rose to present a Petition, which he said was signed by 14,000 persons, inhabitants of the metropolis and its vicinity, complaining of the monopoly carried on in the brewing of porter by certain brewers in the metropolis. Some of the petitioners, he observed, were magistrates, and a great number tradesmen of respectability, but all of the petitioners were persons interested in the price of porter. They complained that the present price of porter was entirely too high, and that its quality was extremely bad, and this they attributed to the monopoly of certain brewers, who, notwithstanding the fall which had on one occasion, since the war, taken place in the price of malt and hops, the removal of the heavy war malt duty, and the abolition of the property tax, still kept up the price of their porter, alleging, as a reason, that they had a great stock on hand; but though that stock had long since been consumed, they kept up their high prices, and they were still advancing them. Now, when every article used in the manufacture of porter was, with some few exceptions, cheaper than at any former period, for a considerable time, they not only sold their porter at a dearer rate, but made it of a very inferior quality, so that this necessary article of consumption was no longer a nutritious beverage to the poor man, whose means did not allow him to seek for any other. The petitioners also stated, that the monopoly was caused by the principals of the eleven chief breweries in the metropolis, who met together like the partners of one concern, and fixed the price at which porter should be sold. It was said also, that the circumstance was mentioned in the report of the police committee; but he could not find that that committee had noticed the circumstance. He should, however, say, that if this monopoly existed, it was so dangerous in its nature and effects, so subversive of every fair principle of commercial speculation, that he hoped no man of character, honour, or fortune, in the city, would be found to be engaged in it. It was, if it existed as described, a species of monopoly which interested every member of the community; for there was no man who could be insensible for a moment to the consequences of giving an inferior kind of drink to the lower classes of people, and thereby driving them to the use of those liquors, the effects of which had been found so destructive to the morals of the community. The petitioners stated, and he agreed with them, that the whole of the evils complained of on this subject, arose out of that power which was vested in the magistrates, of saying, without any control, who should, and who should not, have their authority for selling beer. The power they exercised in this way, was not, in his opinion, recognised by any legislative enactments. With many of them, the right to exercise the business of a publican was not granted or withheld from any view to the public good, but from a wish to promote the interest of those who were their particular patrons and friends. Another complaint of the petitioners was, that the power of taking away licences was not regulated by any fixed rules with which those concerned in the trade were acquainted, but seemed to depend entirely upon the caprice or interest of the parties exercising that power. Why any man should, upon slight or trivial grounds, take away the means which another possessed of earning his bread, or why he should be deprived of that which was his only property, perhaps it would be difficult to determine upon any fair legislative principle. But that such abuses existed was proved from the report of the committee on the police of the metropolis. The remedy which the petitioners suggested, though without pointing out any in particular, was, that the trade should be thrown open, and that the power of the magistrates should be removed from the patronage and entire control over it, to the legal one of correcting its abuses. That instead of their own uncontrollable power, as to who was or who was not to exercise the trade, they should be restricted to the application of those legal remedies which were calculated to correct its disorders. This, in his opinion, would have the effect of removing all the principal grounds of complaint, as far as concerned the mode of licensing, and would go, in a great degree, to remedy-all the others; for if the victuallers were left to their own choice, without the terror of a magistrate's power hanging over their heads, they would deal with those brewers who gave them the best beer, and they would thereby destroy that mono-poly which it was now alleged existed. The high price of porter, and its very inferior quality, were another complaint made by the petitioners. It was his duty to recommend the prayer of the petition to the House, and if the allegations mentioned were found to be true, it would be the duty of the House to correct the abuses they stated. He would not say, of his own knowledge, that the monopoly existed as it was described; but if it did so exist, it ought to be put down, as it was against every principle of law and fair commercial policy. This petition, it ought to be observed, was not merely founded upon the authority of the petitioners themselves, it was borne out in some important parts by the report of committees on the police of the metropolis, who had paid most particular attention to the subject, as far as concerned the system of licensing, and the monopoly of victualling-houses by the brewers. This committee was also aided by the evidence of several brewers of considerable eminence. The committee stated, that they had observed the practice which had lately taken place of brewers becoming the proprietors, either by purchase or loan, Or mortgage, of a vast number of victualling-houses, and the proportion of houses so held by them in the metropolis, was nearly half the entire. This they describe as extremely injurious to the community at large. And in another place they observe, that the practice was also growing in the country, and ought to be put down, as most injurious. From this it appeared, that the petitioners were not without foundation in their assertions; for there was in these instances direct evidence of monopoly in several places. He conceived, on the whole, that the petition was one of considerable importance, and required the serious attention of the House.

