Commons Sitting of 24 April 1809

BREACH OF PRIVILEGE.
Sir Charles Hamilton Sir Charles Hamilton moved, that Daniel Butler, who had been committed to Newgate for a Breach of Privilege, in arresting him (sir C. Hamilton), should be brought to the bar to be discharged.—Daniel Butler was then called in, and the Speaker addressed him as follows:—
"Daniel Butler; You, an Officer of the Sheriff of Middlesex, having presumed to arrest a Member of this House, have been adjudged to be guilty of a high breach of the Privileges of this House, and for that offence have been committed to his majesty's gaol of Newgate.—Persons of your description, armed with the process of the law to restrain the civil liberty of the subject, are specially called upon to use the utmost lenity which may be consistent with the necessary and faithful discharge of their duty.—Warned however, in the present instance, of the mistake under which you were acting, you nevertheless, in defiance of that warning, persisted, and added insult to outrage. Such conduct might well have warranted a longer duration of your imprisonment. But this House, perceiving by your Petition that you are now brought to a just sense of your past misbehaviour, is content to accept this proof of your submission and repentance, and sends you forth an example at once of its justice and mercy.—It has ordered, therefore, that you be now discharged; and you are discharged accordingly; paying your fees."
Daniel Butler was immediately discharged; and the address of the Speaker was ordered to be entered on the Journals.

PETITION OF MR. HENRY WHITE.
Mr. Whitbreadpresented a Petition from Mr. Henry White, Proprietor of a Sunday Newspaper, called "The Independent Whig," a Prisoner in Dorchester gaol, for a libel. The Petition, he observed, complained of grievances sustained in the course of the trial and afterwards in the gaol. The Petition was brought up and read by the clerk as follows:
"The Petition of Henry White, citizen and stationer; Sheweth, That your Petitioner is the sole proprietor of the Independent Whig newspaper, which, from its first commencement, has been, and still is, printed at No. 23, in Warwick-square, within the said city of London: and that your Petitioner is now a prisoner in the county gaol of the county of Dorset, in pursuance of the Sentence of the Court of Pleas, held before the king himself at Westminster, (usually called, the court of King's Bench) which sentence was pronounced at Westminster, a place not within the said city of London, contrary to the rights and privileges of the citizens of the said city.
"Your Petitioner published in his said newspaper in Warwick-square, within the laid city, in the months of December, 1807, and January, 1808, certain Letters, signed "T. C." "Humanitas," "A Sea- "man," and "Junius," for which publications criminal informations were filed, ex officio, against your Petitioner by the king's attorney-general, in Hilary term, 1808, at Westminster, a place without the said city of London, although a Grand Jury of the citizens of the said city was sitting at the very time within the said city; in which informations, it was alledged that the above named publications were scandalous and malicious libels, though the said publications were not alledged to be in any particular false or untrue. Now it is not only the privilege of the citizens of the said city, but the acknowledged right of every subject of the British empire who is accused of crimes and misdemeanors, to have an indictment preferred before the best men of his county, who are to determine whether there be sufficient cause to put him on his trial; but, as a Grand Jury is not always sitting, and as danger might arise to the state in some cases from the delay of assembling a Grand Jury, the practice of filing a criminal information before the king at Westminster has been tacitly conceded to the Attorney-General of the crown, at such times as no
176
Grand Jury shall be assembled; but it has never been contended that the subject should be deprived of the privilege of having his case submitted to a Grand Jury of his county, before he be put upon his trial, except where pernicious consequences to the state would arise from the delay of calling together such Jury; but this could not obtain in the case of your Petitioner, because a Grand Jury of his county, namely, of the city of London, were actually sitting at the very time the criminal informations were filed against him at Westminster.
"Your Petitioner humbly craves leave to remind your honourable house that it was not even alledged in the said criminal informations that the matter which gave rise to them was false or untrue, though the matter was alledged to be scandalous and malicious, and that it was the usage of the court of King's Bench, till within the last forty years, not to permit any information to be filed for libelloas matter, which was not alledged to be false as well as malicious, and indeed the most recent determination on the subject coincides with the opinions uniformly maintained by our ancestors; for, in the case of sir John Carr, and Hood and Sharpe, the plaintiff did not recover in action for a publication which was true, though admitted to be malicious and injurious.
"Your Petitioner having had a criminal information filed against him, of the nature, and under the circumstances above stated, the Solicitor for the crown moved for a Special Jury, to which motion the judges of the court of King's Bench acceded, and a Special Jury was awarded of such freeholders who were entered in the freeholders' Book belonging to the Sheriff, with the addition of Freeholder and Merchant, which Special Jury was struck, not by the Sheriff, but by the Master of the Crown-Office, who is a servant of the crown,—the prosecutor in this instance;—and the names were not taken as named by the said Master, but several were passed over after he had named them, because he stated them to be not likely to attend, thereby subverting one of the principles of British justice, which directs that a Jury shall be impartially selected, and attendance enforced by fines of the court; and, indeed, the Master of the Crown-Office might prevent all impartial persons from being summoned on a Jury destined, to try between the crown and the subject, if every name be passed over which he

