rose, in pursuance of the notice he had given, to move that the petition presented on the 4th of May, from the city of London, should be referred to a committee, and that the petitioners might have leave to be heard by counsel. It might be remembered that the city, some time back, by an order of the House, were called upon to give an account of their trusts and estates. The object of this order was, to establish a ground for refusing to the city of London any assistance towards building an additional gaol, unless the state of their funds required it. He did not think that the city ought to bear the expense of the gaol, as could be shown by a variety of proofs. This being the case, it followed as a matter of course, that they were not bound to produce the account which had been ordered. In the time of Charles 1st a sum of 99,781l. had been granted to the city for building a gaol. In 1778, 40,000l. was granted for the same purpose. A similar grant of 10,000l. was made at a subsequent period. The money expended for objects of this kind never came out of the corporation funds. All he would do now was, to move "That the petition of the city of London presented on the 4th of May be referred to a committee, to examine the matter thereof, and report the same to the House."

considered this as the last resource of the city of London. Since the 24th of February, when the order was issued, they had fallen upon ever shift to elude a compliance with it. They now prayed to be heard by counsel against the order, when the session was about to expire. The city of London, which had four members in the House, besides the hon. alderman who represented St. Alban's, who were all ready to advocate its interests in that House, claimed to be heard by counsel against the order. Why did not the worthy alderman show why the order should not be complied with himself? All knew he was possessed of considerable information, and that he had great talents. The learned gentleman concluded with moving the previous question.

vindicated the city of London, and contended that the order ought to be rescinded.

, being one of those who voted for the production of these papers, felt himself called upon to support the proposition; that counsel should be heard before a committee, for the purpose of stating any reasons that could be adduced, against laying the different accounts before the House. The proposition appeared to him to be a very reasonable one. The original motion for papers was of a most extensive nature, and it seemed to him, that parliament never was called on to concede a proposition for hearing counsel, in a case that more decidedly demanded such an indulgence.

thought it reasonable that the committee should be granted. He would therefore support the motion.

said, that the present motion was one of a peculiar nature. The petitioners required to be heard by counsel against something. Against what? Why, against the orders of the House itself and with this peculiar feature, that the reference was to be made from the House to a committee. This, he believed, was altogether unprecedented.

said, it was a most extraordinary proceeding on the part of the city of London to pray that they should be heard by counsel against an order of the House. There was never an instance of the kind before, and there was no reason for establishing the precedent at present. The application for money to indemnify the city for building a gaol was not the only ground of the order for which he had moved. He directly charged the city of London with embezzling 53,000l. from a trust which was intended for purposes quite different to those for which it was employed. Could the city sit down quietly under such a charge as this without attempting any justification? They could not justify themselves without producing the accounts that had been ordered. The greatest irregularity prevailed in their expenditure. It was this which rendered the application for 34,000l. necessary. The money was spent in a most lavish manner, without any instruction either from the common council or the court of aldermen. The expense was incurred merely upon the authority of a committee consisting of three persons. In this manner 95,000l. was squandered away, and then the city came forward with an application for 34,000l. more. No other body but the city of London dare come forward with such a proposition under such circumstances. If the accounts were produced, he would undertake to show that the expenditure had been most lavish and profuse. The order of the House for their production was delivered to the chamberlain, the chamberlain gave it to the remembrancer, and he to the common council, who referred it to a committee, and the opinion of counsel was procured upon the subject. If the present motion was agreed to, the consequence would be, that nothing could be done in the business before the close of the session. Every person knew the delay attendant upon such a proceeding even before a private committee, and, at the bar of the House, gentlemen were in the habit of going to dine the moment counsel appeared. The only object of the motion was, to spin out the session, that the city might evade that which they dare not contradict. It was said that the city was not bound to build the gaol. They would never have attempted it if they did not consider themselves bound. Would any person tell him that the most wealthy part of the country, and being the most wealthy the most liable perhaps to vice, was not bound to contribute any thing towards the erection of its gaols?