observed, that he never rose under stronger feelings than on the present occasion, and he regretted extremely that the hon. and learned gentleman had not delayed bringing forward the petition for at least a short time, that some of his majesty's ministers might be in their places to hear the explanation which he was anxious to give. The question was not only one which interested the people at large, as affecting one of the necessaries of life, but it was also important to the government, as a question of revenue, as the duties upon the beer brewed by the eleven principal porter breweries of London paid an annual duty of nearly 900,000l., nearly one-fiftieth part of the whole revenue of the empire. He wished first to state to the House in what manner this petition had originated. About three months ago, in consequence of a most extravagant advance in the price of hops, and the continued high price of malt, the brewers were obliged to raise the price of porter one half-penny per quart. Very soon afterwards a string of resolutions appeared in many of the public papers, containing the most violent charges against the brewers, and stating that a magistrate of the county of Middlesex intended shortly to call a public meeting to take them into consideration. This magistrate, a gentleman of the name of Beaumont, afterwards signed a requisition, calling a public meeting, which was afterwards held at the Crown and Anchor-tavern in the Strand. At that meeting, which was not (as he was informed) very numerously attended, Mr. Beaumont came forward, and moved the very same resolutions which had already been advertised. They were, of course, passed without much opposition. In such an assembly, it was not very likely that the brewers, or any person inclined to speak in their behalf, would obtain a fair hearing; more particularly when the chairman himself opened the business of the day with as violent a phillippic as could issue from the lips of man against a class of persons of whose concerns and of whose conduct he was perfectly ignorant. The resolutions were again printed in all the papers, and after some interval of time a petition was framed in the very same words as the resolutions. Copies of the petition were left in various shops in the different parts of the town. Pla- cards were pasted up net only in the metropolis, but in the environs, announcing, in large letters, the necessity of "fair trade, and free trial;" men were employed to carry large hand-bills, upon poles, through the most crowded streets, and some bore copies of the petition itself, with pens and ink ready to induce the passengers to affix their signatures to it. He went himself into one place where the petition was left for signatures; and was informed, that the object of it was to re-duce the price of porter. So far, therefore, from being surprised at the number of signatures, which he understood from the hon. and learned gentleman amounted to 14,000, he was astonished that the number was not considerably greater. Mr. Beaumont afterwards printed the speech which he had delivered. at the meeting, a Copy of which he then held in his hand, and to Which he should beg leave to allude in the course of this discussion. Before, however, he came to the charges contained in the petition, he begged the House to recollect that it was expressly framed against the eleven principal porter breweries of London, and he should therefore confine his observations simply to the facts as relating to them. He was well aware that in the country the brewers acted upon a principle completely different from those in town. The public-houses almost exclusively in the country, were in the hands of brewers, a practice which he had before stated in this House, as in his opinion most injurious to themselves and the public. The petition now upon the table assumed this proposition: That in consequence of the present system of licensing, eleven porter brewers had obtained a monopoly of the whole trade of London; that they had combined together, and made enormous profits by selling an inferior article at an extravagant, price, and that in some instances they had adulterated their beer by the mixture of noxious ingredients. First, with respect to the charge of monopoly. Fortunately for him, this subject had attracted the attention of the Committee upon the Police of the Metropolis, which sat last year; and the brewers very readily came forward to give the committee all the information upon the subject which they were desirous of obtaining. The leading partners of three breweries, which brewed

^* See Vol.33, p. 1022.

more than half the beer consumed in the metropolis, gave the following statements. The first, with which he was connected, that only one-eighth part of the houses in their trade belonged to them. The proportion of those in the same situation with Whitbread & Co., one-seventh. With Hanbury & Co., one seventh. Thus, out of perhaps 2,000 public-houses supplied by these three breweries, not 300 were the property of the brewers. He knew that it might be asserted, that there was a connexion between many of those which he considered as free houses and the brewers, by means of loans secured by mortgages upon the leases of their houses. But the House would observe this marked distinction between the two cases. Where a public-house was purchased by a brewer, the trade was secured to him during the term of his lease, but the publicans, who only borrowed a sum of money upon their lease, were at all times at liberty to purchase their beer wherever they pleased, as from the general custom of the trade in London, if they wished to go to another brewer, the money so borrowed would be paid for them. That frequent changes of this nature continually happened he well knew, and as an instance of it he need only state, that in the course of the last two years, the number of public-houses which had come to his house from other breweries, added to those which had left him, were equal to one-third of his whole trade. This system of lending moderate sums was productive of very great advantage to many industrious tradesmen, or persons just beginning in life, without any real injury to the public, as he could assure the House that one-twelfth part of a half-penny, or the 144th part of the price of a quart of beer, would pay him interest for money thus lent beyond his most sanguine expectations. The price, therefore, could not be lowered, if this system was abolished, and the improvement in the quality so small as to be perfectly imperceptible; for he was convinced that the most accurate judge could not distinguish whether the strength of porter was increased 1-144th part or not. He would now revert to the subject of prices, and he should be able also upon this point to refer to the report of the Police Committee. It appeared by the evidence then given, that forty or fifty years back, and until the year 1799, porter had been sold for 3½d. per quart. Since that, government had added duties upon malt, hops, and beer, equal to ½.d, and the brewers had advanced 2d., being about 60 per cent. By the evidence given by his hon. colleague (Mr. Calvert) it appears, that the price of barley and hops had in that time increased 200 per cent, and the different charges for wages, horses, coals, repairs, &,c. from 100 per cent to 200 per cent. In his own evidence there is an account of the average prices of malt and hops, taken from the books of the House for 48 years. It appears that the price of malt and hops from