177
determines to be a person not likely to attend. And this conduct of the Returning Officer is conceived to be strong presumptive evidence that he knows the characters of the persons to be summoned, and has the power of acting with partiality, which power is contrary to the constitution of these realms, and is strongly guarded against by the laws, in cases where no attempts are made to take the trial out of the common course of justice; for, the Under-Sheriff (who summons Juries) cannot continue in office longer than one year, nor be re-chosen till after an interval of two years, lest, from his familiarity with office, he may be enabled to select a partial Jury.
"Your Petitioner also reminds this honourable house, that, by a statute of the 7th and 8th year of king William 3, (ch. 32), it is enacted, that "every summons of any person qualified to any of the aforesaid services, (namely, serving on Juries), shall be made by the sheriff, his officer, or lawful deputy, six days before, at the least;" but in the case of your Petitioner, the summonses to the Jury were not delivered six days before the day of trial, nor five days before, nor four days before; from which cause your Petitioner was not able to avail himself of a trial before a Special Jury, contrary to the rights of the subject and the law of the land and this circumstance of not summoning the Jury six days before the trial, contrary to the positive and explicit enactments of the law of the land, has prevented your Petitioner from bring tried by a Jury of such men as had been assigned him; as his peers.
"Your Petitioner was not tried by a Jury of his peers; for, as the court of King's Bench had ruled that a Jury of freeholders and merchants were his peers, it necessarily follows that those who were neither freeholders nor merchants could not be his peers; and yet those who were added to the Special Jury were neither freeholders nor merchants, and therefore were not his peers:—and of a Jury composed of men who were all of them neither peers of your Petitioner, nor peers among themselves, a verdict was given.
"Your Petitioner also craves the attention of this honourable house, to the words used by sir Nash Grose on the trial, in his charge to the Jury, which your Petitioner humbly presumes to have been a deviation from the spirit of the constitution, which enjoins lenity and impartiality
178
to form the basis of the conduct of every British Judge, to have been also inimical to the letter and fair interpretation of the Act of Parliament entitled, "An Act to remove doubts respecting the functions of Juries in cases of Libel," which Act directs, that "on every such trial, the Court or judge before whom such indictment or information shall be tried, shall, according to his or their discretion, give their or his opinion and directions to the Jury in the matter in issue between the king and the defendant or defendants, in like manner as in all other criminal cases."—Your Petitioner therefore prays to submit, for the decision of this honourable house, the propriety or impropriety of the following words, as used by sir Nash Grose on this occasion, and which instead of delivering an opinion or direction, "as in all other criminal eposes," are conceived by your Petitioner to be unprecedented in the annals of modern British jurisprudence. The words that your Petitioner complains of, and which were taken down at the time by Mr. Farquharson, the short-hand writer, are as follows:—"In order to shew that they are most wicked, gross, and abominable Libels, it is only necessary to read, not all, but one or two of them. But, gentlemen, under this Act of Parliament, I am to give you my opinion upon these publications, and I have no hesitation in saying that any thing mere libellous I never heard read: in my opinion. they are gross, scandalous, and abominable Libels!"
"Your Petitioner humbly submits to the benignity of this honourable house, whether these words ought not to have been considered, in strict impartiality, as sufficiently strong, in giving the opinion and direction of the Judge as warranted by the Act of Parliament above alluded to, without the addition of the following unprecedented expression:—"But, really, gentlemen, I think it will be throwing dust in your eyes if I say I entertain the least doubt on the subject."—Your Petitioner humbly submits, whether an opinion and direction of the Judge thus given, and that without having read a tittle of the Libels in question, or the defence that had been urged to the Jury, comes within the meaning either of the letter of the law, or the spirit of the British constitution. And the necessity of a Jury being peers among themselves as well as peers to the defendant, has been ever recognized and insisted upon by the British constitution,

179
because, otherwise, the master and the servant, the creditor and the debtor, the employer and employed, might be inclosed in the same Jury box, in which case it would imply an absurdity to assert that such Jury were peers among themselves; for, the same individuals could not at the same time be both dependants and equals; and, if a Jury be not peers among themselves, they cannot all be peers to the defendant, and their verdict may not be a free and unbiassed verdict.
"And forasmuch as it is enacted by the Bill of Rights that "Jurors ought to be duly empannelled and returned;" and as no Juror can be duly returned who is not summoned six days at least before the day of trial, the Jurors summoned not four days before the trial of your Petitioner, were not duly returned.
"And forasmuch as it is the privilege of the citizens of the city of London to be tried and adjudged within the said city, though your Petitioner has been tried (if the issue committed to a Jury not duly impannelled and returned can be called a trial), yet he has not been adjudged within the said city, contrary to the privileges of the citizens of the said city, and, therefore, such judgment being contrary to these privileges, is contrary to the law of the land, which has confirmed and established them.
"And forasmuch as your Petitioner, if adjudged within the said city, could only have been adjudged to confinement within the prisons of the Sheriffs of the said city and county of Middlesex, it follows that a judgment which implies banishment from the said city, as well as confinement, is contrary to the lawful privileges of the citizens of the city, and when pronounced on a citizen in a place without the said city, for an alleged offence committed within the said city, is believed to be a violation of the law of the land, which acknowledges and confirms these privileges.
"Your Petitioner also humbly craves leave to observe that the measure of punishment assigned to him for the publication of the said Letters is equal to the measure of punishment assigned in any case where the libel was proved to be false, though the truth of the publications of your Petitioner has never been called in question.
"Your Petitioner also humbly states, that, when he was removed from the prison of the court of King's-Bench to the county
180
gaol of Dorchester, he was consigned to the magistrates' custody, as will appear from an Older of Sessions, made at the Midsummer quarter sessions for the county of Dorset, respecting his treatment in confinement, though by the law of the land, he could only be committed to the Sheriffs' custody, (allowing for the sake of argument, that he might be imprisoned in a different county from that in which the offence was committed, and it is allowed for the sake of argument only). Now, the magistrates of any county have no jurisdiction except what is given them by statute, and no jurisdiction is given to them by statute over a person convicted of misdemeanor, who is, during his confinement, emphatically, a sheriff's prisoner. Your Petitioner, therefore, is placed by his sentence in a situation which the law knows not, and therefore he prays the consideration of his case may receive the attention of this honourable house, not on his personal account, but as his treatment may be drawn into a precedent inimical to the freedom and liberties of the subjects of these realms.
"That your Petitioner further submits to your honourable house some peculiar privations and hardships to which he has been subjected since his confinement in Dorchester gaol, which commenced on the evening of the 6th of July, 1808, and when your Petitioner was labouring under a very severe and afflicting state of illness, which had been proved to the Judges of the court of King's Bench by the affidavits of four most respectable medical gentlemen. That notwithstanding this infirm state of your Petitioner's health, he was denied, by the controlling magistrates of Dorchester prison, for the interval of more than three months, viz. from the 6th of July to the 15th of the ensuing October, all access to the open air, even to the taking ordinary exercise, unless your Petitioner would take the same in a small circular stone yard, which was allotted in common for prisoners who were sentenced for fines, such as smugglers and those who had evaded the excise laws, &c. &c. Your Petitioner's complaint being a long standing bilious disorder, attended with a complication of alarming symptoms, among which he was subject to an almost continued swimming in the head, and a partial stagnation of the circulation of the blood in his feet, he found, after trial, that the walking on the stones and the circular direction in which he was obliged to walk

