Commons Sitting of 1 June 1815

COMMITTEE ON THE STATE OF THE LAW RESPECTING THE WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS.
Mr. Serjeant Onslowrose, in pursuance of his notice, to move for the appointment of a select committee, to inquire into the state of the Law respecting the Writ of Habeas Corpus ad Subjiciendum. The hon. and learned gentleman, said he made this motion in consequence of the fate of a Bill upon this subject which had passed through that House in the most unanimous manner, but the second reading of which was postponed for six months in the House of Lords, the Bill being thereby virtually rejected. The object which he had in view, in introducing the Bill originally, was to correct

567]
certain defects which he conceived to exist in the law respecting writs of Habeas Corpus, as it at present existed. The principal defect to which he alluded was the fact, that this most salutary law was, except during the sittings of the Courts at Westminster, wholly nugatory; persons who might be unjustly held in confinement, at any other period, having no means of redress. Many instances of hardship were upon record, in which individuals had suffered from this circumstance, and it was for the purpose of having these occurrences investigated by Parliament, so that a proper remedy might be suggested, that he submitted his present motion. He conceived that some provision might be made, by which the Judges, during every part of the year, whether in term or not, should have the power of deciding upon cases in which persons complained of undue imprisonment: in all matters in which the liberty of the subject was at all concerned, he thought it was the duty of Parliament to he most jealous. The hon. and learned gentleman concluded by moving, "That Select Committee be appointed to consider of the state of the Law respecting the Writ of Habeas Corpus ad Subjiciendum, and to, report their opinion thereon to the House."
The question having been put from the Chair,
The Attorney Generalsaid, he should not oppose the motion of his hon. and learned friend; but he could not help expressing a doubt of the practicability of carrying the suggestion which he had thrown out into effect. He conceived that apprehensions would be entertained without doors, if such a plan were adopted, that it was intended to give to the Judges a power of too extended a nature. Indeed, he could not help thinking, that such an inference would not be very far short of the truth; for if the functions of the Judges were so enlarged, it would be giving to one judge the power of trying and deciding upon a cause, unrestrained by any higher authority. It was true, that now and then a case of injustice, or of undue imprisonment, might arise under the law as it was at present constituted; but then the parties aggrieved were not without a remedy. If it were possible to improve the law upon this subject, he should be most happy in landing his assistance to promote such an end. He saw the difficulties, however, which lay in the way; and al-
[568
though he felt no disposition to oppose his hon. and learned friend's motion, he thought it incumbent on him to state, that there were grave grounds of difficulty existing.
Mr. Wynnthought this was a subject which called for the serious attention of Parliament. The hon. and learned gentleman who had spoken last seemed to have insinuated, that no very many instances had occurred, in which the law as it existed had been attended with ill consequences. If, however, no instance of the sort had ever occurred, and the possibility of the liberty of the subject being infringed only existed, he thought that bare possibility would be sufficient to call upon the House of Commons to take such measures as would obviate such a chance. It had been said in another place, with reference to the Bill which had already passed the House upon this subject, that the House of Commons was not entitled to much respect with reference to any act of legislation upon such subjects; and that the Bill could not be considered as a well-digested measure. He would abstain from making any comment upon this language, if it had been used, and would only observe, that it reflected disgrace not on the House of Commons, but on the person who had brought forward an objection of such a nature.
The motion was then agreed to, and a committee appointed accordingly.

BATHING IN THE THAMES.
Mr. Wynn, in pursuance of his notice, rose to move for leave to bring in a Bill for repealing a clause in the Thames Police Act prohibiting persons from bathing in the river Thames, from the East India Docks to Battersea-bridge, after the hour of seven, o'clock in the morning, and before the close of day. He observed that, upon reading over the Bill in question, he was never so much surprised as in meeting this clause, for, from the code of the Bill, it appeared to be an Act "for the more effectual prevention of depredations on the river Thames." There was not one word stated about bathing, nor did he believe the House in general were at all aware that it contained such a clause as that to which he referred. This Bill was introduced to the House on the 21st of July last, at the close of the session; it had never been printed, and, in fact, its contents were little, if at all known. The clause in question, and which he trusted