observed, that as this matter came so very unexpectedly before the House, and as there was a great deal of private business, which it would be very inconvenient to delay, he hoped the necessity of adjourning the debate till tomorrow would be felt. With that view he should move that the debate be adjourned till to-morrow.

said, he differed toto ccelo from the hon. and learned gentleman who presented the petition, in the view he had taken of the question. He agreed in the propriety of adjourning the debate, but thought the matter could only be settled in a committee, where he anticipated the allegations of the petitioners would be found to be false.

said, he would not press the subject upon the House, as it seemed to be the general wish that the discussion should he adjourned; but he could not avoid observing, that he had never heard such a tissue of false imputations against any body of men, as that which was contained in the petition. He, for one, concerned, was most anxious that a committee should be appointed to ascertain the truth, if any there was in the allegations.

said, he had several Petitions to present from Warrington for annual parliaments and universal suffrage. The attorney general had last night stated, that those who demanded annual parliaments and universal suffrage, had a design to overturn the constitution. If these persons were conspirators, they conspired in the open day. It had been proved to demonstration, that parliaments had for a long period of our history been held once a year or oftener; there were new writs, and lists of new names, for every session, sometimes two, sometimes three, and in a few instances four sessions within the year, for each of which there was a new election. The statute, that a parliament should be holden once a year or oftner, implied that a new election should take place every session. And when the nature of parliamentary business was considered, that they could not then be corrupted or bribed according to the fancy of the Crown, it was rational to suppose that the members would be dismissed as soon as the business for which they were sent was done. Members did not then expect to mend or make their fortunes in parliament; it was a hard duty and a personal risk (to protect them from which, the privilege of parliament was established), and as soon as they had performed one duty for their constituents, they were not anxious immediately to go again. It would be more difficult to prove that universal suffrage prevailed; though from the language in all ancient writings, and from a variety of incontestible documents, it was probable that something very like universal suffrage existed. He should only quote the words of the old coronation oath,—that the king should govern according to the laws which the people might have chosen—"Leges quas vulgus elegerit." He apprehended that the meaning of the word 'vulgus,' when used in our law books or historical records could not be mistaken—that, indeed, that word had an extensive signification, and that when applied to the right of popular election it could only be understood to imply universal suffrage. But this construction could not be questioned when we considered the application of the words "magnates, barones, liberi tenentes et communes totius regni." For such words in our parliamentary records could not be perverted to any other meaning than that of universal suffrage. He argued, therefore, that this doctrine could not be deemed so novel, so extravagant, or. so contrary to our ancient constitutional habits, as the learned gentleman had last night thought proper to describe it. Thus much he felt it right to say upon this occasion, without meaning to enter at any length into the merits of the principle of universal suffrage, but with a view to pro-test against the repetition of such remarks as had induced him to say so much, and to deprecate the practice which had of late prevailed in answering the petitions of the people, not by fact or argument, but by abuse.

