would not have objected to a committee. He was willing to allow that, if such a committee had been appointed, the noble lord might consistently have moved to refer other petitions to it; but by his speech he had departed from the grounds of his motion, and had dwelt only on the necessity of a general investigation. The noble lord had alluded to the probability that his majesty's ministers would introduce a bill of indemnity to protect them from any of the legal consequences of the late exercise of the powers intrusted to them by parliament, and he had declared that he had bestowed some attention to the nature and history of such measures; but he could not compliment the noble lord on the accuracy of his reasoning, or the success of his research. The noble lord had said, that though there were numerous instances of the suspension of the Habeas Corpus act, from the commencement of the last century down to the present time, yet that there was only one precedent for a bill of indemnity, and that had been passed as a protection to a cabinet composed nearly of the same persons who were now about to apply for it. Relying on the accuracy of this statement, the noble lord had called upon ministers to produce another instance of the passing of a bill of indemnity after the exercise of the powers conferred by the suspension act; but the noble lord must allow him to set him right, by stating the converse of that proposition; and he apprehended that he should be more correct in challenging the noble lord to produce an instance where it was necessary to exercise the extraordinary powers of the suspension, which was not followed by an act of indemnity. The last precedent, the bill of indemnity in 1801 was pretty extensive, for it extended to acts done under all the suspensions of the constitution from 1793 to 1801. But in the reign of king William there were not less than three bills of indemnity passed. There was one after the rebellion in 1715 and another after the rebellion in 1745. In fact, the noble lord would find, that an act of indemnity had been granted in every case where a suspension act had passed, and where the mischiefs to be provided against had led to the necessity of putting extraordinary powers into the hands of the ministers of the Crown for the stability of government, and the safety of the country. The noble lord had assumed, that an application for a measure of this kind, after the exercise of the extraordinary powers put into the hands of government by the legislature, amounted always to a confession of the oppressive rigour with which they had acted, and of the commission of deeds which they could not justify to the country on their responsibility. This was an unfair view of the case. The suspension act, which was never passed by the legislature except with the view of meeting a danger which it believed could not be encountered by the ordinary powers of the law, only allowed government to commit suspected persons, and bound them over to prosecute. In the exercise of this authority, he denied that his majesty's ministers had committed any unnecessary acts of severity, or had transgressed the bounds of the trust reposed in them. He denied that his noble friend, the secretary of state for the home department, had been guilty cither of cruelty or injustice. He denied that he had given his warrant for commitment without the evidence of credible witnesses, taken on oath. He denied that he had committed one individual on the testimony of the person (Oliver) so much alluded to by the other side of the House. He denied that a single arrest had taken place without not only having the depositions of credible witnesses, but the authority of the law officers of the Crown. The noble lord, however, went on such grounds as would render any justification of this kind quite inadmissible, and would prove the criminality of ministers in whatever manner they exercised the powers entrusted to them by parliament. He had argued that there was no necessity for the Suspension act. The House had, however, thought otherwise; and after, by a great majority, placing in the hands of ministers extraordinary powers, which they were called to exercise on their own responsibility, ministers would have betrayed their trusts, if, seeing the necessity of exercising them for the maintenance of the public tranquillity, and the preservation of the government and constitution, they had refrained from acting as they had done. Parliament had proceeded to legislate on two reports of committees of the House. Both these reports stated (and the noble lord would allow him to say, that there was not among the members of those committees one dissenting voice on the subject) that a bold and dangerous conspiracy was organized against the frame of government, and the peace of the country; and that this conspiracy was endeavouring to take advantage of the unavoidable distresses of the times, to turn the physical force of the people against the existence of the state, and the order of society. Government had been armed with powers to meet the danger, and had exercised those powers consistently with the tenor of existing laws and the conditions of their trust. On this ground he would meet the noble lord, and say that there had been no violation of the law. He agreed with him that all the forms of law should be observed, that witnesses should be examined, and that no arrest should take place without proper evidence; but he denied that this principle made it necessary to place a witness, who gave his oath under the Suspension act, in the situation of other witnesses, or that a magistrate was bound to send his informations into a court, as he would be bound in ordinary cases. The ordinary course was for a magistrate to lay the evidence on which he committed, with the names of the witnesses, before the bench; but it was plain that this principle could not be acted upon on the present occasion without defeating the object which the legislature had in view. He would put a case:—supposing a magistrate had offered to the secretary of state evidence on oath, on the truth of which he completely relied, affecting the exist- ence of the government, or necessary to the preservation of the public tranquillity, and supposing that that magistrate could only obtain and transmit such evidence on condition that the names of the witnesses were to be concealed, or that neither he nor they were to be exposed to the consequences of giving such important information—could his noble friend, acting on his responsibility, have refused to listen to such testimony, or could he have re- fused his warrant to commit the person whom it affected? He was convinced that such a principle could not be maintained, and should be glad to be informed in what situation his noble friend would stand, if after having acted on such evidence, he was required to justify, in a court of law the commitment he had made? It was altogether a false view of the bill in contemplation, to consider it as a bill for the protection of the ministers of the Crown: it was for the protection of individuals who had come forward to give information of the utmost importance to the security of the country; but which could not be elicited otherwise than by the prospect of such protection as the measure alluded to held out. Either, then, these individuals must be protected, which protection was of such importance in their eyes, that without it they would not have given their information, or the ministers of the Crown must be exposed to punishment, not for their own misdeeds, but for refusing to give up those who had enabled them to detect the conspirators. If the ordinary course of law had been sufficient, why should recourse have been had to the suspension of the Habeas Corpus? The suspension was for the express purpose of protecting individuals from the hazard which might attend the disclosure, in an open trial, of the information which they had given; and without such protection no information could be had, as none would venture to offer it at the risk of his own safety. On such grounds indemnity was always judged necessary, not to cover ministers, but to protect those who saved their country. If the question were at all inquired into, it would appear that upon every principle of justice such a protection was necessary, and to deny it would be attended with insurmountable difficulties. With respect to the hardships of imprisonment, of which so much had been said, this was no question to be entertained by the House without great irre- gularity: for those individuals who thought themselves aggrieved, had always their remedy at hand; the ordinary courts of law were open to them, and he apprehended there would be nothing in the bill of Indemnity to preclude them from bringing their action. The suspension of the Habeas Corpus only prevented trial during the operation of that measure. When that was no longer necessary, there was nothing to prevent individuals who conceived themselves aggrieved farther than by the mere confinement, from seeking redress; but this was a question to be tried only by the judges of the land, and to this they were fully competent. He trusted, therefore, that the House would agree with him in thinking, that there was no necessity for a committee of inquiry. With regard to the hardships of which, those petitions complain, much delusion had been practised, which had been the cause of much inflammation without, and misrepresentation within that House. Some of those petitions were found even not to have been signed by those whose names were subscribed to them. In one of those petitions, heavy complaints were made of the great danger arising to the petitioner's health from the damp state of the dungeon in which he was confined. Upon inquiry, however, by several members of the House, it was found that the accommodations were comfortable, and that the rooms were such as the hon. gentlemen themselves could wish to have if they should be confined in such a place. These petitions were brought, he had no doubt, for the purpose of putting the House into an invidious predicament—for the purpose of creating clamour, inflammation, and discontent, because parliament would not step out of its way to interfere with what evidently belonged to other parts of our system. Let the plaintiffs bring forward their action in the proper place, and there could be no doubt of inquiry. With respect to the number of petitions now brought forward, he had to observe that there was nothing startling in the case. In no one instance had he heard of a bill of indemnity having been contemplated, but similar petitions were' brought forward, and gentlemen opposite were equally ready to vouch for the truth of the statements which they exhibited; but this had never induced the House to step aside to inquire into such ex-parte statements by a committee who should examine witnesses not upon oath. The statements of Ward, in every part of his case, afforded the most flagrant instances of misrepresentation. The manner in which the noble lord had described Ward's original imprisonment was quite incorrect; but to this he would speak afterwards. The first arrest of Mr. Ward was by the magistrates of Nottingham, upon suspicion not of high treason, but of being implicated in those horrible acts which disgraced that part of the country. When he was within a few days of being dismissed from confinement upon this charge, he was committed afresh upon a warrant from the secretary of state upon charges of a treasonable nature. The complaint of being confined with common felons was applicable only to the first period of imprisonment when he was confined as a felon. With respect to the place of his confinement, it appeared from the affidavit of the gaoler (which his lordship read) that the walls of his room were perfectly dry and free from damp, that there was no offensive smell but what arose from fumigation that he had a bed, bolster, blankets, and a bedstead, that he never made any complaint to the gaoler, nor was he ever loaded with irons or fetters. When afterwards removed to the gaol of Oxford, it could be proved that his complaints were equally ill-founded, and that when he wished for any change it was attended to as soon as solicited, for which he himself expressed his gratitude. This man affected the character of an extremely moral and religious person, and complained much that he had not the privilege of attending public worship. He had been confined there from the 21st of June, and from that day to the 1st of August, he had never once expressed a wish to that purpose; and the first notice they had of such a wish was by a letter to his wife. This letter, which the gaoler never saw, was noticed by the secretary of state. Inquiry was immediately made why the prisoner was not allowed to attend public worship. The gaoler wrote in reply, that there were no objections whatever made, had he expressed any wish to that purpose, and that he could sit in his own scat on Wednesday and Friday mornings and Sunday afternoon. With regard to any other complaints, he never made any remonstrances to the officers of the gaol; and it appeared that another prisoner (Haynes) who bad been treated in the same way, expressed his gratitude for the kindness he had experienced. When he complained of solitary confinement, he was allowed to join another prisoner, and they were permitted the use of a yard. It likewise appeared, that his confinement was not attended with any prejudice to his health, but that he had left the gaol as well as when he came to it. When, afterwards, the gaol became crowded by the number of other prisoners, lord Sidmouth ordered that he should be removed. It was excessively painful to allude to the moral character of an individual, but it was necessary to prevent the House from being carried away by their feelings. He must protest against the attempt to mislead the House by ex-parte statements. The House, he trusted, would not suffer their feelings to be trifled with, nor call in question the conduct of ministers in the exercise of an arduous duty, on such grounds as the petition on the table contained. As to the morals of the petitioner, he could prove them to be very different from what the petition might lead gentlemen to expect. He must here, however, refrain from entering into all the evidence he could produce on the subject, for the same reasons for which he could not bring forward the evidence against those committed under the Suspension act. The danger of disclosure to those who gave evidence was the cause of concealment. But he could notwithstanding, satisfy the House as to the petitioner's moral character. From the terms of his petition, he might be supposed to be more than ordinarily religious; when complaining of the officers, his expressions were: "Seeing all remonstrance in vain, the petitioner reluctantly submitted to that which he thought diametrically opposed to both law and justice; the petitioner has no doubt but the sequel will prove to the House that he did not oppose the police from motives of fear; no; the man who is guided by this rule 'do unto others as 'you would they should do unto you,' has nothing to fear; and that rule which was laid down by no less a personage than Jesus Christ has long been adopted and acted upon by the petitioner, so that he had no reason to dread the thoughts of ten or twelve constables searching his premises for seditious and treasonable documents; it was not from fear, but from a consciousness of the rectitude of the petitioner's conduct as a man and a sub-

