rose to present a petition from Thomas Dolby, bookseller, in the Strand. The petitioner began by complaining, that after being established in busines for 13 years, and never having been subjected to any prosecution, he had been lately twice exposed to it, by a self-denominated "Constitutional Association." That after having escaped the vigilance of the attorney-general and the secretary of state for the home department, whom he Considered to be the only persons appointed by law and the constitution to take cognizance of the offence of libel, he had fallen into the clutches of an association which had constituted itself an auxiliary to those two officers of the Crown. He said that the alleged libel, for which an indictment had been preferred against him, was contained in an obscure periodical publication, which he had discontinued before the prosecution was commenced. He stated, that after a true bill had been found against him upon such indictment, he was held to bail fop his appearance, thereto, and for his good behaviour in the meantime. And here he (Dr. L.) could not help remarking that this self-styled constitutional association placed their chief reliance upon four statutes which had been recently passed, and which he must ever consider as tending to destroy the rights of the people, at the same time that they added largely to the power and influence of the Crown. Those acts, he was sorry to say, this constitutional association had placed in front of their battle, and by those acts they professed that it was their intention to suppress disloyalty, sedition, and blasphemy. Under one of these statutes the petitioner, he must repeat, had been held to bail for his appearance and subsequent good behaviour. He had then had several interviews with the attorney of the society, one Charles Murray; at the last of which, that person proposed to him the terms on which the society would drop the prosecution against him. He (Dr. L.) could wish the House to attend to the terms on which these constitutional gentlemen were willing to give up the prosecutions which they had instituted; because the preferment of an indictment, even if it failed, was calculated to do serious injury to a tradesman, and, independently of the anxiety which it created in his family, went to involve him in a ruinous expense, which he was obliged to pay when acquitted, just as much as if he had been found guilty. All these were great and crying evils, and formed the strongest grounds why the power of pro-securing for libel should only be intrusted to government, which was responsible for the conduct of its servants. What then did the House suppose the terms to be, on which the prosecution against the petitioner was to be discontinued? They were as follow:—That the petitioner should submit to plead guilty; that he should pay all the expenses; that he should deliver up his stock; that he should give certain information as to the author of the alleged libel; and that he should enter into an engagement not to sell any books which the Association might deem offensive for two years. What did the House think of the legality of a society which attempted to extort compliance with conditions like these? Whether they were prosecutors within the pale of the law, he would not at that moment stay to inquire; but this he would say—that from the moment they attempted to wrest from their victims such terms as those which be had stated to the House—from that moment he would say that the association was guilty of conspiracy, and that the associators themselves were illegal conspirators. The petitioner stated that he was desirous to get rid of the expense and hazard of defending himself against so powerful a body—powerful it was indeed —and sorry was he to observe among the number of its supporters several individuals who held high situations in the state, some of them being prelates and other i personages who, as they were judges in the last resort, ought to have abstained from the institution of proceedings upon which they might yet be called on to pronounce judgment. The petitioner, he had been about to state, being anxious to get rid of the expense of this prosecution, had been -willing to accede to some of the terms of this Charles Murray, and had entered into a negotiation for that purpose with the said gentleman. That negotiation had proceeded to some length, when at last it was suddenly, and without the assignment of reason, broken off by the Association. Its vengeance was not satisfied by the petitioner's offering to accede to some of the terms which it had proposed. They wanted further concession, and in consequence instituted a second prosecution against him. No sooner was that prosecution instituted, than they arrested the petitioner again, and carried him, within an hour from the time of his arrest, to plead to it in the court of King's bench. He was then held to bail before one of the judges of that court; he offered the same persons for his securities as had appeared upon the former indictment. The solicitor for the association objected to them on this ground, and insisted that the recognizances into which they then entered had been forfeited by the finding of the second indictment. Now, upon that part of the conduct of the Association, he could not help remarking that he knew of no better way of getting and keeping men in gaol than by commencing prosecution after prosecution against them. It would be no easy matter for a tradesman, however respectable he might be, to find persons willing to enter into heavy recognizances, time after time, for his good behaviour; nor indeed would it be an easy matter to find persons willing to become bail at all to prosecutions commenced by so strong and powerful an association. The petitioner then proceeded to state, that in consequence of Murray's giving notice to his bail, that he should take proceedings in the court of exchequer to estreat their recognizances, they required him to sell his property, and provide for their security. The petitioner accordingly made preparations for doing so, but afterwards desisted, having discovered that the threat which Murray had held out was illegal. In the meanwhile a rule for a special jury had been obtained by the prosecutors. Now that circumstance was not unworthy the consideration of the House. The prosecutions set on foot by this association could not be safely intrusted to the usual judges in such cases, a common jury of the country—no; so great and mighty was this association, that nothing but a special jury could serve their turn; The petitioner, such being the case, called on the solicitor of this association to deliver to him the names and addresses of all members of the society liable to serve on juries in the county of Middlesex, when it appeared that such list could not be furnished in a state to be of much use to the petitioner. He therefore obtained a rule calling upon that solicitor to give a full and proper list of their names. That rule was argued in the court of King's-bench; after which the Court gave the petitioner the right—and perhaps it was all the remedy which could, under the circumstances, be rendered to him—of asking on the trial each juryman whether he belonged to this association. He could not help thinking that it was a most extraordinary circumstance that the Court should be compelled to resort to such an expedient as they had devised—an expedient that was unnecessary and unprecedented until a constitutional association had risen up and rendered such an innovation necessary. [Cheers]. As to the legality of the Association, it had been defended by reference to the existence of the Society for the Suppression of Vice. He had always thought that the inutility and absurdity of that society were alike; it had been worse than useless, for it had even injured public morals, by drawing subjects into notice that otherwise would have remained in obscurity. He should never forget the mock modesty with which it had sent a notice to an hon. baronet, complaining of the indecorum of some of the ornaments of his residence. The petitioner went on to state, that if some means of repression were not adopted by the House, he might still further suffer from the persecution of this body, and he prayed, therefore, that the House would afford him such relief as was within its power. As he (Dr. L.) was firmly of opinion that there was a design in this association to curtail the liberty of the press, under the specious pretext of repressing disloyalty; as he saw plainly that the object of the leaders of the combination was to ingratiate themselves with ministers, and not to promote the benefit of the country; that their proceedings were the result partly of folly, and partly of meanness; and as he was satisfied that mischief must be the consequence of taking prosecutions out of the hands of constituted authorities; he gave his cordial support to the prayer of the petition.