rose to present a Petition from James Robertson, a weaver, in Bridgeton near Glasgow. The learned gentleman observed, that having no knowledge of the facts, he could not be responsible for the statements contained in the petition. But, as a great deal had been said of the petitions on the table, he thought it proper to observe, that if these petitions were true, the parties complaining ought obviously to be redressed; while, if they were false, the petitioners themselves were deserving of censure. If, however, any minor point in a petition-should appear to be unfounded or exaggerated, that would be no reason for rejecting the petition altogether, if it were substantially true. But be would not enter into the merits of those petitions, as he would not anticipate the discussion to which they must give birth; for it was impossible that the House should refuse to institute some inquiry with respect to such extraordinary acts of injustice and oppression as those petitions detailed. Reverting to the petition which he held in his hand, the learned member repeated his disacquaintance with the case; but observed that he felt it his duty to present this, or any petition submitted to him, provided it was couched in correct terms. It would appear from the petition, that the tyranny of those by whom such a prisoner was unjustly imprisoned, was to operate, not only during his imprisonment but throughout his life. The Petition was then read, setting forth, "That the Petitioner is an unfortunate individual whom the late unhappy measures of government found innocent and peaceable, threw into gaol, and reduced to misery, he humbly begs leave to lay before the House a short and simple account of the circumstances of his case, premising that he will indulge in no assertion that be cannot satisfactorily establish. On account of the almost total stagnation of trade, about twelve months ago, considerable numbers of weavers and other tradesmen applied to the sheriff of the county for parish relief; this necessarily brought many of them, on several occasions, together, and on the 22d of February last year about nineteen persons of whom the petitioner was one, met in a tavern, to consult about the conduct and progress of the legal application; thus employed, the sheriff fiscal (Salmond) and constables suddenly entered the room, and fell to searching their pockets, in which they found no treasonable matter, in the petitioner's they seized a web-ticket; all were immediately led to prison, where the petitioner was confined for three hours to quite a dark cell on the floor of the prison, from which he was taken to a cell on the upper flatt, a space of seven by six feet, which became his future miserable abode; for four days he got no victuals but such as his starving family could scantily supply, and from the fifth he was allowed eight-pence a day, out of which he paid two-pence a day for coals, nearly as much for light, and was obliged to support nature on the few remaining pence; his bed was a little straw, a light coverlet, and one pair of blankets; the petitioner was four several times examined by the sheriff and fiscal upon matters of which he was not only innocent and ignorant, but which really appeared to have no foundation beyond the examinator's own invention; he was told by the fiscal that he would be hanged if he denied, and when it was observed that innocence was not to be overcome, was finally returned to his cell; all access was denied to him for one month, after that allowed for five minutes once a week; in this horrid situation a favourite child dies, whose distress in death, he cannot sooth, whose remains he cannot accompany to the grave; the petitioner was now seized with a dropsy, which the physician certified would, if confinement were continued, speedily end in death, but his tormentors remained inexorable; to add to his afflictions, he hears that his landlord, weakly alarmed at his situation, has sold all his effects for an arrear of rent, and turned his wife and children to the streets; the petitioner's disease continued, the physician renewed, his report, and at length, after a delay of fifteen days from the first report, intimation was given that if he found bail to the amount of 50l. he would obtain his release; a humane individual became surety, and after a close confinement of eleven weeks, passed in the utmost misery, the petitioner came out of his cell, falling under disease, without a home to go to, without a penny for himself and family; and here another of his children died; to assist himself in this accumulated distress, the petitioner cited the managers of a Friendly Society, of which he had been long a member, before a justice for a weekly support, but the worthy magistrate observed, very loyally, that as the petitioner had been a state prisoner he could not be a deserving member, and dismissed the application; the petitioner is now to add, in conclusion, that the disease contracted in prison still afflicts him, sometimes prevents him from working altogether, at all times to his former extent, and appears to doom him to painful and incurable illness, poverty, and affliction; and he would therefore pray, that the House would be pleased to take his case into consideration, and give him such redress as may appear proper."

said, that as he had, on former occasions, offered his sentiments on similar petitions, he did not intend to dwell on that which was now before the House; but this he would say, that the allegation of his innocence, which the pe- titioner so much rested on, was wholly unfounded. The pretended object of the meeting was, he admitted, to devise some means of procuring relief; but the real one was of a very different nature. This statement he founded on the best of all evidence, the confessions of the persons who had been arrested with him, and who formed part of the meeting. With respect to the conduct of the magistrate, it was not what the petitioner had represented. He would boldly affirm that; for he knew all the magistrates in the district, and there never were a more respectable or humane set of men.

hoped the House would not take the assertions of the hon. member, though he had given them so great an extent, for absolute proof. The hon. member disbelieved the allegations in the petition, not only because he was acquainted with the circumstances of the case, but, what was a most extraordinary reason, because he knew all the magistrates. Surely such a statement as that did not afford any ground for withholding inquiry.

asked, what did the argument of the hon. member amount to? He knew nothing of the truth or falsehood of the present petition, but, it seemed, he was acquainted with the groundlessness of petitions that had been drawn up by other persons, with whom the present petitioner was wholly unacquainted. The hon. member would not listen to this petition, because it came from the same quarter from which others had proceeded. Certainly it was from a man—a man of Glasgow—a man who complained of ill-treatment—and that was the whole similarity. Now, though some petitioners might have acted improperly, the petitions of all who complained of ill-treatment were not therefore to be looked upon as fabulous. The hon. member said the meeting was for a very different purpose from that pretended; and this statement he founded on the confessions of certain persons who had been taken. But there was another sort of evidence, which, he was sorry to say was falling into discredit in that House, namely, the evidence of witnesses before a jury. Why was not the man brought to trial? The hon. member said there was abundance of evidence in the confessions of the persons taken with him, and added to that, Mr. Salmond might have given his testimony. There was then abundant evidence to convict him if he had been guilty of any crime; and why was it not put to the test? Had not this man a right to say, "You knew you could prove nothing against me, and therefore you abstained from bringing me to trial." Surely this was not a fair, a humane, or a decent way of treating an accused person.