¶

ject, &c." Then, to give an idea of his distress and of its peculiar operation on his sensitive nature, the petitioner, after describing his imprisonment proceeded thus: "In the foregoing statement the petitioner has attempted to give the House a plain detailed account of the sufferings, without exaggeration, he has undergone while detained under the Suspension act; but alas this attempt comes far short of giving a full and clear description of the unheard-of cruelty he has been treated with, as no mention has been made of the excruciating torture of mind the petitioner has undergone;—here language fails, and to form any conception of his case it will be necessary to figure to the imagination a man who through life has taken a very active part in it, being accustomed to labour hard for his bread, by frequently having to work twelve, fourteen, sixteen hours a day, and sometimes more, the existence of a family depending on his exertions, which all at once ceases, and the intolerable state of inactivity succeeds; added to this, being possessed of all the finer feelings that adorn human nature, and those are for a long period stretched on the rack by his being dragged away from all that is near and dear to man in life; thus the glowing affection of a son, a husband, and a father, being simultaneously aroused, contributed not to sweeten the bitter cup of life, but to render it insupportable; for such a one, who has never been within the walls of a prison before, to be cut off from society and immured within the walls of a dungeon not fit for a murderer to be confined in; what inconceivable sufferings must such a one experience! nothing but the thoughts of his innocence could enable him to bear up under the intolerable load, &c." Now, in complete contradiction to all this, he was prepared to show that this petitioner had been engaged in the most atrocious crimes. In 1816, two persons, Thomas Savage and Joshua Mitchell, who had been regularly convicted of being concerned in the dreadful proceedings which had taken place at Leicester and Nottingham, suffered death. These men, on the eve of their execution, had made a last atonement to their country for the crimes they had committed, by a full confession of what they knew of the transactions referred to. Their depositions had been taken by the magistrates of the place, and transmitted to government by Mr. Munday. These depositions he would now read, suppressing all the names alluded to in them, except the name of Francis Ward. The first was the confession of Joshua Mitchell, who was executed at Leicester for a felony committed at Loughborough. In his confession he stated:—"B shot A—C B told me that Francis Ward had urged him to go to Loughborough to destroy the machinery; he had mentioned the thing to him on Saturday evening, and said there would be a deal of money in it; the workmen had offered to give 100l. for the destruction of the machinery. Several of us met at the Navigation-inn, and formed our plans. I received from 3 to 4l. from Ward for acts I performed. Ward gave me 10l. for the part I took in destroying the works at Woodpeck-lane, in Nottingham. Our committee met at the Duke of York in Nottingham, Francis Ward was the treasurer. Ward belonged also to the Loughborough committee. He plotted the outrage at Castle Downington. Ward employed me to shoot a man who had re-fused to turn out, and offered 4l. as my reward." The House, while listening to this paper, might be disposed to think that what it stated was fabulous. They could hardly be prepared to hear that men had been hired to commit murder. The fact, however, had been clearly proved, that assassinations had been regularly planned, and the price of murder as regularly fixed as that of stockings or any common article of traffic could have been. More than one jury had convicted on evidence which showed that 4l. was often the price for shooting a man. The confession went on. "Ward offered 10l. for shooting some of Kendal's men. He offered 10l. for shooting another master manufacturer; and 5l. for shooting one of his men for working. After the conviction of a man who was tried for felony at the last assizes at Loughborough, Ward offered a large sum for doing out (murdering). We met at the Jolly Bacchus, and when none agreed to do this, Francis Ward took out a golden guinea and said he was determined it must be done." The second confession was that of Thomas Savage, who was executed a few weeks after Mitchell. It corroborated the former confession. He trusted the House would now see the course of proceeding they were called upon to adopt; he trusted they must now be able to form a proper estimate of the real character of this petitioner. Whether this man could be put on his trial for the foul crimes with which he was charged, it was not for him to determine. It was enough for him to say, that he had been committed on the evidence of two credible witnesses; and he would appeal to the House if there was any thing in his moral character that ought to have saved him from being committed to prison, after he had been charged on oath with treasonable practices. The depositions to which he had referred had not been obtained from Mitchell and Savage under circumstances which left them any hopes of obtaining mercy through the disclosures they might make. No such expectation had had any influence over them, when these statements were made by them in the most solemn moments which preceded their execution. He could assure the gentlemen opposite, that there were circumstances which would appal their convictions, as to the whole proceedings of ministers, as much as in this case, in which there was nothing wanting to a moral conviction but the judgment of a jury; but without that every moral mind must be satisfied as to the petitioner's character. He hoped he had now said enough to prevent the feelings of the House from being run away with by these ex-parte statements of Mr. Ward and others, representing themselves to be the most virtuous and most injured of men; with the view of making a false impression on parliament and the country. The House would not, on such statements, think it necessary to institute a committee of inquiry into the allegations of those whose crimes threatened the country. When the conduct of ministers should be fully inquired into by the committee above stairs, it would, he was persuaded, be the conviction of the committee, and from their report it would be the conviction of that House, that ministers had shown no malignant spirit, no oppressive temper, no disposition to injure or distress any individual; but, on the contrary, that they had manifested every forbearance and lenity consistent with their sense of duty. The noble lord opposite wished, by his motion, to bring forward those who had given evidence on the faith of government, and to subject them to the examination of a committee of that House. He should satisfy the committee already appointed, that no individual had been committed but upon oath, and upon evi- dence satisfactory not only to the secretary of state, but to the law officers of the Crown, and he would farther prove to the committee the probability of the crimes of which they were suspected. All possible information would be laid he-fore the committee, with the exception of the names of the persons furnishing secret information. That these should be withheld would not surprise or offend the House, unless they wished to deny ministers the aid of secret intelligence in dangerous times. If the House would not allow secret information to be received and acted upon, conspirators, who contracted for assassination with the same precision and formality as for any other engagement, could not be detected or punished. The outrages that broke out in the places from which the suspected were taken, proved the existence of strong grounds of suspicion, and the necessity of such measures as were adopted in order to put down insurrection; for an insurrection it was. It would be seen by the committee, from the limited number of persons committed to prison under the circumstances of the case, that no unworthy motive on the part of ministers had animated them to use unnecessarily the powers entrusted to them by parliament. They had, nevertheless, acted with vigour, and had they not done so, he was convinced the House would have had proofs of the danger which had existed that it was not the wish of the government to afford, as it was their object to prevent insurrectionary outrages. He therefore trusted that the House would not suffer such inquiry as was now required: this he trusted, not from distrust of the principles on which ministers acted, but in justice to those whose names they were bound to keep secret: for the consequence of such an inquiry would be, either that ministers must submit to all the charges brought against them, or abandon those who had given evidence on the faith of concealment, to the vindictive attacks of those whom they had detected.

said, he had supposed that the present motion was to be confined to the case of Ward, and with this supposition he had resolved to vote against it. No man could believe one word of Ward's petition. If falsehood was detected in one part, that was good ground for discrediting the whole. The part, then, that reflected on the magistrates of Nottingham was most false. He had no motives for saying of those magistrates what he did not believe, but he appealed to ministers whether those magistrates could be surpassed by any set of magistrates in honour, fairness, and fidelity; and at the same time it was well known that they were old and consistent friends of liberty. Information on oath had been given them that there were arms in Ward's house, and this information was given the clay after the Derby insurrection. Mr. Enfield, the town clerk, a most respectable gentleman, hesitated to give Ward a copy of the warrant at first, because the information was not in writing. This occasioned any irregularity that might attend that part of the case. He was afterwards arrested on strong evidence that he had been concerned in the horrible murders at Loughborough, the most horrible that were ever known in any part of the country. He was grieved to say, that there were still circumstances which made it dangerous for witnesses to come forward in that part of the country. There was one circumstance to prove this man's participation in those crimes which he had occasion to know, but which the noble lord had not mentioned. Previously to the trial, Mitchell confessed the main part of the facts respecting Ward, to a professional man; whether desired to do so in order to prepare for his defence, or whether he had done it to relieve his mind, the hon. member could not say. The professional man felt himself obliged to conceal this while Mitchell lived; but after his decease the obligation ceased, and he then confirmed the confessions read by the noble lord. For these reasons he had come down to the House, resolved to oppose the motion, but he found it to be a different motion from what he had expected. It was not confined to Ward, but included all the petitioners. He did not believe that among all the other petitioners such a case as this of Ward's existed; and though one of these persons had been found thus unworthy, he did not think all inquiry should be on that account precluded. Being connected with such a populous district it had often happened to him to have occasion to apply to the noble lord at the head of the home department; and he believed no man was More likely to do what was fair and humane than his lordship. But it was not equally clear that his intention was always carried into effect. Many who acted under his orders, but not immediately under his eye, might have indulged party feelings, to which his lordship was a stranger. He could not at all see that the falsification of Ward's individual statement afforded any fairground for refusing to go into an inquiry. If any one case of improper severity was made out, the House was bound to inquire into it: he could not, therefore, because one case had been negatived, oppose amotion, the object of which was to go into an inquiry on all. He must also say that if not a single word of all the statements was true, it was surprising that the parties making them had not been brought to account for their misconduct.