said he was one of those who had voted for the production of the city accounts but he had been betrayed in to a vote on grounds which he had since found were not tenable Neither of the two members for the city had stated what he considered the strongest argument against the production of the accounts. The funds to which those accounts related, were the private property of the city of London, and, with respect to them, they were accountable not to that House but to the court of chancery. There was not a member of the city of London but could go to the court of chancery for the purpose of stopping any improper expenditure of these funds. In making this order he considered the House to have got into a scrape; and it could only get out of it by complying with the motion of the hon. baronet. If they went into a committee up stairs, they would then see what the nature of the property was.

said, there was no ground for charging the city with having appropriated the Bridge-house estate to any other objects than those for which it was intended. It was true, that out of the produce of this estate some money was lent for the improvement of Surrey, but then it was lent upon interest. No part of it was employed for private purposes. The 34,000l. for which application was made, had been laid out at the desire of the House. It was expended to enlarge a prison which was too crowded. This was not done for the convenience of the city alone, but also for that of the county of Middlesex. The city of London was at the expense of at least 20,000l. a-year to support prisoners for that county. He trusted the House would see the propriety of acceding to the motion; since by the investigation of a committee alone, before which their counsel would have an opportunity of entering into the case, could the House arrive at a just conclusion on this very intricate subject.

said, that the only question was, whether a case had been made out to justify the House in calling for the accounts of the corporation; for that the House was entitled in certain cases to do so, was not in his opinion to be questioned. He instanced the case of charitable corporations. But the right of the House was confined to the necessity, and as the bill to grant the city a sum of public money had been abandoned, he saw no reason why the House should persist in its order.

re-stated to the House, that the petitioners prayed to be heard by counsel. The motion was" for referring the petition to a committee. It would be he apprehended, contrary to usage to allow counsel to be heard before a committee, as counsel against an order of the whole House. Legal men might, however, be examined as evidence, as to the consequences of the order of the House. He wished also to remind the House, that the bill which had been alluded to, had not been withdrawn.

considered the question, of importance. An absolute order of the House had been served on the city to produce certain information to which the city thought proper to demur. Then one of the city members came forward to move that the petition of the city, begging to be heard by its counsel, should be referred to a select committee. The precedent was one which might be carried to a dangerous length, and the future orders of the House for the production of information, might be treated with equal disrespect, and be demurred to, as in this instance, to the manifest inconvenience of public discussion and the transaction of interesting public business. Although the order had been issued in consequence of the solicitation of the city for a vote in aid of the charges dependant on its estate, still the House ought not to adopt hastily any precedent on the subject. He should rather suggest, that, on the bill being withdrawn, the order should also be withdrawn.

After some farther conversation, it was agreed that the motion should be withdrawn; that the New Prison bill should be ordered to be read a second time that day six months; and that the order of the House of the 24th of February should be discharged.

then said, that he had done his duty to his constituents, and was satisfied. It remained to be seen whether the corporation of London would sit down under a charge of having, in their character of trustees of the Bridge estate, misapplied 53,000l. of the trust money.

said, they had, as good trustees, lent the money on good security, and at good interest.