said, he could speak confidently to two points in the petition; first, that the petitioner was not innocent, as he had represented himself to be; and next, that the magistrates had not acted, improperly. Mr. Brougham also presented a petition of a similar nature, from John Keith, a cotton spinner, of Glasgow, one of the persons arrested with the former petitioner. He also presented a petition from William Edgar, teacher of Bridgeton, by Glasgow; setting forth, "That the Petitioner had the misfortune to be among the selected victims of ministerial vengeance in the late prosecutions for alleged treason, the origin and object of which have now been so fully developed to the country; that the petitioner conceives his case has a peculiar claim to the attention of the House, a case which he presumes is unparalleled in the history of British judicature; that a panel should be three times put on his defence for the same supposed crime, and three times called upon to plead to the same charges in successive indictments; that the petitioner was forced from his school by the imperious fiat of magisterial authority, and immured in a prison, to the great detriment of his health; that though he offered surety for his appearance when called upon, yet it was peremptorily refused; that he was hurried from one prison to another, bound like a felon, and hand-cuffed like a ruffian; that he was shut up in solitude for twenty weeks together; that he had there only the allowance and treatment of a common culprit, and that from his cell he was dragged before a tribunal as often as the pleasure or caprice of his prosecutors suggested; that the petitioner suffered all these in-dignities innocently, and consequently unjustly, is fully demonstrated by the result of the proceedings, a result which at once vindicated his character and covered his prosecutors with guilt, disgrace, and confusion; that while the petitioner submits his case to the House, and confidently expects a competent redress for the injuries he has sustained; he also hopes that the House will, by a prompt and decisive interference, convince the nation in general, and ministers and their pliant instruments and agents in particular, that such flagrant proceedings will not in future be tolerated, and that the complaints and grievances of the meanest citizen shall not pass unredressed, nor their rights and liberties be violated with impunity; and praying the House to take the case of the petitioner under serious consideration, award him such indemnification for his complicated wrongs as he is injustice entitled to, and, above all, adopt such measures as may prevent the like in all time coming."

said, that he did not rise to oppose the petition being laid on the table, but to observe that the acts alluded to in this as well as in the two former petitions, were not done under the suspension of the Habeas Corpus act, but according to the ordinary course of law. Therefore if the Indemnity bill were passed, the parties complaining would not be precluded from redress for such acts, if the complaints were well-founded.

observed, that the justice of the remark which he made last night, namely, that some gentlemen were cheering the measure alluded to by the hon. member, without being aware of the character and object of that measure, was fully illustrated by the observation which the House had just heard. For the hon. member professed to think that the Indemnity bill did not propose to screen from any action at law such acts of oppression as the petitioner complained of, because such acts did not take place under the suspension of the Habeas Corpus; whereas this bill extended to all acts done with a view to what was called the preservation of the public peace, or the suppression of conspiracy, since the 26th of January, 1817. Therefore the hon. gentleman misunderstood this bill, and upon that misunderstanding he should expect his vote against it in future.

said, that he did not support the bill alluded to upon such specific grounds. He certainly was not aware that this bill extended to the cases stated by the petitioners; but persuaded of the loyal zeal of the persons complained of by the petitioners, he was glad to find that the bill proceeded to such an extent as the learned gentleman had stated, and he should the more readily vote for its adoption.

said, he was happy that he should not have to trouble the House on the subject on which he had given notice of a motion, as a committee would be conceded to him on the Salt Duties He had had a communication on that subject with the chancellor of the exchequer, and a committee of 21 members would be appointed. Had the nomination of the committee rested wholly with him, it might, perhaps have been somewhat differently composed; still, however, he was by no means dissatisfied. He should, therefore, move, "That a Select Committee be appointed, to take into consideration the laws relating to the Salt Duties, and the means of remedying the inconveniences arising therefrom."

in seconding the motion, congratulated the House on the course adopted by the right hon. gentleman. He believed that the most material benefit would be derived from the labours of the committee, both with respect to the revenue and to the public morals. A revision of the salt duty laws Was the greatest boon that could be bestowed on the people. He believed he should be able to prove, that, between two and three millions a year might be saved by a modification or commutation of the duties.

was extremely glad that a committee had been granted to inquire into this subject. The greatest benefit would be produced by it. The county which he had the honour to represent, suffered much from the existing system. The mischief was great, in an agricultural point of view, but it was still greater, as far as the morals of the country were concerned, which were materially injured, in consequence of the temptation to smuggling, induced by these high duties.

was very happy that some relief was about to be afforded from one of the most oppressive taxes ever imposed on the country.