said that he should be deficient in duty, as well as in manliness, if, as his name was among the subscribers to the Constitutional Association, he did not stand forward to state the reasons that induced him to belong to it. When he first came to town to attend his duty in parliament, he had been greatly shocked in passing, through the streets to see offensive placards on the walls, and gross caricatures in the shops. He observed that sedition and blasphemy were increasing daily, and he was of course anxious to put a stop to their progress. He remembered that when he was a young man, if a person wanted to see a bad caricature, he could not do so without going into the shop; but now they were thrust upon the notice of the passengers; and no man could go through the streets without having his eyes insulted by the most offensive placards and comparisons of an odious kind between the highest personage and the greatest of tyrants. He had even seen a representation of a bull with a woman on its back, which woman was meant for a royal personage. When it was at first proposed to him to belong to this association, he had particularly, asked whether it had any political view, and he was answered that it was not intended to prosecute libels upon any political party but generally to put down disloyalty. Being assured that such only was its object, he had promised to attend the meetings but on account of his frequent presence in parliament, and the late hours to which the House had sat, he was able to do so, and could not therefore hold himself responsible for what had been done in his absence.

gave the hon. baronet full credit for all his assertions. He was quite sure that he would never have become a member of the Association, if he had seen the paper published under the name of a "Sharp," and had heard of the active conduct imputed to various members of it. He could not help saying, that if it were proper to put down libels of this description (which he did not mean to dispute, though it might be done by the authorities at present existing) it still must appear a little extraordinary that there should be such extreme soreness as to libels on one side of the question, and such supineness as to the infamous slanders circulated on the other. He should not have risen, had not the hon. baronet appeared to refer to some expressions used by him (Mr. D.) in another place. In no instance, and under no circumstances, would he forego the right of an English advocate to make any observation which the interests of his client seemed to demand, however exalted might be the personage to whom that observation might apply.

said, he had made no allusion whatever to the learned member.

certainly thought the hon. baronet referred to some caricature connected with an observation he (Mr. D.) had made in another place, in which he had introduced the name of Nero.