said he rose to call the attention of the House to certain acts which had arisen out of that celebrated circular letter of lord Sidmouth,^* which would not speedily be forgotten by the country. On the legality of that letter, which had divided so many great authorities, it would be presumptuous for him to offer an opinion. But there was one part on which there was little difference at least in the country, namely, that part in which he deprived the magistrates of that discretion which by law they were directed to exercise. That letter, on the whole had been very harmless, for it had produced little effect. At the quarter sessions of one great county, it had, he was informed, been treated with much contempt; the chairman having said, "Let us not be troubled with such trash as this." In other places it had been received in nearly the same manner. Many steps, therefore, had not been taken in consequence of it, but there had not been wanting busy, active, intriguing men, who did not care what the law was, but wished to have it such as the government would have it to be. Such persons in an ordinary time would have sunk into insignificance, but like some other creeping animals were drawn out of their holes by a shower. He should bring before the attention of the House transactions which would speak for themselves, and which would display a practice inconsistent with the rights and liberties of Englishmen. These were the men to whom it gave undue authority, while it diminished the power of honest and upright magistrates. He who ran might read, and he who read must understand that this was inconsistent with a fair and just administration of the laws. In the month of February 1817, this celebrated letter had been written. In the same month of the same year two persons were imprisoned upon a charge of selling libellous publications; they were Jonathan Buckley Mellor and Samuel Pilling, of Warrington.^* There never was a more illegal transaction than the search of their houses and persons by the officers, in order to find libellous writings. If the House could forget the solemn decisions of the courts of law, it could not forget its own resolution, that the searching of houses for libellous papers was illegal. From the houses so searched was taken away a great quantity of books which were not alleged to be libellous—such as Rollin's History, and Wynne's History of America. They were brought before the police officers, and bail was demanded from them, which they could not give, and they were accordingly committed to prison. They were committed not to the county gaol, but to the House of Correction. They were ironed—they were sent to associate with felons and to hard labour, that was, to such labour as convicted felons were sentenced to,—whether it was picking oakum or sawing stone, the disgrace was the same. The libels which these persons were accused of selling were the Political Litanies, respecting which, lest he should be mistaken, he wished to say, that he held them in abhorrence, whether published by rich or poor—by a broken down bookseller or a minister of state. But if these men had been the original publishers, instead of being venders, and had been tried and convicted in the court of King's-bench, they would have been probably sent to the prison of that court, provided with good apartments, and with the opportunity of associating with persons who, whatever their misfortunes might be, were not infamous. Yet these persons, who, even if they had been found guilty, would have been much less criminal, were obliged to associate with criminals. They slept in a room to themselves, but all day they were obliged to associate with felons in a common yard, and they had felons fare. It was illegal, in the first place, to have committed these persons to the House of Correction. Those places were originally built for the reception of thieves and vagabonds, and other persons convicted. It had grown into a practice, particularly in the metropolis, to commit persons for trial for felony to these places; but, if that were allowable, was it to be endured that persons, whom it was only necessary to have forthcoming to stand their trial, should be committed to such a place? From the House of Correction, they were sent in a cart, handcuffed, to the place of trial; the felons sent first, the persons to be tried for misdemeanors following. He knew that it would be said, that the handcuffs were with slight chains. But that they were handcuffed could not be denied, nor that they were taken eighteen miles in an open cart for trial. While in prison, they were confined among some old offenders, although in the misdemeanor ward, and on their arrival at the place fixed for their trial they were huddled together with felons. But, instead of their being brought to trial, they were informed, that the indictment was removed by certiorari to the court of King's-bench, and they were told they should be liberated, if they would give bail. Being unable to give bail, they were recommitted to their former prison, where they remained until September, when they were liberated, the farce of alarm which gave birth to persecution at the commencement of the year, having by that time concluded.—Having thus submitted to the attention of the House the cases of these two individuals, he felt himself bound to say, that he believed there might be something in the papers which he then held in his hand that might not be perfectly true. Some matters, he believed, might be rather overcharged, or mistaken, if not indeed untrue. It was certain, however, that great severity had been exercised. He held, that it would be wasting the time of the House to dwell on the argument, that imprisonment before conviction was not intended for any other purpose than safe custody. If any thing were superadded; if the persons were put into irons, or subjected to any species of punishment, it was not only illegal, but disgraceful to the country in which we lived—a reproach to the age in which we were born. He begged pardon of the House for having detained them so long on these two cases. He would now proceed to the third case, that of Robert Swindells, of Macclesfield,^* and, with respect to the statement which he was about to make, he could assure them that he entertained no doubt of its being correct, as he had employed a professional person to endeavour to ascertain the strict truth. He had also the affidavit of Mr. Swindells himself. It appeared, then, that on the 10th of March, 1817, about twelve o'clock at night, when Mr. Swin dells and his wife, who was eight months gone with child, were in bed, they were disturbed by a knocking at the door, Mr. Swindells looked out of the window, and saw some persons, who desired him to come down and open the door, or they would force it. Alarmed by this threat, he came down and opened the door, when they rushed in and asked for persons who they supposed lodged in the house. A strict search was made in every part, but no persons were discovered. They then tore open all the trunks, took several papers out of them, and stripped Mr. Swindells of the little property that belonged to him. The alarm and terror of the wife were so great on this occasion, that she never recovered from the effects. On the 26th of April she was delivered of a child, and on the 28th she died. On the 31st of May the child, deprived of the care and support of its mother, expired. Mr. Swindells himself, after suffering various hardships, was at last liberated without having been brought to trial. Here, then, was another instance of the tender mercies of his majesty's government—another example of persons taken up without having committed any crime, and discharged without any opportunity of proving their innocence. Such cases of injustice could not fail to make a very powerful impression on the minds of the people. He thought it right to state to the House, that the individual whose case he had just described was an old seaman; he had been eleven years in the service, during four of which he was on board the Ville de Paris, blockading the squadron at Brest. He would now put it to the House, whether, supposing that the petitioners had somewhat coloured their statements, these cases did not deserve the most serious attention. They were about to be sent back to their constituents, and would they return to them with the stigma on their characters, that when people were imprisoned by magistrates, under the sanction of his majesty's government, the House shut its ears to their petitions, and refused to institute any inquiry? Leaving them to answer this question by the vote which they would give that night, he should now conclude with moving, "That a Committee be appointed, to inquire into the Petitions presented by Jonathan Mellor and Samuel Pilling of Warrington, on the 3rd of March, and also of Robert Swindells of Macclesfield, on the 13th of the same month."