said, that the subject, in every point of view, was worthy of the most serious consideration. He hoped those who would be appointed to investigate it, would recollect that those duties afforded a very large revenue; and, if they were withdrawn, that it would be necessary to adopt some other mode of raising a sum equivalent to that given up.

said, he never could have proposed to affect so large a proportion of the revenue as a million and a half, which the duties on salt produced, without the idea of finding some substitute. In the present circumstances of the country, it was quite necessary that some substitute should be found, before so much of the revenue could be withdrawn.

observed, that there were on the paper, two orders before that now moved, which, he supposed ought to take precedence of it.

said, he believed the understanding of the House was, that no one order had precedence of another. The individual who first caught his eye was, he believed, entitled to proceed. But the House would decide whether the hon. member was misled, as to his notion of precedence, or whether he (the Speaker), misconceived the usual course of practice.

said, that as the indemnity bill was likely to occupy a considerable time, it would be more convenient to discuss the other orders before it came on. His hon. and learned friend had a motion fixed for that evening which ought to be disposed of before this subject should be brought forward.

observed, that as the order now moved was the most important, and as there was no precedence with respect to orders of the day, the hon. gentleman would feel the propriety of suffering the Indemnity bill to proceed, and not put it off till a late hour in the evening.

said, that if the House would calmly consider the provisions of the proposed bill, it would feel it impossible to proceed thus hastily, or indeed without obtaining most necessary information. The bill comprehended three new heads, on which inquiry was absolutely essential, and on which the Reports of the Secret committees were wholly silent, although the present bill was supposed to emanate from their recommendation. These were, the seizure of arms by entering the houses of the king's subjects, the seizure of papers, and the seizure of persons found in tumultuous assemblies. A bill demanding indemnity for proceedings of that character, took the House by surprise. No man, from reading the reports of the secret committees, could have been led to expect such provisions of indemnification. They were to include, not alone magistrates and constables, but even private persons who might have entered the houses of people without any warrant or proper authority. This was an abuse of power not contemplated in any previous discussion of the measure. He put it, therefore, to the candour of the noble lord to say, whether it was not due to the House to obtain information before it was called upon to pass provisions of that extraordinary character? No injury could arise to any party from the delay, as the bill of indemnity had a retrospective operation, and as no legal process could be acted upon during the existing vacation before the next term.

observed, that the arguments of the hon. and learned gentleman, though applicable to the bill in committee, did not bear upon the principle of the measure on the second reading.

denied that the subject could be so well discussed at any other time. If the bill was now read a second time, there could be no future opportunity to correct what formed so material a part of the bill. But the noble lord was so elated by his triumph last night, that he could not think it possible for any man to be right but himself. Reason, and argument, and discussion, must all give way at once before his invincible majority. It was quite evident that one-half of this bill was quite new to the House. The House thought inquiry necessary as to the proceedings towards persons committed under the suspension act, previously to the introduction of any act of indemnity. As to the other proceedings respecting arms, papers, and persons connected with tumultuous assemblies, no inquiry was instituted, and no information was given. The report of the secret committee was surely necessary, or ministers would not have proposed such a solemn proceeding. But the report never glanced at the seizures in question. It had been much insisted on, that no persons had been apprehended for treason, but in consequence of information on oath. Were the searches for arms and papers upon oath? They were bound by their own proceeding to answer this question before they called for indemnity. If the smaller class of violations of law were justified by information upon oath, let it be shown that this larger class proceeded also upon information on oath, which he very much doubted. To search Houses without any such information was an unprecedented exercise of authority; and to carry an indemnity for such an exercise by dint of votes, was equally unprecedented, and still more odious. He would seriously put it to the House, whether five gentlemen in it understood, when the bill was introduced, that it contained any such clauses.

said, that this was a very serious matter. A search for arms and papers was no slight affair. The House should recollect the manner in which such a power was formerly exercised in Ireland and the oppression to which it gave rise. Any information leading to such a search ought to be received with considerable distrust. By the constitution of England it was every man's right, it was even his duty, he was bound to have arms for the protection of himself, his family, and property. They should consider the time at which the search took place—a time of great trouble and public alarm, which rendered arms more necessary for the purpose of defence. Were magistrates and their agents to be the arbitrary judges of the use to which a man intended to convert any arms found in his possession? Were they to presume a bad intention merely from the circumstance of finding them? When the bill was brought to his house he was astonished, on looking over it, to find an indemnity proposed for those who had thought proper to search for and seize arms. Magistrates or any other men had no right to break open a man's house for this purpose, except at the suit of the king, and even then it was under proper restrictions. They should not pass an indemnity bill for matters which had never been under the consideration of the Secret Committees. If the House was determined to agree to the measure without any time being allowed for inquiry, or for a return upon the three new heads alluded to, it signified little to talk any more about the bill. The sooner they got rid of it the better. It was a mere mockery of legislation to proceed in such a manner.