rose to move for a committee to inquire into certain abuses in the Administration of Justice in the island of Tobago. He said, that towards the end of the last session, Mr. Capper, who had been attorney general of the island, had stated certain facts that appeared to him to amount to flagrant denials of justice, and indeed to great personal cruelty. Mr. Capper having been appointed early in 1819, went out to Tobago, but soon found that he must either make himself a party to the unjust practices prevailing, must subject himself to a life of disquiet and mortification, or must relinquish his appointment. He preferred the latter, and returning at great personal inconvenience, he laid the whole case before the Colonial department. Lord Bathurst communicated with the authorities of the island on the subject; he received a report denying the charges, and imputing unworthy motives to Mr. Capper; and upon that report his lord- ship had acted. He (lord N.) had received information on many cases, but he should rely principally upon two; not depending merely upon the statement: of Mr. Capper, but upon the affidavits of several witnesses of unimpeachable characters, and filling respectable situations. In the May after the arrival of Mr. Capper, he happened to see, through the bars of the prison at Scarborough, a miserable creature of the name of Edward Hoskin, an Englishman, who had then been imprisoned twelve weeks on a charge of assault. He was dreadfully emaciated, and seemed almost forgotten by his gaoler. The deputy provost marshal, Mr. R. Mitchell, was the responsible authority in the gaol; but he was only the deputy of his father, and had under him a Spaniard of the name of Savadra. Mr. Capper, asked for the warrant of commitment of Hoskin; but none, could be produced-.by Mr. Mitchell. A month afterwards Mr. Capper heard that the wretched prisoner was in a dying state, and he found him in a lower dungeon than that he had previously occupied, shut from the common air in an almost insupportable climate, and with his left leg in the stocks, where it had been for no less than a fortnight. His haggard body was excoriated by sitting, without the power of changing his posture, in the filth and ordure that had accumulated during his miserable confinement. Mr. Capper went to sir F. Robinson, the president, and described the situation of the unfortunate man; and sir Frederick accompanied him to see him the next morning. On seeing his situation, with feelings such as became a man of humanity, he expressed his regret at what he saw. But it was said at the, time that the man was insane. If he even were so, great God! was that the treatment for a ease of insanity? he was never visited by a medical person, nor was there one of that description in the gaol. Although insanity was the ostensible plea for the man's treatment, yet they subsequently confessed the true reason of his detention, to be an expression that escaped him in his sufferings, which was, that if ever he got back to England, he should apply for redress to the courts of justice or to parliament. The next step taken by Mr. Capper was to apply to the court of chancery of the island for a writ de lunatico inquirendo. The application was opposed by Mr. Collier, the deputy provost marshals but Mr. Capper declared that if the writ were not issued, and in the event of the man's death from the rigours he was enduring, he should proceed by a capital indictment. The man was remanded to prison, and in about three weeks after he was shipped off to England. The second case was that of three seamen, who charged the master of a brig then lying in the bay with having violently assaulted them, and stabbed them with a cutlass while serving on board. They made their complaint to a magistrate, who issued his warrant, and the captain as well as the sailors appeared on the appointed day. And here he had the painful task of introducing a name which was long associated with the most affectionate recollections of many who heard him"— he meant Mr. Elphinstone Pigott. Mr. E. Pigott was not only chief justice of the island, but he was also Speaker of the House of Assembly, one of the bench of committing magistrates, and the manager of three estates. Such a combination of employments was well calculated to give an improper bias to his mind, in the