^* See Vol. 36, p.447.

^* For copies of their Petitions, see Vol. 36, p.742 and p.744.

^* For his Petiton, see Vol. 36, p. 1069.

observed, that the statement as to the case of Swindells, was in many respects erroneous. The hon. member then proceeded to read a letter, which he had received on the subject, from a magistrate of Macclesfield. The letter stated, that on the night in question, a large party had set out from Manchester, and had arrived at Macclesfield, in consequence of which the town was in a state of great confusion and alarm, and the cavalry had been ordered to parade the streets. Information had been given, that a party was assembled at Swindells, and four of the magistrates repaired to the place. He knew the gentleman complained of to possess great benevolence, and to be as incapable of committing any act of cruelty, as he himself would be of defending such an act. So far from this man's wife having been starved with cold, and hence falling a victim in childbed, it was a fact that she had gone to her work" at the silk factory the next day without ever having complained that she was unwell. It was farther denied on the part of the magistrates who had consulted the medical man who attended her, that she was more than six months advanced in her pregnancy, and he had also stated that, during her time of gestation, she had been subject to a violent cough, and occasionally to hysterics.

stated, upon the authority of the magistrates from whom he had that day received communications, that the two other parties had received, whilst in the workhouse, every accommodation which the place afforded; and that their removal to prison was not attended with any unnecessary rigour, they being placed in an open cart, and connected together, for the sake of security, by a light chain. Their situation also in Preston gaol was stated to be as little irksome or inconvenient as it would have been had they been sent to Lancaster Castle, for that gaol was at that period, in common with others in the neighbourhood, excessively full.