181
aggravated his disorder to such an excess, that he was obliged to abandon the attempt; and, although he represented this frequently, by letter and otherwise, to the visiting magistrates, and intreated that he might be permitted to walk in the garden, as Mr. Gilbert Wakefield, Mr. Redhead Yorke, and all other prisoners in similar situations, had been permitted to do before him, this was refused him, until he partially obtained the indulgence, through the benevolent interposition of Mr. Calcraft, one of the magistrates for the county, and the representation being first made to him by the medical gentleman attending the prison, that he considered your Petitioner's being permitted to walk in the garden essential to the preservation of his health. In consequence or this interference and this representation, your Petitioner has, since the 15th of October last, been permitted to walk in the garden, in company of the gaoler of the prison, for the very limited space of one half an hour every day, and which limited indulgence your Petitioner's health has been such as almost to preclude him from availing himself of. Your Petitioner, therefore, humbly submits to this honourable house that such extreme coercion and restriction is not necessary for the secure confinement of your Petitioner, and is inconsistent with the benign spirit of the British constitution. Your Petitioner, in candor and justice, begs leave to state that he considers this restriction as being personally cruel towards him, because, since his confinement in the gaol of Dorchester, an unlimited indulgence in walking in the garden has been extended to a felon, by the partial courtesy of the magistrates, and your Petitioner having given no cause of complaint against the propriety of his conduct, to justify such restriction.
"In addition to this heavy grievance, your Petitioner begs to state, that his family consists of a wife and two sons:—that, from the enjoyment of ail personal intercourse with one of his sons, whose business confines him in London, he is wholly-bereaved, by the great distance which separates them:—that his wife and his other son have taken lodgings at Dorchester, at an immense increased expence to your Petitioner, for the purpose of mitigating his calamity as much as possible by the comforts of their society; but hitherto they have only been admitted, by the order of the magistrates, alternately to visit him for three days in a week, and each day limited to eight hours, with the exception of
182
your Petitioner's wife, for some weeks past, having been permitted to be with him on a Sunday, and during the night, in consequence of the medical gentleman attending him having given it as his opinion that it was indispensibly necessary, on account of the alarming state of your Petitioner's health.
"Your Petitioner trusts that this honourable house will liberally consider what, a cruel aggravation this must be, merely arising from the local rules of the magistrates, and neither expressed in the sentence, nor warranted by the bill of rights; for, surely every father and husband must deem that imprisonment cruel which confines a man for three years, and allows him only twenty-four hours in each week to have intercourse with his wife and child. That your Petitioner has confined himself, in these instances, to a simple statement of facts, and commits the whole to the benignity, discretion, and wisdom, of your honourable house.
"Your Petitioner submits to the consideration of this honourable house, the extreme severity of the sentence passed upon him, as being contrary to the rights and liberties of every British subject in these realms, guaranteed to them by the Bill of Rights, which expressly says, "that excessive fines ought not to be imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted," your Petitioner having already suffered, under a state of severe and dangerous illness, upwards of nine months imprisonment and banishment in Dorchester-Gaol, from his home, his business, and the County where he was tried, and which has already subjected him to a pecuniary expense of upwards of 500 l., and which, unless migitated by the interference of this honourable house, it is more than probable will prove fatal to the life of your Petitioner, and ruinous to his circumstances, and future welfare of his family.
"And your Petitioner most humbly craves that he may be permitted to prove the truth of his allegation before a Select Committee, or at the bar of your honourable house, and he prays such relief as in your wisdom shall seem meet.
HENRY WHITE."
Mr. Whitbreadsaid, that he meant to do nothing more at present, than to move that the Petition do lie on the table. He could not of course pledge himself for the accuracy of the allegations, either as to the circumstances at the trial, or as to those which had taken place during the

183
confinement of the Petitioner. Yet as the Petition, though it contained some strong statements, was couched in terms respectful to the house, he thought it his duty as a member of parliament to present it. For what had been stated by his hon. friend (Mr. Calcraft)on a former occasion, when this subject was under consideration, he had the utmost respect. But at the same time, in justice to the feelings of the friends of that eminent scholar, Mr. Gilbert Wakefield, who was beloved and esteemed by all who knew him, he must state what they had said as to the accusation against Mr. Wakefield of having abused the indulgence granted him, by exciting sedition in the gaol. He could not of course, pledge himself for the correctness of their assertions: but he was informed by them, that no complaint had ever been made by the magistrates on that head.—With regard to the method of striking the Special Juries and other practices said to prevail in the courts, he could say nothing of his own knowledge. But he did understand that improper practices had prevailed, and that there was some danger that the error might be fallen into of rendering punishment so severe as to convert the person punished into an object of compassion. On the subject of the sentence passed on the Petitioner, however, he would say nothing at present, because the subject had been carried before the house of lords by a writ of error. It would be proper to wait for the issue of that proceeding, unless some unreasonable delay took place. But, with regard to the mode in which Special Juries were struck, he must advert to that point, without meaning to assert positively what he did not know of his own knowledge, and was not ready with proof to substantiate. He was informed that the master of the Crown Office might pass over any name that he pleased by saying that such persons would not attend, a practice which placed it in his power to appoint any Jury he chose. If that practice did actually prevail, it was a most incorrect one, and ought to be prevented. Another practice which he was given to understand actually prevailed, or had only lately been abolished, was, that in cases between the crown and the subject, the Jury if they found a verdict for the crown had two guineas, whereas if they found a verdict for the subject they had only one gainea. This was a most indecent and improper practice, which ought to be abolished if it existed; if it
184
did not, the public ought to he satisfied of that fact. Another practice of which he was also informed was, that Jurors if they gave verdicts for the crown were summoned over and over again; but if they found for the subject they were never again summoned. Another practice, which he could only state from information, was, that the crown always paid double fees to the officers of the Court. If this was not true, it would of course be contradicted. But as the circumstance was at any rate believed by some, it ought to be stated, if only in order to be contradicted. He stated them besides because they might possibly, at some future period be the subject of a motion in reference to this business of Mr. White. If these things should turn out to be well founded, this would form the ground of a motion for referring the Petition to a committee; if there was really no grievance in the case, he should be content with allowing the Petition to lie on the table. There was another circumstance which he ought to have noticed before, the confinement in a distant gaol. This was a great aggravation of the sentence; and if it might be imposed at the discretion of the court formed a grievous hardship. Confinement for three years was at best a most heavy punishment; but when it was aggravated by sending the prisoner to a distant gaol, the punishment, in his opinion, became severe in the extreme; and it was certainly a subject which deserved the most serious attention of the house.
Mr. Calcraftsaid that he would take his full share in endeavouring to remedy any improper practices, whether confinement in distant gaols or any others, which should be proved to exist. But at present he only rose to do justice to himself and the magistrates of Dorchester, by giving a fair and candid statement of the circumstance which he had formerly mentioned relative to Mr. Gilbert Wakefield. He had been informed before, and had stated in the house, on the authority of most respectable men, that Mr. Gilbert Wakefield had made an improper use of the indulgence allowed, He had since inquired more particularly into the subject, and though he was as unwilling as any man to cast any imputation on the memory of that eminent scholar, or to hurt the feelings of his surviving relatives and friends, yet he must say that he had found that Mr. Wakefield made use of the indulgence shewn him to excite a spi-