administration of some pf the duties which devolved upon him. Before that gentleman the master of the brig was brought up; and without hearing the seamen, the former was liberated upon his own statement, and allowed to sail from the island, leaving behind the three seamen, houseless and pennyless. They slept for fifteen nights on the bare beach, and were at length only rescued from their miserable situation by Mr. Capper, who procured for them a passage home. Before they sailed, however, an attempt was made to induce them to sign a paper confessing themselves to have been guilty of mutiny, in order to prevent them from obtaining redress. This, however, they refused, and upon their return to this country, they not only obtained their arrear of wages, but a further compensation for the assault, by the adjudication of a bench of English magistrates. It might be asked what interest the magistrates of Tobago could have in refusing to administer justice? The question was easily answered; for Mr. Robley, one of the magistrates, and a man of great weight in the island, was consignee of the goods with which the brig was laden, and he knew that if the vessel were detained, and the master committed for trial, his rums and sugars would lose the market. Mr. Robley's own words were, that he did not pare a damn whether the master were hang- or not when he returned to England, so that his rums at sugars were sold." He trusted he had laid a sufficient ground for the appointment of a committee. His motion was not for condemnation, but for inquiry. He would just allude to one other case. A man of the name of Duff was charged on suspicion of having broken open the house of Mr. Collier, the; deputy provost marshal. Mr. Collier stood in rather a singular relation to this man, for he was at once his prosecutor, a magistrate and his gaoler; and availing himself of this mixed relation, he had him put into irons, and kept him handcuffed for four months. The man was never brought to trial, but was sent as a convict to a rock off St. Lucie, called Pigeon Island. With regard to the defence set up by the magistrates of Tobago, that was contained in the report which had been transmitted to this country; and if ministers resisted inquiry on the ground of that report, it would not be difficult to meet their case. If they reisted it on some new grounds, it would not be too much to ask the House to enter into the inquiry. He found nothing in the report, from the beginning to the end of it, but a strong denial of some of the facts, and a violent recrimination of Mr. Capper. None of the material facts were, however, impugned. The noble lord then proceeded to make some observations upon the abuses which existed in the administration of justice in Tobago, and the oppression and cruelty which were resorted to in the treatment of the slaves. Every one who opposed the present corrupt system, or who wished to ameliorate the condition of the slaves, was denounced as a person connected with the African institution, or he was termed a Wilberforcean. Little did those persons who employed such a term as a stigma, imagine with what wisdom and goodness, with what warm benevolence and love of human nature the name of Wilberforce was here associated. The rejection of the evidence of a slave against a colonist was one instance of gross injustice, which, upon every ground of equity and policy, ought be longer to disgrace the administration of justice. In this opinion sir W. Young, late governor of Tobago, entirely concurred, though he was opposed to the abolition of the slave-trade. The noble lord made a few more observations relative to the degraded state of the slave population, and emphatically remarked, that this wretched class of persons only knew civili- zation by that perversion of its character which pampered luxury, defended fraud, and trampled on the rights of humanity. He severely animadverted on the odious practice of profaning the sabbath by the sale1 and punishment of slaves; a day which ought to be devoted to rites of religion and the exercise of mercy, was there set apart for the flogging and torturing of bur unhappy and destitute fellow-creatures. He concluded by moving, "That a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into certain abuses in the Administration of Justice in the Island of Tobago."