The House were about to divide, when

begged leave to assure the House, that the law, as far as related to what had been done in these prosecutions, could not have been conducted with more lenity. If these persons had been discharged on their own recognizances, it was under his advice and direction; and if he had been guilty of any dereliction of duty on the occasion, it was that he had relaxed the law in their favour. With respect to the cases of Mellor and Pilling, what course did he pursue? Did he frame a bill or file an ex officio information against them? He would tell tell those gentlemen who objected to informations ex officio, that their objections in these cases might be set at rest; for he had filed no information against these men; and as to those who objected to the apprehension of persons charged with libel by the warrant of magistrates, he would tell them that their objections also might be easily removed, for none of these per- sons had been arrested under that process. He had sent down a bill of indictment to the grand jury. The bill being found, and the parties, in consequence, having been arrested, it struck him to be more proper that the publication of such libels—or, of such papers, if he might not call them libels—should be submitted to a higher tribunal than the quarter-sessions; that, in fact, it should be argued before the judges of the land; and therefore he removed the proceedings by certiorari, into the court of King's-bench. Now, these men being in custody under the bill of indictment, he had a right, unless they found bail, to keep them in prison, although the proceedings had been removed; but he was unwilling, as the trial would be postponed by his own act, that they should remain in custody; and with this view it was decided, he declared upon his honour as a man, that they should be discharged on their own recognizances. If then, he had done any thing wrong in those cases, it was because, as attorney-general, and looking at the character and tendency of the papers, he had relaxed the law. The defendants entered into recognizances to appear on the first day of the ensuing term, and plead. They appeared before the court of King's-bench and pleaded; and the moment they appeared and pleaded, a motion was made that they should be continued on their recognizances, to appear again, in case they would be called upon to answer the charges against them. These were the whole of the proceedings against them and he now asked the House whether it was possible that the law officers of the Crown could have acted with greater lenity? The hon. mover had said, that magistrates had no right to commit persons of this description to the House of Correction. He would beg to inform the hon. member, that two statutes existed under which magistrates were not only authorized to commit persons charged with felonies, but also those who were apprehended for misdemeanors, to the House of Correction, instead of the common gaol. This was the law, and in many cases, too, it was very advantageous to the persons in custody; for it might happen that the county-gaol would be at a great distance from the place in which they were arrested, and the House of Correction would be very near. There were two statutes which empowered magistrates in towns and liberties of their own, to commit for trial to the House of Correction. The hon. gentleman had stated another proposition, which was true, but which did not apply to these men. The 22nd of George 3rd, c. 24, had this clause:—that persons sent to the House of Correction, though not committed to hard labour, may be set to work, if they are supported at the expense of the county: the work, however, must not be severe, an account is to be kept of the money they earn, and when they are discharged, they are entitled to one half of it. This statute applied to persons not committed for trial. Now, these men did not state what the work was to which they were set but he (the attorney general) knew what it was. They were ordered to pick two pounds of cotton: he did not know whether two pounds perday, but this was the work. With respect to the case of Swindells—he was now speaking to that part of the case which related to the prosecution—no man could be prosecuted with less severity than he was. In this case there was no arrest by a magistrate at all. Swindells having repeatedly circulated these publications, he (the attorney-general) filed an information ex officio against him. There was, however, no warrant issued by a judge, none: no warrant issued by a magistrate, none. He was merely served with a subpœna, which is a notice to appear, and that was the document which he referred to as placing him under the penalty of 100l. If a man does not appear to this notice, the common law process is, an attachment for a contempt of the Court. The day of appearance having gone by, thirteen days after an attachment was issued out of the Crown-office for the apprehension of Swindells. He then applied to the magistrates, who told him they had nothing at all to do with it; that it was a process issued by the sheriff, and they had no more power to interfere than in a case of debt; that he was bound to file an appearance, and the moment he had filed an appearance, he was entitled to his discharge. The defendant, however, did not appear, and, in consequence of his remaining in gaol, he (the attorney-general) caused this notice to be given to him, and if he had not have given this notice, he might have lain in gaol to this hour. He said to him, "If you will appear, if you can't come to London, or can't afford to pay an attorney, order the solicitor of the Treasury to enter an appearance for you, and you shall have a copy of the information gratis, and be discharged." He appeared and pleaded, and he was discharged, and he was under no recognizance whatever. Now, he contended, that if any prosecution was to be instituted at all, he had relaxed every one of the rules of law, except that of giving up the prosecution. He declared most solemnly, that when he received the account of Swindell's circulating these publications, when he filed the information ex officio against him, he never knew that his house had been entered, that his wife had died, or that he had suffered any of the misfortunes which had been stated. It would be recollected that, on the night of the 9th of March, the night on which his house was entered, a great body of persons had assembled at Manchester, and formed what was called the blanketeer meeting. One party intended to proceed by Stockport, the other by Macclesfield. One thousand of them arrived at the latter place, much confusion prevailed, and it was said that some persons had gone to Swindell's house. The magistrates sent to him, and he denied there were any persons there. They then desired to see who were in the house. It was true also (but he was not going to justify it), they took some papers, the political catechism, and others, and cautioned him not to sell those publications. If the magistrates, however, had acted wrong in law, the House, considering the situation of affairs at that time, would not be disposed to blame them for what they had done. With respect to Mrs. Swindells, she had been ill for some time before; but on the next day, she went to her work in the manufactory, and neither she nor her husband ever made any complaints that she had suffered any thing from the house being entered. Swindells had stated, that he could not get any medical advice. Now, he (the attorney-general) had seen an affidavit of a surgeon, who deposed, that after he had attended the wife for some days, Swindells told him that he did not want him any longer, as his wife had got into the infirmary. From that moment to the time of her death, she never made any complaint, nor attributed her illness to the causes which Swindells had mentioned. When Swindells was committed to gaol, he lived as well as any of the debtors in confinement; he had tea, coffee, sugar, bread, and meat, and lived in every respect as well as they did. He had now stated the facts of these cases to the House, and repeating, as he felt himself entitled to do, that no severity had been exercised by the officers of the Crown, but, on the contrary, that the utmost lenity had been shown, he should sit down with giving his dissent to the motion.