begged to trouble the House for a few minutes, as he was possessed of some local knowledge on the subject of^* the petition from John Knight. He held in his hand a declaration from Mr. Eastaffe, the gaoler of Heading, which stated that three prisoners, James Sellers, Nathaniel Hulton, and John Knight, were brought to him on the 10th of April, at about nine o'clock in the evening; they complained that they had tasted no provision during the whole of their journey from London (the House would recollect that that journey was only 39 miles); he then conducted them into his own kitchen, fed them on cold roast beef and pickles, with strong beer; they had as much as they could eat. He then provided them with beds in the best apartments of the prison; the beds were featherbeds of the best quality, and Sellers was placed in the state apartment; Knight was placed over the chapel. On the day following he stationed them in a ward, where they had an apartment 16 feet by 14; annexed was a list of luxuries with which they had been supplied. Instead of being separated they continued together for 16 days; and it was not possible that this should have been otherwise arranged, except under the orders of a visiting magistrate. Those orders were afterwards given, and Knight was ordered to the room over the chapel: the deputy-gaoler was removed to accommodate the others, and their apartments were all well furnished: insomuch that the prisoners all expressed to their relations their satisfaction at the good treatment they had received. Knight, who had spent 10s. 6d. in tobacco, and had received many presents from the gaoler, returned thanks for his kindness and generosity. When he was first placed over the chapel, the sashes of his apartment were nailed down, to prevent him from communicating with some workmen, who were employed opposite; but on his applying for a ventilator, it was immediately granted. The apartments allotted to him had since been occupied by gentlemen debtors. Knight's situation was more comfortable than even that of Sellers and Hulton. Sir Nathaniel Duckenfield, Mr. Stone, Mr. Farmer, and many other magistrates, had visited the prisoners continually, and could prove that they expressed themselves entirely satisfied. He held in his hand an acknowledgment of two of them, made to the magistrates of Berkshire, thanking Mr. Eastafte, the governor of the gaol, for his kindness and attention: he had furnished Sellers and Hulton, on their departure, with extra clothing and money for their journey. He had felt it his duty to put the House in possession of these facts, as an act of justice to the gaolers, and to all the persons concerned in the accusations which had been brought forward.

said, there was no man in England less disposed than himself to suspect the noble lord at the head of the home department, of any disposition to oppress. He did not think that his majesty's ministers were desirous of using that law, which he, with other members, had felt it their duty to oppose, for any bad purpose; but petitions- were now presented from different persons complaining of great oppressions. Though the government might not wish to sanction such conduct, the persons acting under them might possibly have been guilty. Some of the petitions appeared not to be borne out by fact, perhaps none of them were, but still the House was bound to inquire into the acts alleged to have taken place under the operation of the measure, as it was their paramount duty to investigate all cases of grievance that were submitted to them.

wished to say a few words on the petition from Bagguley. In consequence of that petition, he had written to the gaoler of Glocester, whom he knew to be a man of great humanity, and the reply to his inquiries was a complete contradiction of the petition. The prisoner declared, that on his arrival he had been plunged in a tub of cold water, and that a dangerous fever and cold had been the consequence of this immersion. The gaoler stated, that so far from the water being cold, the rules of the prison required

†

that a warm bath should be always used on such occasions: the prisoner, who had travelled all night, declared at the time, that he found this extremely comfortable, and so far was he from being ill in consequence, that he went into the bath on the 11th of April, and never complained till the 20th of May. The part of the prison in which he had been confined, had since been allotted to gentlemen debtors. He had a separate sitting-room and bedroom, was allowed to walk out whenever he pleased, and was allowed a guinea a week for provisions. The bills brought in to him for various articles were carefully examined by the gaoler and other persons under him, that he might not be imposed upon, and he expressed himself in every way satisfied with his treatment. Notwithstanding lord Sidmouth's circular, the governor had permitted all magistrates to visit him; not visiting magistrates only, but even some who did not belong to the county and among them sir G. Paul. He thought is was but justice to the governor of Gloucester-gaol to state these particulars, but he (the governor) was anxious that an investigation should take place. And even if all the petitioner had stated were false, he thought it no reason against commencing an investigation; for the House ought to know on its own authentic inquiry how far the petitions were true, and how far false; in order at least to punish parties who made false representations, to justify the conduct of those who were engaged in the transactions and to satisfy the feelings of the country.

read a letter from a respectable clergyman, a magistrate who had taken pains to investigate the case, confirming the statement that had been made respecting Bagguley, by the hon. gentleman who had just sat down; more especially as to the fact of the warm bath, and the various comforts that were supplied him. His general behaviour, it was added was extremely regular, and the governor had not once occasion to find fault with him. He contended, nevertheless, that the House was bound to go into an inquiry wherever a grievance was alleged, and therefore thought it right to support the motion.