rose to second the motion. With respect to the conduct of Mr. Pigott, he should merely observe, that men of good intentions were often warped in their conduct by the influence of the prejudices and habits of the associations into which they were thrown. What, he would ask, must be the state of society in a place where such oppression was suffered to exist? What remedy could be devised in order to produce a better state of things? The fair remedy would be to make a trial, whether justice could not be administered in the island by those over whom prejudice could have very little influence, and circumstances none whatsoever. Why could not justice be administered by persons who should make a circuit of the island, like the judges of England? Why were the interests of justice supposed to be safer in the hands of our judges than in those of the local magistracy? Because the former could not be influenced by local feelings, and in all probability formed but few local acquaintances. In the West Indies, more particularly in the small islands, the case was directly the reverse. They had heard much of- the respectability of the House of Assembly at Tobago; but he believed that, with the exception of the chief-justice and one other individual, the 22 or 23 members of whom it was composed were agents and attorneys. If this were so, then these 22 or 23 persons formed a society amongst themselves; and a man, whether he were rich or poor, stood a very bad chance of succeeding when he set up the justice of his case against the prejudices of those individuals. It was morally impossible to establish an efficient local jurisdiction in the small islands, if the existing system were continued.

said, he would not follow the noble lord into the details of his state- ment. In his general observations with respect to the system of internal government in the island, he partly concurred, and partly differed. It was a difficulty which he always felt in questions of era present nature, that the West-India islands had independent legislatures, exercising within the several colonies all the privileges and power which the legislature exercised here, but with diminished information and diminished moral authority. In nine out of ten cases of this kind brought before the House, it was necessary to bear this system in mind, at until the British parliament decided against that system, they must judge the conduct of the parties, not as if their acts had been committed in this country, but as half pening in another, where there was so different and inferior a mode of government. With respect to the particular question for a select committee to inquire into the administration of justice, it was with regret, that lie ever felt himself called upon to resist a motion of this! kind; but be was under the necessity of opposing the present motion, because he was convinced that such an investigation would have the result, not of a committee of inquiry, but of condemnation. In the present period of the session, when the evidence on one side was in England, and that on the other in the West Indies, ii was impossible to come to an impartial decision. He hoped the noble lord would see the impracticability of instituting1 any effectual inquiry during the present session.

regretted that his noble friend had not confined himself to the precise object of his motion, instead of deviating into general assertions and statements. It was his intention to submit an amendment, in order to make the motion commensurate with the charges. After defending the planters from the loose and unwarranted accusations which were continually made against them, he moved, by way of amendment, "That this House will, early in the next session, appoint a Select Committee to inquire into the Administration of Justice in the West-India Colonies."

was desirous that the present proceeding should be remedial hot criminatory. The questions for the House to determine were, first, was there a case for any inquiry at all; secondly, if that question were answered in the affirmative what ought to be the time and place of that inquiry? He maintained that the administration of justice in the colonies ought to be subject to parliamentary vigilance, and inspection; and thought that the cases adverted to by his noble friend afforded a sufficient proof that the system on which justice was administered in Tobago demanded inquiry. He recommended his hon. friend to withdraw his amendment, for the purpose of allowing the introduction of some other, which, although it should assume the shape of a resolution, that the House would take the subject up in the next session, should also limit the consideration to the island of Tobago.

denied that the administration of justice could not be impartial in the small West-India islands. He had lived in one of them ten years, and had twice had occasion to go into a, court of justice. One of his accusations was brought Against the president of the island, another against one of he judges. In both cases he had obtained verdicts, which could not have been given had the system been such as had been described. The proposition for a sort of ambulatory or sailing commission to administer justice in all the West-India islands, he thought very objectionable. He should hot object to a commission being sent but to inquire into the administration of justice in Tobago, but the appointment of a select committee would certainly meet with his opposition.

thought, from the facts which had been stated, the presumption was, that acts of gross impropriety had occurred, and was therefore of opinion that inquiry ought to take place. This was due even to the individuals who were implicated. The inquiry would, he thought, be better prosecuted in this country, and he therefore hoped the suggestion of his hon. and learned friend would be agreed to.

consented to withdraw his motion, and moved, instead thereof, "That this House will, early in the next session, appoint a Select Committee to inquire into the Administration of Justice in the Island of Tobago."