185
rit of discontent among the other prisoners. The garden where he was permitted to walk was only separated from the space allotted to the other prisoners by a stockade, which did not prevent communication, and of this Mr. Wakefield had availed himself for the purpose mentioned. The present Petition was nothing more than a modification of what had been stated in the former petition. It now appeared that Mr. White was permitted to see his family for 48 hours in the week instead of 24, as formerly stated, and that his wife slept with him every night, at least was allowed to do so. He (Mr. C.) and the other magistrates, did all they could, compatible with their duty as magistrates, to give Mr. White all the comforts that could be enjoyed by a person in his situation, and he must say, that they had a right to expect some appearance of gratitude instead of complaints. There was not in the country a gaol more comfortable than that of Dorchester. The room which Mr. White occupied was better than those which were generally assigned to officers in barracks. Mr. Calcraft also stated, that the magistrates of Dorset considered it as a great grievance to have persons sent to the gaol from distant quarters. The gaol was not built for that purpose, and they were put to a great ex pence by this practice, und also rendered subjects of obloquy.
Mr. Windhamknew nothing of this matter except from the allegations of the Petitioner himself. He agreed with his hon. friend, that if there was an unnecessary severity in the case, and if the practices to which he adverted did actually prevail, that these were proper subjects for the consideration of the house. But the allegations in the Petition, as far as he could follow them, (having however come into the house only when it was in the act of reading), amounted to no more than this, that a gaol was a gaol, and that punishment was punishment. He really always understood that confinement was punishment, and it appeared that this confinement was not unduly severe with regard to him. Mr. White said that walking in a circular space aggravated his disorder; but he saw no reason why Mr. White should not square the circle if he pleased. But how came it that all Mr. White's complaints about this confinement related solely to himself. Others were in as bad a situation as be was, and if there was any improper severity, the remedy ought to
186
apply to the whole. Mr. White appeared to treat in the most contumelious stile, those who were confined in the same goal, for breaches of the revenue laws, for non-payment of fines, and perhaps for debt; thinking that he was very hardly dealt by in being put upon a level with such persons. Yet, while he indulged in these aristocratical feelings, it was to be recollected, that he was confined for a crime, of which he was at present to be presumed guilty; for a crime too, which might possibly be of a most atrocious nature, while some of the debtors confined in the same gaol might be not only innocent, but meritorious persons, who had been ruined by the failures of others. It was curious to observe this sort of feeling breaking out in an advocate for liberty and equality, and he confessed, that his democratical blood, of which he hoped he had a proper share, began to boil with indignation to hear Mr. White complain so much of his own case, while he appeared to regard with so much indifference the situation of those who, as far as the house knew at present, had so much more reason to complain, provided there was any ground of complaint at all. This was the state of the case, even on Mr. White's own shewing, when viewed comparatively. But what was it absolutely?—It appeared that he was permitted to walk half an hour a day in the garden, accompanied by the gaoler. Could the gaoler spare half an hour a day to give the same indulgence to the other prisoners? Mr. White, too, had the society of his wife and family during a considerable part of the week, and seemed, in every respect, to enjoy greater privileges than were enjoyed by his fellow-prisoners. Instead, however, of being grateful for this, he only indulged in complaints against his benefactors. If there were any ground of complaint at all, it was that he himself was treated with more indulgence than, in justice to others, he ought to be; and, if there was any reason to find fault with the magistrates, it was that they did for him what they could not do for others.
The Attorney Generalobserved, that if the subject should be again brought forward, justice would be done to the officers of the courts. The hon. gent. (Mr. Whitbread) had stated certain practices, which, if they had existed, would unquestionably have deserved the severest censure. But on these points his hon. friend had been very much misinformed. He said, that he had been informed, that when a jury

187
found a verdict for the crown they received two guineas; and only one guinea when they found a verdict for the subject. This, certainly, would have merited the severest reprehension. But the person who told him of the practice must have known that it did not now exist. It had prevailed once in the Exchequer; but it had been discontinued almost before his memory. This the person who gave him the information must have known, for the same means that brought its previous existence to his knowledge, must have shown him that it did not exist now. His hon. friend (Mr. Whitbread) must have asked the person who gave him the information, whether it now existed. His hon. friend must have said, that such things were not to be lightly stated before the house of commons; and that before he stated them he must be well assured of the facts. He was satisfied his hon. friend thought these practices did exist, otherwise he would not have stated them; but he must say, that he had been peculiarly ill informed. It was enough for him, however, to state, that the practice did not exist now; and his worthy friend who preceded him in his office, would, he believed, be ready to say, that it had not existed in his time. He made these observations because he should be sorry that such a statement as this should pass uncontradicted. His hon. friend also said, that when jurors gave verdicts against the crown, they were always, struck out of the list, and never summoned again. He did not strike juries, and therefore could not speak on the subject of his own knowledge, but he firmly believed that the practice did not exist, and that no officer of the court dared do it without risking the loss of his place. He was anxious that the house should be convinced that his hon. friend had been imposed upon.
Mr. Whitbreadsaid that the Attorney-General had misrepresented him. He had stated that the practice of giving two guineas to Jurors who gave a verdict for the crown, either existed at present or had only been lately discontinued. This was his information, and it appeared to be correct, for the practice had existed; and the learned gent, had admitted that it was a gross abuse. He did not say that Jurors who gave verdicts against the crown had been struck off the list; he had only said that it so happened that they were never summoned again; and the learned gent, upon inquiry might find that statement to be correct.
Mr. Maryattsaid that he had given verdicts against the crown, but that he had been constantly summoned.
Mr. Ashley Cooperwas sorry to hurt the feelings of the relatives of Mr. Gilbert Wakefield, but injustice to the magistrates of Dorset he must say, that he had abused the indulgence which he had met with in the manner stated. He then read a letter from one of the magistrates confirming this statement, and also stating that Mr. White had been asked before the commencement of the session, whether he had any reason to complain? to which he had replied, "None whatever."
Sir Francis Burdettobserved, that this was one of the most important cases which had ever come before the house. The Attorney General had admitted that the practice of giving two guineas to the Jurors when they found for the crown, once existed, and had only lately been left off; but he was sorry that he had not adverted to the other practices which the hon. gent, opposite had stated. He was surprised that he had passed over the great question as to the right of the executive to transport its subjects to any part of its dominions at its own discretion. He should have expected that he would not have passed over this. He thought, indeed, that this point had been settled at the Revolution; and he regretted that he had heard no opinion on the subject from him. He had also passed over another most important point; the allegation that Special Juries were struck at the discretion of the Crown Office. The ex officio informations of the Attorney General he considered as not more dangerous to the liberty of the subject, than the giving two guineas instead of one to those jurors who found for the crown. Here, in the case of libel, for instance, we found the crown appointing accuser, judge and jury! Into the great constitutional point of sending subjects to distant gaols, he would not now enter, as it was to be discussed in another place. But he could not help adverting to the extreme hardship of this practice, which totally altered the sentence of the law. He agreed that an imprisonment of three years was almost an unprecedented thing of late. The hon. baronet then remarked with regard to what had fallen from the right hon. gent, below (Mr. Windham), that Mr. White had only been convicted of a misdemeanour, which, though certainly a crime, had always been distinguished from felony. Mr. White, there-