569]
the House would agree with him in repealing, gave to the magistrates appointed to superintend the police of the Thames, a power to issue notices, forbidding persons to bathe within the hours and the district which he had mentioned, and to fine any individuals who should be found offending against such orders. He apprehended, that by the common law of the land, any indecent exposure of a man's person, whether on land or water, was a punishable offence; and consequently it was not necessary, merely for the purpose of preventing such a practice, that any new law should be enacted. He knew not, indeed, upon what principle the House could be called upon to deprive the community at large of a comfort, which he considered bathing to be, so long as it could be enjoyed without inconvenience to the public. The practice was, in fact, in this great metropolis, essential to the preservation of health; and for his own part, he felt more satisfaction in witnessing such amusements than in any other, because the persons who were participating in them, were attaining a knowledge which might operate not alone as a safeguard against danger to themselves, but as a safeguard for the lives of their fellow-citizens, who might not have acquired the same art. He would ask, were the Westminster boys, who had hitherto enjoyed this recreation without comment, and who were to be seen throughout the summer stripping on the banks of the Thames, to be stopped all at once from this source of health? In foreign countries, so important was the art of swimming considered, that schools were established for its encouragement; and its usefulness was so manifest, that any gentleman who for one moment considered the subject, would, he was sure, agree with him in thinking the clause in question, which had nothing in the world to do with the Bill into which it had been introduced, ought to be repealed. It appeared to him that this was one of those melancholy evils which resulted from an itch for legislating which prevailed in the subordinate offices of the State. The hon. gentleman concluded by moving, "for leave to bring in a Bill to repeal so much of the Thames Police Act as relates to the Bathing in the Thames."
Mr. Addingtonsaid, it was not his intention to oppose the motion; but he begged leave to say a few words, explaining the reason upon which the clause had
[570
been introduced into the Bill. Several applications had, from time to time, been made to the office in which he had the honour to act, by persons in a most respectable rank in life, complaining of this custom of bathing having lately been carried on in divers parts of the river side to such a height, that it had become an absolute nuisance and annoyance not only to their individual families, but to the public. These applications had induced him to give a sanction to the clause, not to prohibit bathing, as the hon. gentleman had represented, but to give discretionary power to magistrates to punish indecency, carried to the height which had been complained of, by giving notice that in any places where persons were guilty of a nuisance in the act of bathing, they would be punished. He did not, however, object to the motion.
Mr. Wynnsaid the notices were general, and extended from Blackwall to Battersea.
Sir John Newportobjected to arming the magistrates of the city with such a power as the present law gave them. He knew not why persons were to be deprived of the exercise of an amusement so salutary as that which had been alluded to by his hon. friend, and had only to lament that the Bill in question had been introduced into the House at such a period of the session as deprived the members of the opportunity of giving it due consideration.
Mr. Harveysaid, he would not oppose, the motion in its present stage; but as he lived in the neighbourhood of the Thames, he had an opportunity of witnessing the disgraceful scenes which were presented to the public, and which, in his estimation, loudly called for the interference of the Legislature. Some measure was certainly necessary to correct this evil; and he trusted, if the hon. gentleman proposed to repeal one clause, he would suggest another, which would at least secure the public from a repetition of the nuisance to which he had alluded.
Leave was given to bring in the Bill.

AMERICAN SLAVES.
Mr. Hornersaid, that during the progress of the negociations at Ghent, he had put a question to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, for the purpose of learning from him what information was possessed by Government on the subject of certain allegations made by the Government of the United States, respecting the mode in which the war had been conducted in America. It had been