said, that the objection proposed should be made in the committee and not upon the second reading of the bill. In the committee, the House could dispose of the question of delaying the measure until farther inquiry. This was no time for it. The matter did not appear to him in the same light as it did to the hon. baronet. Indemnity should, in his mind, be extended to magistrates on account of searching for arms and papers as well as for any other part of their conduct. This point did not seem to need any particular inquiry. Magistrates had no such general power of search as that alluded to. The question was, whether they would grant them indemnity for their conduct in this respect, acting as they were upon the notoriety of public danger.

said, he should not delay the House long with the few observations he had to make. He could not, however, suffer the measure to pass the second reading with a silent vote. He was one of those who, in the last session of parliament, voted twice for the suspension of the Habeas Corpus. He did so with reference to the report of the first secret committee, from a confidence in the statements it contained, and in the persons by whom it was drawn up. He saw on that committee a noble lord (Milton) the member for Yorkshire, he saw the late Mr. Ponsonby, and others of great constitutional authority, who all gave their support to what the reports set forth. He would confess, however, that when the facts were disclosed upon which the report was founded, they did not appear to him of such a character as he had expected. Still, recollecting what seemed to be the feelings of the metropolis and other parts of the country in 1817; recollecting how the House was assailed with petitions compounded of folly and mischief, which, under the pretence of reform, aimed at nothing less than revolution; recollecting, too, that it was a time of great pressure and public distress, when many of the lower order of mechanics were out of work, and of course desirous of change, he could not repent of the votes he had given. In these circumstances, he owed it to his own consistency to give his support to the bill of Indemnity, and it was accordingly his intention to give it his support in all its stages.

said, he wished to take this opportunity of stating a few circumstances connected with a petition which had been presented from an individual upon a previous evening. The name of the individual to whom he alluded was Richard Lee.^* In his petition, speaking of an unfortunate man named Riley, who had died by his own hand in prison, he said, that to make the cell fit for his reception, he was under the necessity of removing away the clotted blood with his own hands. Upon the subject of this petition, he had received a letter which he would take the liberty of reading to the House. It was from Mr. Staveley, the keeper of York gaol. It would be recollected, that Lee's petition set out by stating that he was innocent of all the charges brought against him. The person whose letter he held in his hand, said, that he was truly sorry to find that he had been deceived in the character of Lee; that he had written to lord Sid-mouth, praising him for his good and regular conduct, and stating that he felt sincere contrition for the guilt he had incurred; but that he now seemed disposed to fall back into his former evil practices. On the day he was discharged from prison, he came up, and in the presence of the rev. Mr. Deal try, a magistrate, expressed himself satisfied with the treatment he had received while in confinement. His warrant was dated on the 22d of July, and he was in prison until December. He never had more than a single iron put upon him of 5 lb., being weighed in the presence of Mr. Dealtry. It was the custom of the place, for the better security of prisoners, to fix such an iron upon them. He had 10½ lb. of bread a week; together with 6d, to purchase potatoes, besides which Lee and Riley were allowed 7s. a week each by lord Sidmouth. Such were some of the statements in the letter which he had received. Thy were in complete contradiction to the allegations of Lee's petition. The only part of it which appeared to be true was his being associated for some time with a felon who was afterwards executed. At first he was placed in the same room with other prisoners, but the letter went on to state, that he was afterwards removed into the same cell with Riley and Wm. King, who was charged with the murder of his wife; that King was sent there by the directions of the clergyman, that he might have an opportunity of hearing good books read. He was removed on the 25th of July, so that they were not more than five days

^*For a copy of Richard Lee's petition, see p. 590.

together, and were only placed in the same room because it was more commodious. This statement seemed, if true, sufficient to do away that part of the petition which referred to his being associated with a felon. Riley was stated to have put an end to his own life in a fit of derangement, arising from close confinement. This language was, no doubt, thrown out with a view of inducing the public to believe that the rigour of his imprisonment was the occasion of his committing suicide. The letter, however, stated, that Riley was first confined at Huddersfield, where he attempted to put an end to his life by hanging himself. This showed that the disposition to suicide prevailed previous to confinement at York, From an affidavit sworn before the rev. Mr. Reid, by a person named Richard Carlton, who was confined at the same time with Lee and Riley, it appeared that previous to the suicide committed by the latter, they lived three weeks together; that when Lee found what had happened, he called out to one of the watchmen of the prison, and a surgeon was immediately sent for; that Lee asked deponent to clean up the blood before the coroner should come, saying, that he would recompense him for his trouble; that deponent according cleaned up the blood himself, without any help from Lee, who was not required, and did not assist in it. Such were the facts conveyed to him in a letter from the keeper of the York gaol. He thought it his duty to lay them before the House, without meaning at all to throw any blame upon the hon. member who had presented Lee's petition to the House. The writer he knew to be a roost respectable man in his situation, and for the space of twenty-six years, during which he had filled it, this was the first charge of severity that he ever knew to have been brought against him.