189
fore, might have reason to think that he ought to be less strictly confined than some others.—There was another consideration which had entirely escaped the right hon. gent., and that was, that the other prisoners belonged to the county, and in that respect were less hardly dealt by than Mr. White. The hon. baronet next observed, that it would be in the power of the crown to ruin any particular county by sending thither all the prisoners of the nation. He would venture to say that this was not law, and he was glad that the subject had been brought forward by a gentleman who he was sure would do it justice.
The Attorney Generalin explanation said, that Mr. White had not been sent to Dorchester, merely by the discretionary power of the executive government; but that this formed part of the sentence of the court. He stated, that the reason for his not averting to the other abuses mentioned by the hon. gent. (Mr. Whitbread), was, that these were to come forward at some future period. He had only adverted at present to the practices which had been stated upon grounds not arising out of the Petition.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerremarked, that all arguments of the hon. baronet were founded on the misconception that the prisoner White had been sent to Dorchester by the executive government; whereas, the fact was, as had been stated by his learned friend, that this formed part of the sentence of the court. When the hon. gent. (Mr. Whitbread) made a statement, injustice, as he said, to the relatives and friends of Mr. Wakefield, he ought to have recollected that justice was also due to the magistrate.—The right hon. gent, observed, that before the complaints in the Petition were token up by the house, it would be proper, if not necessary, to shew that the individual had resorted to the ordinary means of procuring redress. If the house encouraged this practice of petitioning, without its being shewn that other means of redress had been attempted in vain, it might be made a vehicle of slander. The words of a Judge, giving his opinion in the manner prescribed by an act of parliament, had been complained of, because that opinion was, that the libel was the grossest that had ever been published. And supposing it was so—for so it ought to be taken at present—the house ought not readily to give way to these false accusations. He would, however, not oppose the laying the Petition on the
190
table; though lie hoped it would form, no ground for any subsequent proceeding.
Sir Francis Burdettin explanation, said, that he had not spoken under a misconception. He knew that the sending the individual to Dorchester constituted part of the sentence of the court; but the government having the power of appointing accuser, judge, and jury, any accused person was, in effect, placed at its discretion. These sentences were not, indeed, unprecedented, but they were new since the Revolution.
Sir James Grahamaffirmed, that the most respectable freeholders were always summoned for Juries.
The Petition was then ordered to lie on the table.
Mr. Whitbreadsaid he had another Petition from John Harriot Hart, a person confined in Gloucester gaol for the same offence, and who was tried at the same time as Mr. White, as the Printer and Publisher of the Independent Whig. There were two circumstances mentioned in this Petition, which appeared to him to be very severe, and somewhat extraordinary. He complained, that he was prevented from using any fermented liquors. This he thought very hard, for, in many instances, such liquors were deemed absolutely necessary for the preservation of a man's health, and therefore the indiscriminate and total denial of them seemed very harsh. Another complaint was, that all letters and papers sent to him were subject to inspection. This was very different treatment, and much more severe than that of Mr. White, and he was surprised it was permitted, as justice seemed to say decidedly, that for the same offence there should be the same measure of punishment. He would not say whether he should bring forward any motion on the subject till the question in the house of lords was determined; but he hoped that in the mean time those who had it in their power would take care that justice should be fairly dispensed. In allusion to what had fallen from an hon. friend of his on the other side of the house, that he was surprised he would present a petition from persons who were of that description, viz. libellers, his answer to this was, he thought that a strong reason why he should bring it up; for obnoxious persons were generally those seized on by the executive government, and were the means by which such proceedings creep

191
into practice, and which might afterwards become detrimental and injurious to the subjects in the general.—
The Petition was ordered to lie on the table.

OFFICES IN REVERSION BILL.
Lord Porchesterrequested the attention of the house to the few observations he had to submit to their consideration, previous to his bringing forward the motion of which he had given notice. The Bill which it was his intention to move for leave to bring in, was, word for word, the same as that which had already twice passed that house, but which had as often been rejected by the house of lords, on the ground of its being desirable that the business should be further considered. This question had already received the most ample investigation and discussion. The measure, his lordship observed, which he recommended Was no object originating in his own legislative views, it grew out of two Reports of that house, and was the first practical act recommended for adoption by two successive committees appointed by that house. In that house it had been on former occasions received without a dissentient voice; even the king's ministers did not feel it either justifiable or politic to interfere with it in its passage through that house. But an opposition formidable in its means and persevering in its hostility appeared in another branch of the legislature, and was for a time successful, not only against the unanimous feeling of that house, but also against the general and expressive voice of the country. The principle of the measure, after some modifications, had however at length passed that house, meeting in its progress considerable opposition in a quarter were one should suppose every duty to the country and every regard to personal dignity forbade intrusion. The opposition that was there exerted, was a question of no easy solution, but the protest which was subsequently affixed upon the Journals of that house, held no inconsiderable rank amongst the follies of princes either of past or present times. For that extraordinary record of human ingenuity he could not assign any rational motive, and for that best of all reasons that no rational cause was assignable. Every man who venerated the throne and loved the constitution, saw with pain the names affixed to that protest (alluding to the signatures of the Dukes of York, Cumberland and Cambridge to the protest against the present Reversion Act). That
192
feeling, however painful, was considerably alleviated by the consideration that the prince nearest to the throne, and first in the public estimation and hopes, had too great a knowledge of the interests, and too strong an affection for the constitution of his country, to commit his character and his principles by giving his august signature to such a record. The nature of the Bill he meant to propose was perfectly well known to the house: for the value of it he would refer them to the third Report of the Committee of Finance. As to any objection that might be made to the bill, there was only one which he could anticipate, viz. that this was not a convenient time to bring forward such a measure. He was of a different opinion; he thought this was just the most convenient time that could be hit upon for the purpose, and that the least procrastination would be injurious to the interests of the public. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had just acknowledged there was no great pressure of business; but if there was, it was their duty to make time convenient when they had important duties to discharge, and he trusted they were now reassembled for the purpose of following up the most anxious wishes of the house and of the country. Delays were always injurious, and in the stormy times in which we lived every tomorrow brought its griefs and difficulties along with it; and if they suffered them to go on accumulating, they might grow too cumbrous to get rid of. He trusted the noble lord opposite (lord Castlereagh), from the experience he had in the business of reversionary grants, would afford (he house some information; at least, the result of his frequent practice. He did not require from that noble lord to dive into the chronicles of Ireland. They were no old legends from which he wished his lordship to draw his stores. All that was wanted was of his own memory, contemporaneous with his own time, nay with his own official existence. It was for him to give the catalogue of the reversionary grants which beyond numbers he had given; grants of offices, not in reversion, but what ought to be better termed, in resurrection, which the noble lord had conferred upon successive generations to come, with the hope of atoning for the period during which the same offices lay dormant for generations that were past. The fate of his proposed Bill the noble lord (Porchester) said, was connected with the incipient progress of that temperate Reform, which the country