observed, that he could not pretend to come to the discussion of this question with a mind quite so unbiassed and unprejudiced as those gentlemen had professed who had delivered their sentiments before him. He could not but call to mind, that when he first drew the attention of the House to the conduct of the governor of the Cold-bath-fields prison when he was charged will) crimes of the blackest die (of which he possessed the fullest evidence, but was never permitted to bring it forward)—he repeated, he could never forget, that at that time, just as on the present occasion, gentlemen rose up in various parts of the House, some declaring on their own knowledge, others on statements made by Aris himself, that he was a man of the most kind and benevolent disposition; that he had never been guilt}' of any cruelty or oppression whatever; that he was a person indeed in whom the milk of human kindness abounded to an extent almost approaching to weakncss; and that the prison was conducted on a system of uniform mildness. The hon. member for Yorkshire, in particular, had stated, that nothing could equal the attention paid by Aris to the prisoners; that he was a pattern of humanity, and indeed too good for his station; but the House would probably recollect that story, which at the time it was told seemed to excite very little sensation in the House—a story which was paralleled only by the history of the prisoner in the Bastile, and his companion the spider: that prisoner, in the course of a long and solitary confinement, by way of diverting his weary hours, had attached to him a large spider, which, by degrees, became so intimate as to visit him at regular intervals, and receive its food; it served as a companion, and gave an interesting occupation to the wretched prisoner. So forlorn and hopeless was this man's condition, that when the spider perished, he declared he had lost the only tie that rendered existence supportable. The story he had told of Aris was much of the same description. He had confined a prisoner for fifteen months in a solitary cell. In the course of a hard winter, a robin had flown into the window; it soon became a favourite with the prisoner, and? his only solace. After a long interval. Aris, who very seldom visited the cell, entered one morning, and seeing the bird, crushed it in his hand, notwithstanding the most earnest entreaties on the part of the prisoner that its life might be spared. The agony the poor man suffered was that of one who had lost his dearest and most valuable friend: so bitter had been the infliction of solitary confinement.—Aris nevertheless represented himself as the most humane of mankind—a man whose foible, was benevolence, and whose fault always to relax the discipline of the prison instead of resorting to any unnecessary rigour. He had mentioned this only to show that the House ought not to be surprised if he was not quite so ready to believe what gentlemen or what gaolers themselves stated in proof of their own good qualities. He had no doubt that the gentleman who made these statements meant well, and themselves believed all they had advanced; but he could not avoid being himself a little more sceptical on the subject. With respect to the hon. member for Nottingham, he could not avoid saying that all his speech relating to the business of Ward was nothing to the purpose. The question whether he was a bad man or not was nothing to the House; he might be any thing he pleased to represent him, the murderer who committed the late atrocious act at Greenwich if he pleased, but the only question was, whether he had been justly charged with high treason, whether he had been legally committed, and whether he had been legally treated under that commitment; that was the question, and not whether he was a man of good or bad character. He should therefore contend with those gentlemen who said they believed these statements, and yet called for an inquiry, that such an inquiry ought to be instituted: for what could be such scandalous trifling with the public, as to hold out redress for grievances, and yet refuse to inquire whenever a case was brought forward?—The noble lord opposite had left very little for him to do, because he had not in any manner met or answered the arguments of the noble mover; and though he complained, that it would waste the time of the House to inquire into grievances which might turn out to be false, yet he thought it no waste of time to enter into long statements, of which not a syllabic could ever be capable of proof. He put it once more to the common sense and candour of the House, and he would ask, could any person be biassed by the statement of a gaoler in his own favour? It had been said, and it might be true, that a great number of gaolers had not even been accused of harshness; if so the expression of one of our poets, that "the steeled gaoler was seldom the friend of man," should be now applied to the steeled minister; and if any misconduct had been committed by any under the noble secretary of state's authority, he should say that the noble lord was liable, even though he was not privy to such misconduct. It was a maxim of the common law, that "qui fecit per alium facit perse," and the noble lord was answerable for the acts of all who were placed under him. The noble secretary of state's characterestic mildness and benevolence had been urged as an argument for obtaining extraordinary power, and the same character was now thrust forward as a ground for stifling all inquiry. So that this individual character was to supersede the principles of the constitution and set at nought the ordinary course of justice, when the power granted to him had been so disgracefully, cruelly, and illegally applied. Some of the gaolers had themselves stated, that they were sorry they were ordered to proceed more harshly than was necessary, and that they thought there could be no need of irons to secure those who were immured in a solitary cell. An hon. gentleman had said, that many of the statements made were false; they might be so, but there were many of them which loudly called for inquiry. He should be glad to be informed why Ogden's case was not to be investigated—a man 74 years old, who was loaded so heavily with irons as to occasion a rupture, and was, like many others, transferred from one gaol to another, and exposed as a spectacle to their countrymen. It was asserted, and was not contradicted, that two men had been chained together, even in bed, and were besides loaded with heavy irons, where there could exist no pretence of safe custody.—Why was not this to be inquired into? Sufferings from cold and hunger made but little figure upon paper: but they were great miseries to endure, and whether they had been justly or unjustly endured, it became the House to ascertain. Was it any answer to the general charge, for a member to produce in his place, a letter from a gaoler, who stated that the water in which the prisoner had been plunged was warm, and that it was very delightful and comfortable when the prisoner himself declared that the water was cold, and that the consequence of it was a fever, from which he with difficulty recovered? This fact showed that inquiry was necessary; and though in one or two cases it had been admitted that the keepers of the prisoners had behaved with humanity and kindness, yet there were many others where com-plaints were made of a treatment directly the reverse. No doubt, however, the House would decide against the motion, and many members would hold that the statements in the petitions were all false? And why?