observed, that he did not intend to enter into a detailed discussion at present on the Indemnity bill, particularly as it was his intention to deliver his opinion on it after it came out of the committee, on the third reading. He was anxious to offer an observation on the statement just made by the noble lord. He did not mean to imply, that the person of whom the noble lord spoke did not deserve the character, at the same time that he could not help adverting to the singular kind of phraseology with which he introduced the office of a gaoler; as if, indeed, he was speaking of the vice-chancellor of the University of Oxford. Nothing could be more unsatisfactory to the country than the custom of producing in that House letters from gaolers to answer grave charges of oppression, brought by men who suffered, against them. To such statements, or even to the depositions of prisoners who were under their control or courted their favour, he could pay no attention. What he had himself witnessed during the investigation at Cold-bath-fields had convinced him that no dependence whatever should be placed on these partial representations. The House should not entertain them. If they wished to inquire into the truth or falsehood, they should have the question fully before them in a regular parliamentary shape. Having said thus much on the noble lord's statement, he could not sit down without expressing his surprise at the reason given by an hon. member near him (Mr. Gren-fell) for his assent to the present bill. That hon. gentleman was induced, he said, to vote for the Suspension of the Habeas Corpus act on the authority of the late Mr. Ponsonby. Now the fact was, that Mr. Ponsonby had voted against the Suspension act, and the hon. gentleman was therefore deprived of his authority. He thought the other reason of the hon. gentleman equal!)' extraordinary; for it amounted to this—that because the people had been oppressed by want, they ought to forfeit their liberties. One hon. gentleman (colonel Stanhope) had indeed contended, that it was Mr. Cobbett's writings which had created the necessity of suspending the Habeas Corpus. He certainly thought Mr. Cobbett a powerful writer, but he had never imagined that he possessed the degree of influence now attributed to him. It was singular to hear it represented that the government, with the means of bribing and corrupting almost the whole press of the country, in addition to the exertion of their own wit, intellect, and literary talents, should attach so much importance to what was sometimes called two penny trash and always described as maintaining doctrines equally false and absurd. Here was an instance, likewise, of a writer making use of no disguise, but publishing his opinions always under his own name, seeking no indirect advantage, like Junius, but fully exposed to the hostility of his opponents. He had no doubt if the hon. member who had represented Mr. Cobbett as so formi- dable, would send to him the refutation of his principles, with which he had favoured the House, it would be allowed a place in his publication. This reason, however, was perhaps as good as any other which had been assigned for so violent a breach of the constitution. His majesty's ministers well knew that there had been no treason in the country, and that the only conspiracy was a conspiracy to prevent reform. It was, indeed, going too far to plead these miserable subterfuges in justification of a proceeding, which he should always contend the House had no right to adopt. They were appointed to protect, not to suspend the constitution; to extend, and not to withdraw from the subject the benefits and protection of the law. He had already gone somewhat farther than he intended in the present state of the proceeding, and should reserve what he had farther to object, not only to the principle, but the provisions of the bill, till it should have gone into a committee, through which he conceived it to be impossible that it should pass in its present form.

thought the subject before the House one which required their most serious consideration. It ought not, therefore, to be hurried through in such a manner as not to allow members to form decided opinions upon it. He did not then mean to enter into the subject, as he understood the bill was to be referred to a committee to-morrow. But when the question should be put for the Speaker's leaving the chair for the purpose of going into the committee, he should oppose it, in order to have an opportunity of making known his opinion on the principle of the bill.

asked the noble lord whether he wished to enter into the contest formerly mentioned relative to the precedents as to bills of indemnity? If so, he was prepared to prove, that none of the precedents quoted justified the bill now called for.

said, he was not prepared to say how far the precedents quoted might apply. His opinions on the subject of precedents were, however, unchanged.

said, that his right hon. friend had no objection to the motion generally, but to the mode in which it was framed. The operations of a committee on the subject would be very slow and laborious. If a motion for the production of the account, for the inquiry into which the committee was to be appointed, did not elicit sufficient information, farther measures might be resorted to. He would move, therefore, as an amendment, "That there be laid before the House a statement of the measures taken for destroying such books and papers relative to the property tax as were no longer necessary for the public service." After some conversation between the chancellor of the exchequer and Mr. Brougham, the following motion was agreed to:—"That there be laid before the House a statement of the measures taken for destroying such Books and Pampers relative to the Property Tax, under schedule D, as are no longer necessary for the collection of arrears, or the hearing of appeals or other proceedings pending."