193
and the stormy period of this age demanded. It was for ministers to consider the course which they now intended to pursue; and he trusted they would not, at least on the present occasion, indulge themselves as heretofore, in the capacity of mutes. The house ought to feel its paramount duty; it should recollect that this was the first practical measure of Reform which Committees appointed by itself had most strenuously recommended. It should guard against that ministry, which since its accession to office had endeavoured to freeze up that general current of temperate Reform which their predecessors had set in motion. Whenever they should send this bill to the lords (and he hoped the house would decidedly determine to do so, as soon as it could with convenience be passed) he supposed they would be told that there was no necessity for it, as they had at this moment a suspension Bill, that prevented the disposal of places in reversion, till six weeks after the meeting of parliament in the next session. But this was a strong argument in favour of the bill being now brought in and passed, for if it was not earned in the course of the present session, six weeks would be too short a period, and the lords might take advantage of the circumstance, till the house had driven their lordships into a corner, as they had done before in the case of the Non-residence bill, when they might urge that as a reason for rejecting the bill; in which case, the Suspension Bill would expire, and many offices might be granted in reversion, which could not be abolished till after the death of the grantee, who was frequently an infant at the time of the grant. Six weeks was therefore too short a time to trust to; the Suspension Bill took eighteen weeks in passing through both houses, and it consequently behoved the house to do its duty in the present instance and take time by the forelock. They must speak plainly the truth. Princes had frowned on their undertaking, and when princes frowned, subjects were apt to tremble. Was it to be supposed that the house would by delay put them in better humour? Was it in that manner that Magna Charta had been obtained by our brave ancestors? Was it by waiting like needy supplicants at a minister's levee, that they were to expect to carry their point? No they must be strenuous, active, and determined, otherwise they would continue to fail as they had hitherto done. He was glad to see a full attendance of ministers;
194
if they meant to oppose the bill, he hoped they would do it in a manly way. Let them not give sinister support and silent opposition. Let them not come with their amendments to instruct the house how to model their conduct and the bill, so as to render both agreeable to the lords. If advice they will give, let it be to princes to respect the proceedings of that house, and not to the house to study the means of pleasing princes. Let them seriously shew those princes, that the wealth and splendour with which they are invested, come from the liberality of the people, through the medium of that house; and that notwithstanding they are indeed the rich foliage of the Corinthian capital, yet the strength of it is in the shaft. When a prince took upon him to write to that house, there could remain but little doubt that he had met with those in that house who had been ready to aid him with advice on the occasion. Let them extend that advice where it was fully as much wanted, or they would not fulfil the duties of their station. If they faultered and wavered in so doing, they might shew they were ready "to ride on the whirlwind," but totally incapable of "directing the storm." The times were severe and scrutinizing. On this occasion, the conduct and character of the house was more at stake than at most other times. The present was a period in which, measures were not of much weight, unless supported by character. It might, perhaps, be objected to the bill that it was a bill of selection; it was well known reversions were given to children, and, therefore, the offices to be abolished must be selected. Feeling this a part of a system to which the house had pledged itself, he was anxious to know if they would follow up their measure. Delay could only increase the difficulties; and the house should feel that it was a measure called for by the country with universal acclaim. He was the enemy to innovation when he called upon parliament to effect temperate reform. In doing so, he by no means acceded to the opinion, that the period in which he lived was amongst the worst times of the constitution. He, on the contrary, believed, that liberty and constitutional blessings were better felt by the present generation than by our ancestors. Theirs was the keenness of pursuit, ours the calmness of enjoyment. And it was therefore nothing but infatuation, that could urge princes at this moment to raise the warhoop of pre-

195
rogative; to doubt the constitutional attachment of that house to the executive, and to create general distrust throughout the empire. They ought to have been better lessoned; but his apprehension was that they were not apt scholars. The house was now called upon to decide a most important point. Having carried a measure of great political magnitude, which had been rejected by the lords merely on the ground of obtaining time for inquiry, as the lords had now the Report which afforded them the fullest information on the subject, it became the duty of that house, by passing the present Bill, to shew that they were as much and as feelingly alive to the public interests as when they first brought forward the measure. He would not therefore trespass further on their time, but moved, "That leave be given to bring in a Bill to prohibit the granting of Offices in Reversion, or for joint lives with benefit of survivorship."
The Chancellor of the Exchequerwas surprized at the way in which the noble lord had chosen to magnify the present subject, as if the endeavour to carry it, were similar to the struggles of our ancestors for Magna Charta and the Bill of Rights; and as if it comprised within itself every thing vital to the constitution. For his part, he had never disguised his opinion of the bill. He could never see in it that importance which was attached to it by many; he did not perceive that it contained any serious attack on the prerogatives of the crown: and much less did he conceive that it comprehended any valuable acquisition to the privileges of the people, or would lead to any considerable alleviation of the public burdens. As an economical measure it was nothing, or rather it would prove probably injurious; for there were instances in which at present services were rewarded with reversions, which services, if the proposed bill were to become a law, must receive some immediate reward of perhaps greater value.—Having stated what had always been his opinion on the present measure, he should now mention what were his grounds for opposing the introduction of the bill at present. He objected to it principally, because the bill was not at present necessary. They had at this moment an act which would not expire till six weeks after the commencement of the next session of parliament. They were thus guarded against the granting of further reversions
196
in the mean time, and, in the course of the next week, they would, pursuant to the notice of the hon. gent, opposite (Mr. Martin), have a Report under consideration, the effect of the discussion upon which would go to determine, whether any of these offices should be abolished? Under these circumstances, to discuss the bill at present, appeared to him inexpedient and premature. The instance of the Residence Bill was not in point. Had that bill not been passed before the expiration of the temporary measure, considerable evils would have ensued; but should a bill for abolishing reversions be introduced in the next session of parliament, and should it not reach the period of its passing into a law, before the expiration of the Suspension Act, could it for a moment be supposed that any minister would advise his majesty to grant a reversion under such circumstances, and thus to take advantage of the interval of a fortnight or three weeks, that might elapse, at a time when the attention of parliament would be so steadily directed towards the subject?—The noble lord had stated, that the constitution of this country was never more entire, nor more perfect, than at this moment. In this he concurred. Was it not fit, therefore, that we should look with jealousy to any plan by which it was proposed to improve it; and that if our constitution was now most perfect, we should beware of those specious arguments of reform, which might have the effect of causing us to lose what we at present so happily enjoyed? He only wished the house to pause. There would be sufficient time during the next session even to think of this bill, if it should be deemed necessary. Upon these grounds, therefore, he should feel himself in duty bound to oppose the motion of the noble lord.
Mr. Bankessaid he had not entertained any intention of coming forward with this motion during the present session, because, from the general view which he took of the question, and the most mature consideration of all the circumstances, he thought it most wise to defer any further consideration of the subject, till the next session. However, though he had brought the existing bill into the house when it first originated, yet, aware as he was that when once brought in, it became public property, he could not help saying he wished the noble lord who had taken it up every success. If the noble lord entertained a different opinion of it, and of the policy of bringing