—because the noble lord had so asserted. The noble lord had great confidence (far too great and too well founded for the interests of the people) in the discernment of parliament—at least as far as respected his own arguments and assertions. The noble lord was sure that hon. members would think with him that all investigation was needless; and in the same confidence that all he said would be implicitly credited, he had gone on to state, that ministers wanted no bill of indemnity, and required no protection. The House could not fail to recollect in what manner the noble lord had talked at the time the Habeas Corpus Suspension bill was first brought forward. He had spoken of the heavy responsibility about to be thrown upon ministers; and he and they had appeared almost to lament that so grievous a burden was about to be cast upon them. Of course he (sir F. Burdett) never believed a word of it. He knew it was a mere pretence, and he had proposed several motions to lighten the weight: first that it should be followed by no bill of indemnity; and next to obtain a declaration by the House, that it was not its intention that under the suspension bill torture should be inflicted by loading the prisoners with heavy irons, or confining them in solitary dungeons. What was the answer given on the other side?—The character of the noble secretary of state for the home department. It was impossible to suppose that such a kind-hearted man as lord Sidmouth would consent to such practices, and the motion was declared an unnecessary imputation upon his character. Many gentlemen thought it was impossible that such things could be done. But had they not been done? Or, if the assertions of the sufferers were disputed, why was not inquiry to be made? The majority of the House undoubtedly entertained high notions of ministers: they could be guilty of no misconduct as long as they were ministers; and because they were ministers, they had not. been guilty of any misconduct in this instance. The bare mention of misconduct on their part was enough to acquit them, in the House; but not out of it; for such notions did not extend beyond the walls of the place where they were supreme. The question was, who broke the law? The prisoners answered—the noble lord and his friends. But assertion would not satisfy the country, and the gaoler of Gloucester himself solicited investigation. The offenders, if such they were, were anxious for trial, even at the risk of their lives. Ministers alone resisted it, maintaining that the time of the House would be wasted, and its character degraded. He should be glad to know what a House of Commons was to do, if not to inquire into the grievances of the people? The noble lord had said, that it could not take evidence upon oath, and so forth; and was for completely de-Stroying its inquisitorial functions, formerly esteemed of such value and importance. The noble lord was a perfect Proteus in argument; he could "confute, change sides, and still confute." When he wished to shield his own acts and those of his colleagues, then, said he, appoint a committee; but a committee of his own selection, of which he was himself a member: where ministers sat to be their own judges, and were aided by those who would ask for nothing but what the noble lord was pleased to show them, and who would credit any thing which he requested them, without inquiring, and out of compliment to himself, to believe. Such a gross delusion would satisfy no man out of parliament: but if a committee was proposed, from which placemen and pensioners were to be excluded, and who would go to work thoroughly and fairly with the delinquencies of the noble lord and his friends, then they were not to be trusted, the time of the House would be wasted, and its dignity degraded. "But," said the noble lord, "it is a great mistake to suppose that ministers want an indemnity; what they wish is, to cover their friends, Oliver, his fellow spies, and informers." In short, the bill of indemnity was admitted on the other side to be for the protection of those secret and infamous sources of private accusation, whose purpose was to destroy the happiness and reputation of every honest man. Was it possible that at that time of day such an avowal should be made? that in England it should be professed that innocent men should be solitarily confined, cruelly tortured, and unjustly accused, and should never have an opportunity of discovering to whom they were indebted for all these deprivations and sufferings? The illegality of letting these unfortunate men out prison with the ridiculous mummery of their own recognizance, was as great as the illegality of their first commitment. He did not rest the question upon the merits or demerits of Ward; that had been already answered, at least as far as was necessary for a fair decision upon a motion which did not respect his petition merely; and he could not help hoping when gentlemen considered the subject seriously (more especially those who had voted for the suspension), and saw what had been done under it, that they would feel themselves bound in honour to vote for an inquiry. They ought to recollect, that this very subject of arbitrary imprisonment on suspicion of treason, had occasioned some of the severest domestic struggles this country had ever known; they ought to recollect that the words of the Great Charter were, "nulli negabi-mus, nulli differemus justitiam;" yet now the answer was, "negatur, differtur," for justice was delayed and denied to those who, in the confidence of their own innocence, had clamoured in a court of justice for trial by the laws of their country. This fact of itself was a condemnation of ministers. The injured men were refused a trial, not from the tender mercies of government, but because they knew that the acquittal of the innocent would be the conviction of the guilty. Magna Charta had become obsolete of late: it was old-fashioned law, not suited to the refinements of modern times; and the declaration, that "nullus liber homo capiatur aut im-prisonetur, nisi per legale judicium parium suorum," had been totally neglected and forgotten. It might not be amiss if gentlemen would refresh their memories, and enlarge their minds a little, by recurring to the wholesome laws of Henry 2nd and Edward 3rd, by all of which it was provided, that no man should be imprisoned without being duly brought to trial. Though not quite so old, the Petition of Rights seemed equally to have escaped recollection: it consisted of four parts;— first, that no tax should be imposed without general consent; next, that no arbitrary imprisonments should be allowed without information upon oath, and subsequent trial; thirdly, that the realm should not be governed by martial law: the fourth provision he did not remember, but they had all been equally disregarded. If this course were pursued, it would be utter nonsense to talk of the happy constitution of England; and if it were to be infringed, far better would it be that it should be done by the King than the Commons. Nothing could be more lamentable than that that House should take upon itself to make unwarrantable innovations in the constitution; if the king made attempts of the kind, the Commons might be resorted to for defence; but it would be a mockery to appeal to the Commons, pro forma, against its own acts. As this would, probably, not be the last time he should have an opportunity of addressing the House on the question, he would not trouble it farther at present.