said, that taking so different a view of the question, and feeling it as important a one as had ever been submitted to that House, he must trespass for a short time on its attention. His hon. and learned friend had not touched on those points on which he must have supposed the House were anxious to have his opinion. Much as he had been prepared from what so frequently passed during the session, namely, the studious silence of his majesty's ministers on constitutional questions—he did not think it possible that it could have been for a moment intended to have sent the present question to a division without some explanation. And yet that appeared to have been the course almost decided on [No, no, from the Treasury-bench]. Why, certainly a great pause had taken place, indeed, the gallery was almost cleared for a division before his hon. and learned friend had risen. He did not deny, that as far as his hon. and learned friend was concerned, these men were treated with leniency. But he still was of opinion, that their case was one, which, in place of being removed by, certiorari, ought at once to have been judicially decided. That however, was not the part of the subject which he thought of most importance. It was the loading men with irons charged with the publication of a libel. Had such a transaction taken place a few years back, it would have been considered so monstrous, that scarcely any man would have believed in its existence. The member for Lancashire had read a letter, which stated that these men were committed to prison with the usual precautions for their safety, as were adopted towards felons. But the publication of a libel was not a felony. The publication with which these men were charged was extremely, reprehensible; but he denied that it was a blasphemous libel. It was true, indeed, that his hon. and learned friend had observed, that the magistrates had in some degree exceeded their authority. He did think that such a novelty as placing men thus in fetters ought to have affected his hon. and learned friend in a much stronger manner. Recollecting the liberal ideas, which in early life his hon. and learned friend so ardently entertained, he thought such a violation of law should have attracted his consideration, acting, as the attorney-general did, in a magisterial capacity, as well for the people as the Crown. Would he have then endured that magistrates should put in irons, men charged with the publication of what country magistrates might deem libels was it not notorious that many persons construed every thing published, offensive to the feelings of men in power, a libel? Was not the very respectful petition of the bishops in the reign of James 2nd considered a libel? Let then the House remember, that they were that night deciding whether their constituents were to be placed in irons at the discretion of magistrates previously to their trial for offences, of which, if convicted, it would be against law to fetter them! Surely these were circumstances, if any case for the liberty of the subject existed in that House, sufficient to demand investigation, and to render it almost impossible to refuse the motion of his hon. friend. He must own that he was not satisfied with the admission of his hon. and learned friend, when he merely observed that the seizure of these petitioners papers was not legal. Whatever difference of opinion might exist on other subjects, on the respective sides of the House, it was the recorded decision of parliament, that the seizure of men's papers charged with libels was utterly illegal. And yet it was uncontradicted that the papers of these men were seized. Publications of the most opposite description, the Evangelical Magazine, Cobbett's Register, he presumed, on the principle of noscitur à sociis, were all swept away. It was justly said by lord Camden, that the sacredness of a person's private papers should never be violated on the presumption of libelous publication. Who, indeed, would venture like a Sidney or a Locke to write on the abstract principles of government, if their papers were to be exposed to the search and seizure of a country magistrate and an illiterate constable Yet such were the fruits of the Circular of lord Sidmouth—that most unconstitutional interposition with the duties of the magistracy. Could the House refuse to inquire into these facts? In all other cases, the inclination was, to presume with the oppressed against the oppressor; but on political questions he regretted to say, that in that House the feeling was, however severe the injustice or harsh the agent—be he minister, magistrate, or constable—to decide against the complaints of petitioners.

contended, that as the leading charge of the hon. mover was, for sending these men to the House of Correction rather than to the county gaol, it was fully answered by his hon. and learned friend, who proved that it was justified by many statutes, and had been uniformly the practice in the county of Lancaster with prisoners to be tried at the quarter sessions. The magistrates had undoubtedly exceeded their powers, but it was to be considered, in extenuation, that the occurrence had taken place at a crisis of public alarm, when large numbers of men were marching towards Manchester for illegal purposes. All the points of the case were already before the House, and therefore there was no necessity for instituting any inquiry, into them by a committee.