197
it forward at this time, he had undoubtedly done right in submitting his motion to the house. He had himself, in the last session, brought in his second measure, the Suspension Bill, not from choice but necessity; prudential reasons operating on his mind to press no further at that period the bill for restraining the prerogative. In this line of conduct he had been supported by the arguments of the Chancellor of the Exchequer; and in the Third Report, which had been since laid upon the table, the question had been moderately, coolly, and he hoped, constitutionally discussed. He had it not in his power to carry his wishes to their full extent, but he was glad to do as much good as he could, though he could not do all he wished. A temperate discussion of the bill, now that it was brought forward, was certainly most adviseable; and he, entertaining his former sentiments with respect to it, would of course give it his support, though he would much sooner it had not come at present under their consideration. He must do the Chancellor of the Exchequer the justice to say, that his opinions on the bill were uniformly the same, and that he never had expressed any sanguine hope of an economical result from it. In this point, however, he undoubtedly differed from him, and could not help thinking that much retrenchment with great public advantage might take place in many offices, such for instance as in those of Tellers of the Exchequer. He had been induced thus shortly to state his sentiments on the bill, in order to set the house right as to his views of it, and that they might see he was not actuated by any spirit of indifference on the occasion, nor could be induced to abandon a measure in which the good of the country was so deeply interested. He thought there was time enough for a full consideration of the bill in the six weeks which had been reserved for it in the next session, and much wished its discussion had been deferred to that period; but since it had been brought forward be would support it to the utmost.
Lord H. Pettyobserved, that after the great length at which the noble mover had gone into this question, it was not his intention to investigate its merits very largely. He could not help, however, remarking shortly upon the arguments of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, as they appeared to him to be very extraordinary. The right hon. gent, had began by remarking, that he did not think this bill
198
likely to be attended with any economical effects. He would only ask him to appeal to the limited reforms of Mr. Pitt, of all the reformers in this country, and of all the ministers in Ireland, and he would see that the grand obstacle to all rational reform was this very Reversion system. Had it been in time abolished, they and the public would not now be pressed as they were by the multitude of places held in Reversion both here and in Ireland. The right hon. gent. had objected also in point of time to this bill. What was there then so very pressing between this session and the next to prevent its present discussion? He knew of nothing. The case would indeed have been altered, had it been a new measure unconsidered of, and never before the subject of discussion; but this, which had been repeatedly argued, and which had been even carried unanimously in that house, could surely now not need much time for deliberation. It could not need the reflection of a year to mature it. The right hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer, had however even gone to his study for the purpose of objections, and had found out in his researches a notice of a motion on the Order Book. Now he could not anticipate what might be the matter or object of that motion, and so should not have made it the ground of an objection. For his part, he hoped, that motion would treat of many more subjects, and take a much more comprehensive scope, than that which the Reversion topic afforded. But even suppose it did treat of places in Reversion, how did that or could it militate against the present Bill?—Leaving these objections, if, indeed, they could be called objections, quite out of the way, there was one point which he should consider as conclusive on the subject, and that was the respect due to the house of lords; this was a Bill on which, although there existed but one opinion in the lower house, still in the upper one much difference was known to exist. Why not give them time, then, for full and mature deliberation? The importance of this Bill had even been attempted to be deprecated; and the right hon. gent, chose to denominate it a specious pretext of reform! When it was first brought forward, however, even he agreed to it, and of course if it was only a specious pretext of reform, he in supporting it aided its speciousness, and abandoned his duty.—He entertained a very different opinion of it, and therefore would give it his most hearty support; he would support it now,

199
too, because he respected the house of lords, and did not see the necessity of delay in the commons, where the minds of all were unanimous on the measure.
Mr. Tierneyremarked strongly upon the silence of ministers, whose speeches were withheld, but whose opinions might, be guessed at. One right hon. gent, alone delivered his sentiments on the measure, who pretended not to be unfriendly to it, but to object to it only on the point of time, while others opposed it in silence. He was of opinion, not only that the measure was in time, but that it was in strict parliamentary time. He was of course reduced to the necessity of stating his own opinions generally on the bill; answer objections he could not, for none had been made. One point, indeed, and one only had been made, and that was, as be had just stated, with respect to time; the six weeks of next session would, it was said, be sufficient for the discussion of the bill, and were purposely allowed for it. The six weeks were allowed for no such purpose; but they were allowed to guard the house against a strained exertion of the prerogative in proroguing parliament during the session, before the house had come to a decision on the subject.—It was said that we need not be in such a violent hurry now to render this bill perpetual, because, while the Suspension Act continued, no place in reversion could be granted. What! was he to be told this, when he knew that on this very Suspension Act passing, a minister had been bold enough to say, that he would not hesitate to advise his majesty to grant a place in reversion immediately, and that for no other reason than because such a bill had passed! (Hear! hear!) The lords had before objected to the bill. Did the Chancellor of the Exchequer know that the lords had changed their minds on the subject? If they had not, send the bill, then, to them in time, and let them deliberate fully upon it. Let the people see that Parliament was interested, as far as it could, to relieve their burthens. He was no advocate for giving way to popular clamour, but he would never advise any set of men to oppose right by way of showing that they would not succumb to public opinion. Would it not be a pretty thing to say to the people (by way of evincing spirit), "we have agreed on a measure for years; but now since we see you wish to have it carried, we will disagree to it, and there's
200
your clamour for you!" He would ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer had he any measure to ground upon the Third Report? What! he has not; he would have it lie on the table a dead letter, and he would demand as a consequence of such conduct, the confidence of the people.—He was glad this Third Report had been made the subject of a motion on a future day, though he confessed he would wish that such a motion should have come from those in power, because their official authority would have given it more weight. He agreed that little good as to the reduction of taxes could be occasioned by this measure; but, at the same time, ministers by concurring in it, would shew an inclination to reduce the influence of the crown, and to produce economy where it could be produced. From the right hon. gentlemen opposite he expected nothing. One of them did not think the measure worth opposing, and the other two observed a strict silence. From the house, however, he had better expectations. He hoped they would recollect that during the last sessions they were unanimous, and would by their vote of that night shew that they were still willing to do something to gratify the wishes of the country.—Those in power, indeed, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer in particular, seemed to get bolder and bolder every day against Reform. Why? Because popular clamour, was raised in its favour perhaps. He would advise that right hon. gentleman and his colleagues to abandon such a course; he would seriously advise them not to treat too lightly the heat of the people. Why was the Chancellor of the Exchequer so strenuous against reform? Why did he not endeavour to retrench unnecessary expences, useless offices? A noble relation of his (lord Arden) held a situation, or indeed two situations, whereof the proceeds were 35,000 l. a year, of which, for the collection, 23,000 l. was expended, and in whose hands for the last seventeen years, an annual balance of 200,000 l. remained. He would support the motion as tending to diminish the too great influence of the crown, and to reduce the unnecessary expenditure of the public money.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerexplained as to the allusions which had been made to his noble relation's offices; the balance did not remain in his hands, it was lodged in the Bank.
Mr. Whitbreadcommented on the sur-