acknowledged having represented Mr. Aris, late governor of the Middlesex House of Correction, as a man of humanity, and stated that his authority for having done so, was the rev. Mr. Owen, chaplain-general, who for many months had been in the habit of visiting the prison, and was well acquainted with its condition and management. He requested, in return, that the hon. baronet would deal as candidly with him, and state his authority for the story he had told regarding the bird wantonly killed by Mr. Aris. There were, he confessed, some money transactions in which Mr. Aris was concerned which justified his removal, but he did not recollect that any act was proved against him which amounted to an impeachment of his humanity. With respect to the question before the House, he thought that all the presumptions were in favour of the correctness and legality of the proceedings of ministers, and it was a great mistake to suppose that the character of Mr. Ward had nothing to do with the merits of the motion. If he had stated what was untrue, as was evident, what right had he to ask for investigation, unless indeed that he might be punished as his crimes deserved? Honourable gentlemen from all quarters had borne testimony to the good conduct of gaolers, and in several instances it was established that the petitions contained nothing but a pack of falsehoods. True it was that the House possessed the privilege of inquiry; but nothing was more dangerous to a privilege than its abuse. All ancient constitutions, it was known, had possessed some extraordinary means of meeting extraordinary dangers; and it was the glory of our own, and that which had given it stability, that while sometimes it allowed the infringement of the strict bounds of law, to avoid sudden and imminent peril, it had the faculty of returning unimpaired to its first beauty and dignity. Surely some alteration in the ordinary mode of proceeding was required, when the people of England had resorted to assassination as a trade, as was the case with the Luddites, and when the life even of a judge, venerable for his age, and admirable for his learning, had been threatened, if not attempted, while the perpetrators were to be rewarded by money raised in subscriptions of 5s. each! If from the petitions on the table any truth could be sifted, it would be easy for individuals to make themselves acquainted with the facts, and to bring the matter forward upon a future occasion; but at present he (Mr. Wilberforce) trusted that the House would reject an inquiry, the effect of which might be to mark men out for slaughter, and to send witnesses into the country as victims to private malignity.

, in explanation, said that Mr. Wilberforce Bird, chairman to the committee upon the House of Correction, had related the story of the robin and Mr. Aris to the House.

asked, if Mr. Bird had spoken from his own knowledge? but no answer was given.