said, he had a communication to make to the House from his royal highness the duke, of Clarence, which had obtained the sanction on of his majesty. Before he made it, however, be would move, "That the Entry in the Journal of the 16th April l818, be react." It was accordingly read by the clerk as follows:—"Resolved, that his majesty be enabled to grant an additional yearly sum, of money, out of the consolidated fund of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, not exceeding the sum of 6,000l. to make a suitable provision for his Royal Highness the Duke of Clarence upon jus marriage."

said, it would be in the recollection of the House that the duke of Clarence had (being at that time about to go abroad) declined accepting the grant of 6,000l. a year proposed by parliament. The feelings which had actuated his royal highness on that occasion were highly honourable to him. Since that time, however, the situation of his royal highness had changed, and in consequence he was now desirous of taking advantage of the favourable intentions of the House, for the argumentation of his royal highness's income to the same amount as that of his royal brothers. He would now move that the resolution of the 16th April 1818 be referred to a committee of the whole House on Friday.

begged to ask whether, this being a new parliament, a specific message from the Crown ought not to have been sent down upon the subject? He thought it ought also to be ascertained, whether his late majesty had not left property behind him, out of which the duke of Clarence migh be provided for, without saddling the consolidated fund with a charge which it was unable to bear?

said, that the subject would be better discussed when the question came before the committee. The grant proposed some years ago to the princess of Wales of 50,000l. and eventually of 35,000l. had been gone into without a message from the throne.

rose to bring forward his motion on this subject. The hon. member entered into a variety of arguments to show that the loyalists, who had been ruined in their property in consequence of their allegiance to their sovereign, were entitled to particular consideration. There was, he contended, a broad distinction between those who had lost their property in consequence of their loyalty, and those merchants whose losses had arisen from the ordinary circumstances of war. He then moved, "That this House will resolve itself into a Committee, to consider of an Address to his Majesty, praying for Compensation to the American Loyalists now remaining uncompensated.

contended, that the misfortunes of the individuals alluded to arising as they did out of their inviolate allegiance, entitled them to the peculiar consideration of the House.

said, that if the claims of the loyalists were good for anything, the claims of the merchant creditors were equally so. There were three descriptions of loyalists: 1st, The landed proprietors; 2nd, Persons resident in America, who had claims in America, but against whom the courts of justice had been closed. 3rd, Merchants who were in a similar situation. After the struggle in America had terminated the House had made compensation to the first class. No compensation was made to the others; because the British government thought that the difficulties in the claims of those persons would have been removed. After much negociation, a commission was opened at Philadelphia on the subject, and there the question was mooted, whether those claimants were entitled to redress. The majority of the commissioners decided in favour of their claims, but the Americans, contrary to good faith, broke up the commission, and thus the matter ended. Under the advice of lord Liverpool, their claims were subsequently entertained by the American government, and a fund of 600,000l. was put at the disposal of commissioners. Under that commission the present claimants put in their claims; an award was published, at they actually received 50 percent, of their demand. The british government, in appropriating that fund to their wants, did not bind itself to make any further grant; and those persons having received their shares of that fund were not entitled to come forward with demands, which ought to have been pressed forty years ago.

said, that from the best Consideration be was able to give the case of those persons, he thought their claims were founded policy and justice.

Contended, that the persons whose claims were before the Houses were, after their long sufferings, entitled to the sympathy and Consideration of parliament.

said he had, nearly forty years ago, supported the claim of these same persons. He had then thought that to refuse their claim would be unjust. Had the promise been made by parliament? Undoubtedly it had. Were they loyalists? They really and truly were. Their claim could not, therefore, consistently with the good faith of parliament, be rejected

opposed the motion, contending, that it was to the American government, and not to this Country, that these loyalist sought to appeal. By the act of 1783, they had received as much compensation as the circumstances of the country could afford.

contended, that the promises held forth in the proclamations of our generals were binding on this country; and denied that the inability to make compensation could be urged with effect, when larger compensations were allowed to persons whose claims were not so strong.