201
prising silence with which ministers were afflicted all of a sudden; it was one of their periodical fits. He remembered, indeed, one occasion on which a plain blunt man, telling a plain blunt story, produced a splendid tirade from the right hon. gent, opposite, (Mr. Canning), but now he seemed completely dumb; there was no getting a word from him. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had, indeed, condescended to give his opinion on the subject, and what had he said? Why, indeed, this bill would produce very little saving. For his part, he always looked with a jealous eye at such expressions. This bill might produce a little saving, that bill might produce a little, and the other bill produce a little, and all these little savings rise to something considerable. He was an advocate for a partial reform, but he would not go too far; much, however, was to be done before that could be objected. Many Reports on the table were yet to be considered, and those reports would, if properly attended to, prove a mine of wealth. Much saving might yet be effected by economy, "Magnum vec- "tigal parsimonia" was an old and true saying. But this saving could not be effected, because the people thought it necessary! The Lord Chancellor had, it seems, said he would advise the king to grant an office in reversion, merely because the Suspension Bill was passed. Perhaps he would wish to give that advice in order that his royal master might fix upon him for the reversion (A laugh.) That noble lord was, it seems, a great reversionist himself, and on that account would not wish so good a thing should be abolished. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, too, deprecated the nomination of committees, "wide-wasting" committees, as they had been called; they did waste a little indeed; they wasted the Bank a little, and they wasted the East India Directors a little, and they were even powerful enough to waste the Dutch-Commissioners (A laugh). Oh! they were indeed "wide-wasting" Committees! He hoped ministers would be pleased to deliver their sentiments on the subject: their silence, indeed, reminded him of an old story which he once heard of the monkeys. The monkeys, it was said, could speak if they would, but they were too cunning, for they knew if they spoke they would be made to work; and just so the ministers chose to remain dumb, lest they might he employed.
Mr. Secretary Canningsaid, that he felt himself always at liberty to exercise his discretion as to the period of the debate in which he thought proper to rise. The vote he should now give was in exact conformity with that he had given before. With respect to the question of Reversions, he did not think it of such importance as the noble lord seemed to imagine; there was no need of passion on the occasion, it might be said against Reversions, that they put it out of his majesty's power to reward services, because they anticipated giants; but it might be urged on the other side, that they afforded a stimulant to the public man by the consideration that the reward of his labours would descend to his children; either side might be embraced without subjecting the advocate to the imputation of any unfair principle. Upon the whole, he thought that the arguments in favour of Reversions were better than those against them. The public feeling, he was aware, lay on the other side, and in balanced and doubtful cases, that consideration ought to decide them. If there was a difference between the two houses of parliament, that was not the moment to renew the difference; he would follow up his vote of the former night, by continuing to act on the suspension up to the time agreed to. With respect to the advice which the Lord Chancellor had been said to have stated, that he should feel no hesitation to give to his majesty, he could only say, that the whole story was new to him; he had never heard it before, and did not believe it. He hoped he had exculpated himself from the charge of inconsistency, or any inclination to avoid the discussion of the question.
Mr. Ponsonbyridiculed the idea of the measure now proposed having the effect of interfering with or obstructing the act of last session. It was the strongest mode of obstructing an act, to give it perpetual operation. He could by no means agree with those who thought the present measure one from which little advantage would be derived. It would both diminish the public expence, and also diminish the patronage of the minister of the day, by preventing him from pressing the future into his service, and confining him to what he had now, instead of extending his power over what might not be disposable for 40 or 50 years. But, if he could conceive the measure of little importance in itself, it had become of the highest importance in consequence of the circum-

203
stances which had attended it, and which went to affect the consideration which the popular part of the constitution should always carry along with it.
The question being loudlycalled for,
Lord Porchesterrose to reply. He observed that the whole weight of the right hon. gent.'s argument rested upon the circumstance, that some public inconvenience might arise from the adoption of the measure. For his own part, he could not perceive any inconvenience that could be the result of the adoption of the measure, though he was firmly persuaded that great practical injury must result from procrastination respecting it. Why should the members of that house throw themselves upon the mercy of his majesty's ministers, or why should they defer the consideration of the measure in compliance with their views? The right hon. Secretary (Mr. Canning) had stated how nicely balanced his own opinion was on the subject, and that he wished to leave it to public opinion to decide; but it was somewhat extraordinary that the vote of that right hon. gent, was to be in opposition to the opinion of the public. But the right hon. gent, contended, that the course he pursued was founded upon the impression, that the contrary would be productive of danger to the safety of the public. His majesty's ministers, however, did not appear to him to meet the question fairly: they opposed it on the ground of inconvenience, but they passed by the interest which the public had in passing the measure. Upon the integrity of the house of commons was placed the surest hope and firmest reliance of the country. It had been said that this measure was not comparable to Magna Charta; but the principle of the bill was more compatible with the spirit of that instrument than the spirit of those who opposed it was compatible with that of those who supported Magna Charta. On the whole, therefore, he should persevere in his motion, and leave to the house to determine whether or not leave should be given to bring in the Bill.
A division them took place,

For the Motion

106

Against it

121

Majority against it

—

15