observed, that a bill of indemnity being about to be passed, the question now was whether it should be done without inquiry, when gross abuse of the power intrusted was imputed to ministers. He begged the House to recollect, that though bills of indemnity had before been agreed to after the suspension of the Habeas Corpus act, yet never in any other instance than the present, after a committee had sat and made its report; the notoriety of the facts was therefore put out of the case, and a sort of grand jury (most extraordinarily constituted, having power to examine all the evidence for the accused, and none for the accuser) was appointed to make some sort of investigation. Why, then, should not these petitions go before them, or before some other tribunal better selected? It was asserted that people had been dragged about the country in fetters, as proofs to the inhabitants of an existing plot; and the question was, whether unnecessary severity had not been employed; than which there could not be a subject more requiring the 'interposition of parliament. His principal object in rising was, to refute a statement made by the noble lord, in the humble hope of influencing some few votes, viz. that if the facts stated in the petitions were true, the sufferers would not be deprived of their remedy by the bill of indemnity. How unfounded this assertion was, was evident from his lordship's next sentence, in which he observed, that the bill of indemnity now required would be the same as that of 1801, which in the first clause expressly enacted "that all personal actions heretofore brought, or which might be hereafter commenced or brought against any person on account of any act, matter, or thing done, recommended, directed, ordered, or advised to be done, for apprehending, imprisoning, or detaining in custody any person suspected of high treason, should be discharged and made void." It was clear, therefore, that the parties who had so severely suffered would be deprived of all redress, if the bill of indemnity in question were adopted. He would now say a few words as to the petitions. There were, he believed, 11 of them, from different persons in different parts of the kingdom, and containing different allegations. Suppose three of these should be proved to contain false charges, was it consistent with justice, would his hon. friend who had just spoken assert, that the other eight should be rejected unexamined, on account of the hollowness of those three? He did not mean to say that some acts described by the petitioners were illegal, although they were grossly unjust and inhuman, for according to certain statutes solitary imprisonment was legalised. But who could justify, upon any principle, the transfer of a prisoner from one prison to another without any appearance of necessity. The noble lord had, it appeared, made some preparation to meet the debate of this evening, but his preparation was evidently imperfect, for the noble lord's statements applied only to two or three cases, while it was known that there were no less than eleven petitions before the House. But surely it would not be admitted that the falsifications of the statements of these petitioners should exclude the others from the right to claim the attention of the House. Such a doctrine would not, he presumed to think, be maintained by any just or rational man. For instance, why should the fallacy of other petitioners be allowed to prejudice the case of that poor man Ogden, upon whose hands, at the advanced age of 74 years, 30 lb. weight of iron were placed while he was suffering from a rupture. There was at least some ground for sup-posing that his petition contained truth; for he had referred to the surgeon, Mr. Dixon, who had attended, and cured him of the complaint produced by the weight of his fetters? He would ask his honourable friend, whether he thought it just to dismiss that petition without inquiry. There were seven other petitions which stood on the same footing, against the truth of which not one syllable had been uttered; and, when he considered what extraordinary pains had been taken to refute the statements contained in some of the petitions, he could not but think that those which had been impeached, were, on that very account, unimpeachable. Silence was a proof that nothing could be said against them. As to the denial given by a gaoler to the statement of a petitioner, he conceived that nothing could be more absurd than the production of such testimony. The hon. baronet had founded a very just argument on the conduct of the House with respect to Aris, on a former occasion; and his hon. friend had, instead of giving an answer, completely mistaken the object of the hon. baronet's observation. The hon. baronet had intended no imputation on him, when he alluded to his testimony in favour of the humanity of Aris, but had justly inferred, that if a member of such integrity and sagacity had been imposed upon in that case, it was not impossible that the gentlemen who that night had spoken in such high terms of different gaolers might likewise have been deceived. What, then, was the deduction from this? Surely not, that no inquiry was necessary, but that the strictest examination should take place immediately. Aris, notwithstanding, the testimonies to his character, was afterwards convicted of the grossest delinquency: and it was not impossible that similar results might follow, if the proper inquiries were to be instituted on the present occasion. His hon. friend had lately said, when a case of enormity was brought forward, "why had not the hon. mover, the member for Shrewsbury, taken pains to make inquiries, and to examine witnesses as to the truth of the allegations?" The hon. member for Shrewsbury answered, that he had examined; that he had seen the witnesses and questioned them in person: yet his hon. friend, instead of being satisfied with this compliance with his own desire and sense of justice, had voted against a motion so founded and supported. He trusted, however, that his hon. friend would retrace his steps. He hoped he had repented of that vote, and would yet make amends. As to Ward's character, it was certainly a bad one: indeed, the only wonder was, that he had not been brought to justice long ago, if indeed he was as criminal as had been represented. It was said, that previous to the Suspension act, he had been in gaol on a charge of felony; if this were the case, he should like to know why he had not been tried— why his life, if the case required it, had not been sacrificed to justice. But this had nothing to do with the allegations in the petitions some of which, notwithstanding the great preparations which had been made by the noble lord, for the purpose of contradiction, had been left completely unanswered. He alluded particularly to the statement of Ward's having been, every alternate four days, thrust into a loathsome cell, from which he was only taken because it was impossible for him to exist in it more than four days at a time; and yet for all this, and for similar abuses of power, an indemnity was to be obtained: and the report which was to warrant this indemnity, was to come from a committee, before which the accused brought only such evidence as they pleased, while the accusers were not allowed to bring any at all. As to the personal character of lord Sid-mouth, of which so much had been said, there was no man more ready than himself to do justice to the humanity and excellent disposition of the noble lord; but that was no answer to the charges of misconduct in his agents. He would not say if all the facts in the different petitions were proved, that they were in themselves illegal, but he would say that they were unnecessary and wanton abuses of power. For what could be imagined more cruel than that of which some of the petitioners complained—the privation of freedom and food—of sleep and health? What could be a greater mockery and insult than the parading these men from town to town in open daylight, and loaded with chains; and what possible objects could be answered by such a wretched triumph, except to convince some miserable minds that some extraordinary plot existed against the state? The petitioner, to whom the motion principally referred, was so taken through the country chained to Haynes; but according to the noble lord the latter acknowledged some obligations to the officer by whom he was conducted in those journeys. That some humanity might have been shown by the officer alluded to, and felt by Haynes, was not improbable. It was also probable that the conduct of some of the gaolers was humane; and in his conscience, he believed, that one of the main reasons for the transfer of the unfortunate petitioners from one prison to another, was in order to find the gaoler most likely to conform to the wishes of the ministers by whom those petitioners was committed to prison. His hon. friend who had just spoken thought proper, in one part of his speech, to pass a glowing eulogium on the suspension of the Habeas Corpus, and had referred to the history of ancient republics in illustration of the advantages of suspended liberty: but did not his hon. friend know what was the consequence of those occasional dictatorships to which he had alluded? Did they not at last end in a perpetual dictatorship—in a tyranny never to be shaken off? and for his own part he believed most firmly, before God, that these continual and unjustifiable suspensions of the Habeas Corpus would—unless the House of Commons should do its duty, which it had not hitherto done—end in the complete ruin of our liberties.

read a long statement taken from a report made to the magistrates of Oxford, relative to the condition of the county-gaol. It described all the accommodations to be most excellent, and asserted, that the state prisoners confined there returned thanks for the treatment which they had experienced, nor was any complaint made, except by one man, who said that his room had a smoky chimney.