wished to state briefly the grounds on which he meant to give his vote. He would not enter into any discussion as to the legalicy or illegality of the prosecution, nor would he stop to inquire whether the publications in question were blasphemous or not, while it must be allowed, on all hands, that they were full of impiety. He would vote for the motion, not because he thought the prosecutions had been oppressively and improperly instituted, or because he believed that they had been harshly conducted. On the contrary, he thought that such publications ought to be repressed by the salutary checks of law, and he saw every degree of lenity and humanity in the conduct of the law-officers of the Crown, in pursuing the legal steps to repress them. So sensible was Mr. Hone, the author of some of these libels, of their immoral and irreligious tendency, that though acquitted by a jury he had withdrawn them from circulation, a circumstance which he was glad to see. The attorney general had done nothing but his duty, and he would not support the motion on any grounds of crimination against him; but the use of irons to confine men accused of publishing libels, or of committing other offences under the name of misdemeanors, demanded investigation and correction, and on that ground he would vote for the proposed inquiry into the cases adduced. He thought it contrary to the laws and con- stitution of this country—a practice unheard of by our ancestors—a practice that had lately crept in, and which if not corrected might lead to great oppression—to inflict such a mark of ignominy, as imposing irons, as on common felons, on those who were charged with misdemeanors. As the House, therefore, had got this specific case before them, they ought to investigate it, for the purpose of applying a general remedy, for the purpose of correcting what appeared to him to be a violation of the law of the land. It ought to be recollected, that persons who had committed misdemeanors had been guilty of only minor offences, and that the punishment which awaited conviction was generally of so slight a nature as to excite no fears that they would endeavour to escape before trial. It was not necessary therefore to put them in irons in order to keep them in safe custody; and as safe custody, and not punishment, was the ground on which the use of irons could be justified, in the case of men who were convicted of no offence, such a practice ought not to be resorted to for misdemeanours. Another reason still against the practice was to be found in the nature of the offences themselves, which were often so indefinite, as not to be accurately determined before trial. Where crimes were committed against society that were accurately defined by law, the objection was not so strong against any means of detention; but it appeared hard and oppressive to iron, like felons, persons who might be found by a jury to have committed no offence, though the facts for which they were imprisoned were proved against them. This reasoning applied more strongly to persons charged with abuses of the press, than to persons accused of other kinds of misdemeanour. The press was a powerful engine; and being capable of producing as great mischief to society when misdirected as benefit when properly managed, its abuses required to be watched and checked: but offences of this nature were frequently very undefined; and it appeared monstrous to intrust the power of punishing like felons, persons whose offences might depend on the impressions of individuals. In proportion to the uncertainty of the law on the point, ought to be the leniency with which the persons accused of breaking it ought to be treated before conviction. To treat those charged with publishing libels like common felons, or persons condemned for offences—to degrade them by imprisonment in irons—to drag them from place to place, chained like criminals who had violated the most sacred laws of society, appeared to him to be cruelty and oppression, which demanded inquiry and correction. On these grounds he would support the motion, and he thought by doing so that he was performing a duty which he owed to the laws and the constitution of his country, of which he conceived this practice was a direct violation.

made a short reply, in the course of which he observed, that no attempt whatever had been made to deny the facts of the case and trusted that should his motion be negatived, the country would not fail to remark, that one of the last acts of the present House of Commons was, to refuse inquiry into a case which was manifestly one of gross opppression.

The House divided:?