said, it so happened, that he could speak to the falsehood of the allegations in Ogden's petition. With respect to that petition, he could bring forward twenty witnesses to prove, that Ogden himself had contradicted many of the allegations in it. He could speak positively on this subject; for an hon. friend of his, one of the magistrates for the county of Surrey, had visited the gaol, and inquired into the fact of Ogden's case. It certainly was true that the prisoner had been put in irons, but not that he had been heavily ironed: and on a representation being made to the secretary of state, the irons were taken off. It was expressly proved by Mr. Dickson, the most respect- able and humane gentleman who was employed to give medical assistance to the prisoners, that Ogden brought into gaol with him the complaint for which he afterwards underwent a skilful and successful operation. So humane had been the attention paid to Ogden, that the man himself had repeatedly expressed his thankfulness to God that being brought to gaol had been the means of curing him of that complaint, which under less skilful treatment than that of Mr. Dickson the prisoner himself said might have terminated fatally—[Hear, hear!]. The prisoner had also expressed much gratitude to the gaoler. So much for the truth of the allegations in this petition, which was the only one among those before the House of which he knew any thing. Some gentlemen, however, wished to persuade the House to believe all that the petitioners stated, and nothing that the gaolers stated in their justification. It must be in the recollection of the House, that an inquiry was instituted some years ago into the state of the gaols of Lincoln and Lancaster, the result of which was, that there was no serious cause of complaint. An hon. baronet must recollect the result of a committee appointed at his instance to inquire into the grievances of a foreigner of the name of Colville, who had been taken up and imprisoned. The result was, that the committee was unanimously of opinion that there was no truth in the allegations of the petitioner, as to cruel treatment.

declared, that his only reason for pressing no objection to the decision of the committee alluded to, was simply this, that he saw all the other members of that committee, were unanimous against him; but still his own opinion was, that Colville had been most cruelly and unjustly treated.

, with great warmth, appealed to the House, whether they did not recollect the hon. baronet's concurrence with the report.

—I have just told the hon. member, that I did concur in that report, and I have also just told him my sole reason for so doing.

observed, that the complaint made by Ogden was, that the disease with which he had been afflicted, and of which he was so ably cured during his imprisonment, was produced by the chains and irons imposed upon him. The inquiry before the magistrates on this subject was confined to the case of the Evanses. There was nothing in the representation of the hon. gentleman that contradicted the statement contained in the petition. He believed the case of Bagguley was fairly stated, nor did the letter read by the hon. gentleman disprove any of the circumstances which were described as having taken place in the gaol at Oxford. As to the statement that he had been plunged into a cold bath, he could only say that he had conversed with the petitioner since the statement had been contradicted, and that he said he was willing to prove it by his affidavit. As to its being said that the petitioner had refused to attend at church, he begged the House to observe the reason given by the petitioner, which was, that he would not consent to sit in the same pew with a prisoner in a felon's dress. The account of the treatment experienced by Mr. Knight at Reading, threw no imputations on the gaoler. It was of being carried to Salisbury gaol, a gaol of which no hon. member had spoken or would speak in commendation, and of being again removed to Worcester, that he complained. The only reason that he could conceive for thus parading him about the country was, to create alarm, and withdraw him from the observation of the Berkshire magistrates who were not sufficiently subservient to the minister of the day. He believed all the facts stated in the petitions to be true, and he would therefore vote for the motion.

rose for the purpose of confirming his hon. friend's representation of Ogden's case. The fact alleged was, that the distemper had been so much increased by the treatment he received, as to render a severe operation necessary, though it was undoubtedly fortunate that it had been successfully performed.

said, he had attentively read Ogden's petition, and thought it clear, that the statement in it was intended to create a belief, that an old man had been seized with a violent malady in consequence of the weight of irons which had been imposed upon him. However the detention of persons charged with offences against the state might be justified under the late act, and admitting that a bill of indemnity, on the precedent of that of 1801, should be passed by parliament, he begged leave to say, that such an act would not indemnify a gaoler for any cruelty or excess beyond that restraint which was necessary to the safe custody of the prisoners. He would still remain prosecutable criminally, and liable to answer to the party injured in a civil action. A question might arise whether, when a person so charged was apprehended in a disturbed district, it might not be proper to place fetters on his limbs to prevent the danger of an escape. If done for this purpose, and without any unnecessary rigour or violence, it was legal and justifiable. His hon. and learned friend had, he apprehended, no colour for saying that some of these unfortunate men had been removed to different prisons, and exhibited in different parts of the country, for the purpose of exciting alarm. The secretary of state had two duties to perform; first, that of keeping them in safe and close custody; and, secondly, of rendering their situation in every other respect as comfortable as possible. With respect to their being sent to distant prisons, the motive was, and he took upon himself confidently to assert it, with a view to the comparative comfort of the detained. What complaints would the House not have heard, if these persons had been huddled together in the crowded prisons of the metropolis! The noble lord who brought forward the motion seemed to think, that when a man was once lodged in gaol upon a charge of treasonable practices, the door ought to be hermetically sealed upon him till the day of trial arrived. But by the law of this country although a justice of the peace could not discharge after commitment, and before indictment, a secretary of state might, and, without the assistance of any suspension act, arrest on a charge of treason, and afterwards discharge his warrant if he thought the accusation could not be substantiated.—It had been also said, that were it not for the spies and informers employed by government there would not have been any real disturbance in the country;—that no explosion would have taken place. His opinion was, that the explosion would have been very different. From the information received from those informers, compared with more creditable evidence a great explosion was prevented. The actions of the conspirators were paralysed, the link which connected the chain of treasonable confederacy was broken, and the country was saved from the most unhappy events. At the same time he would inform the House, that not even one individual had been deprived of his liberty for a single hour, on the evidence of any of those informers [Hear!]. The informers served government merely as an index to point out more creditable evidence, and unless where the evidence of such persons was corroborated by undoubted testimony, it was not in any instance acted upon. He contended, that all the allegations of these petitions, as far as they had been examined, were falsified: and that the noble secretary of state had, by his great exertions, broken the link of a confederacy which threatened society with all the evils of universal pillage and disorder. If that simultaneous movement which had been proved to be in contemplation, had been suffered to take place, and the expected multitude from the North had joined the disaffected in other quarters, what justification would then have been received, on the part of the noble secretary of state, for not having exercised the powers with which parliament had armed him, and for a dereliction of duty which had led to such destructive consequences.

wished to say a few words in explanation of the vote which he should give. The chief allegations in the petitions were for unjust detention. The allegations of ill-treatment were comparatively few. If the motion had been for a committee to inquire into the truth of the allegations of ill-treatment, he would not have objected to it. But the present motion was in such general terms, that it involved questions which ought not to be sent to a committee, especially while there was a secret committee now sitting by appointment of the House, whose inquiries were directed to the general question. With this view he felt it his duty to vote against the motion.

, in reply, observed, that had it been wished by ministers that the committee for which he had moved should be a secret committee, he, for his part, should have had no objection, and would have willingly met the proposal made by the last speaker. Upon a review of the defence made by the members of administration, he felt satisfied there had been no case made out which would warrant a British House of Commons in refusing to refer the petitions to a committee.