rose to bring forward his motion for a committee on the claims of certain Creditors on the Nabob of the Carnatic. In the years 1796 and 1797, the gentlemen who had now petitioned the House, had advanced large sums of money, to the amount of above 100,000l. to the nabob, to be repaid by monthly instalments. This money was lent in a fair open way, with the consent of the local authorities, and the petitioners had the receipts for it. But in 1801, a most important revolution took place in the territory, the revenues of which had been pledged as security for the debts. The East India company took possession of the whole administration of the Carnatic, civil and military, and on them it of course depended whether the assignments on the country should be made good. They thought proper to reject the claims of the petitioners, on the ground that the money had been advanced contrary to the provisions of an act of parliament. However, the company and the creditors came to a compromise in the year 1805. It was agreed that all bonâ fide claims, adjudicated to be so by commissioners to be appointed in India, should be allowed by the company, and liquidated out of the revenues of the Carnatic. The claims in question originated out of monies absolutely advanced to the nabob. Why, then, it might be asked, had the justice of them not been admitted by the arbiters? They rejected them, because, by a clause in an act of parliament, passed in the year 1797, with a general object quite different from any thing in these transactions, persons in India were prohibited from lending money to any of the native princes without the consent of the governor and council expressed in writing—the professed purpose of the clause was to check and put a stop to usury and extortion. Neither of these characters could apply to the dealings of the petitioners; because, during the two years they were engaged in them, all was done above-board, and they had actually obtained the consent of the local authorities, not, however, reduced to writing. The want of this last formality altogether vitiated, in the opinion of the commissioners, and rendered void, the contract. They had been excluded from the recovery of their debts, not from any want of consideration in the contract—not from any thing unfair in the manner of conducting it—but solely because they had not complied with the directions of an act of parliament, of which at the time they were actually ignorant. He would not argue on the severity of extending the principle, that ignorance of a law does not excuse a transgression of it, to so remote a part of the empire as India; because, in point of fact, the petitioners had been deceived on the subject. In the copy of the act that they saw published in Madras, not a syllable appeared on the necessity of the authorities being expressed in writing; so that the only requisite wanting to substantiate their claim under the act, was a thing they could scarcely have known. If the petitioners spoke what was false, that would easily be discovered by the acute and intelligent members of the committee if otherwise, it was hard that their claims should be extinguished by the very adjudication by which they were intended to be protected. The hon. gentleman then moved, "That a Select Committee be appointed to investigate the facts stated in the Petitions of Messrs. Chase, Chinnery, and Company, Messrs. Abbot and Maitland, and Mr. Parry of Madras, and to report the same, with their Observations thereupon, to the House."

said, he would agree to the motion for the committee; not because he thought the claims of the petitioners well founded, but because the committee would come at the truth, which, in his opinion, would defeat them. He had a perfect disbelief that a company of merchants, established in the country for which the act legislated, could go on for months advancing money without knowing that it had passed. If the act had never passed, the transactions would have been contrary to the prescribed regulations of the country; and the fact was, that the act alluded to, instead of rendering them more strict, had relaxed them. The point undertaken to be proved was, that a perfect knowledge of the act existed in Madras, with the exception of that only part requiring the consent of the authorities in writing. If a garbled statement of the act had been published in a Madras journal, who could affirm that it had not been garbled to serve the purpose of the speculators? But as that fact was proposed to be established, he thought he could not in justice dissent from the motion. It was for them to show in what other manner the consent had been given, and how they had been at the same time aware of the necessity of asking it, and ignorant that it should be in writing.

observed, that the object of the petitioners was, to induce parliament to act contrary to its own solemn decision, and to the rules expressly declared by the East India company. If they had conceived, that the commissioners appointed to regulate the claims on the nabob of the Carnatic, had not acted consistently with the trust reposed in them, the courts of law were open to redress the grievance; nor did he think the point of any importance, whether the act of parliament had been promulged perfectly in India or not. If the House should interfere in a case which was properly the result of a private transaction, it would be attended with serious injury to individuals. The East India company would certainly feel themselves aggrieved, and he, for one, should vote against the appointment of a committee.

felt the necessity of instituting an inquiry into this case. He could not believe that the petitioners were aware of the provisions of the act of parliament; for it was not likely that any man in his senses, aware of the existence of such a law, could ever think of lending his money in the very teeth of it, thereby not only endangering his property, but subjecting himself to pains and penalties. The petitioners had stated, that the law had not been published in India; and though, in this country, ignorance of the law could not be pleaded in extenuation, yet, in a distant country, a very different principle might be admitted. In the case of the Louis, sir William Scott, in pronouncing judgment, had laid it down, that a person could not be bound by a law that had not been published.

rose, not for the purpose of objecting to the appointment of the committee, but to protest against the doctrine of law promulgated by the hon. gentleman opposite. He used the word promulgated, because he never could believe that any judge in England could assert, that a subject of this country was not bound by a penal law, with the existence of which he might chance not to be acquainted.

The motion was agreed to, and a committee appointed.