571]
publicly stated, that we had by proclamation tempted the slaves to run away from their masters; and that after they had sought the protection of the British forces, we had sold them again as slaves. The right hon. gentleman had stated at the time his conviction that there was no foundation whatever for the statement, but that he would immediately set on foot an inquiry into the subject. He was extremely anxious that this matter should be cleared up. It had not only been asserted in a message to Congress, by the American Secretary of State, but it was also said that the documents on which the statement rested had been sent to the commissioners at Ghent, for the purpose of being communicated, if necessary, to the commissioners of this country. He should be happy if ministers could now give a denial to the whole of the charge.
Mr. Goulburnsaid, that immediately after this charge was made known to him, he had addressed a note to the American plenipotentiaries, requesting them, as the abolition of the Slave-trade was a point on which they were equally interested with this country, to communicate the evidence of which they were in possession, that it might be in our power to bring our officers, if guilty, to punishment. It did so happen that the American ministers did not think themselves justified in communicating the information with which they were famished. But at the same time, in a conversation with one of the gentlemen, he had expressed his willingness to furnish him (Mr. Goulburn) with the information on which the charge was founded; and he had the satisfaction of learning, that it rested on the affidavit of a single individual, who swore that he knew of a slave having been carried in an English ship of war into the Bahamas, whom he saw afterwards sold to an individual there; and that he had heard that this was a constant practice. As this affidavit contained the name of the individual to whom the slave was alleged to have been sold, and other particulars, it became an easy matter to ascertain the truth of the charge; and instructions had immediately been sent to the governor of the Bahamas, to inquire into the whole circumstances of the case. An answer had not yet been received, though they were hi daily expectation of one; but before the House should separate, he expected to have it in his power to satisfy them on this subject.
Mr. Hornerexpressed himself satisfied with the course of conduct which had been pursued. It gave him the sincerest pleasure to learn that a charge of so serious a nature, a fleeting the character of the army and the country, rested on so slight a foundation.

NEW POST-OFFICE BILL.
Sir James Shawappeared at the bar with the report of the Post-office Bill, which he was proceeding to bring up, when the Speaker informed him that the question was not yet put.
Mr. Atkins Wrightsaid, he should object to this report being received at all. He could not consent to impose any additional burthens on the public, unless there was an absolute necessity for such a proceeding; and as he was not satisfied that the erection of a new Post-office was indispensable, he should oppose the appropriation of the public money to such an object. The business of the Post-office was at present carried on with the greatest degree of celerity; and for his own part, he saw no necessity for alteration. It was possible, that advantageous alterations might be made, but those ought to be postponed to a convenient season.
Mr. W. Smithobjected to the situation in which it was proposed to place the new Post-office, as it would be in the way of the greatest improvement that could be made in the metropolis, that of making a street strait from Blackfriars-bridge (by removing Fleet-market) to the northern road. He could not approve of expending 200,000 l. on a new Post-office, while Somerset-house remained in an unfinished state. If the works there were completed, he thought it possible room might be found for the Post-office. Some alteration in the Post-office, he admitted, ought to be made.
Mr. Barclayopposed the bringing up the Report, from an unwillingness to vote away the public money, on works of mere ornament or magnificence, whilst the country was burthened with such heavy impositions. To erect such a building as that proposed in the centre of a suffering population, would carry, in his opinion, the appearance of an insult on the difficult circumstances to which an unavoidable war had reduced them. He had heard of the liberality of the City, but he confessed he could see very little of it in this affair.
Mr. Alderman Atkinsdefended the pro-

573]
posed improvement, and the manner in which part of the expense was to be met by the city of London.
Mr. Gordonsaid, the sum offered by the city of London was a delusion. In point of fact, the city would not pay more than 12,000 l. towards the undertaking, while they threw a considerable burthen on the neighbouring counties.
Mr. Protheroethought the improvement contemplated the most economical plan that could be acted upon.
Mr. Bankeslamented that it had been deemed necessary to introduce this Bill at the present moment, when the nation was so heavily burthened. At any rate be thought the House was not yet sufficiently informed upon the subject, and that it ought to be postponed until next year. He believed that a trifling addition to the present Post-office would be quite adequate for the present purposes. He adverted to several unnecessary expenses in public buildings, particularly at the Transport-office in Cannon-row, which was ornamented by a colonade of Ionic pillars and a basement story of Portland stone. The Mint, also, after 300,000 l. had been expended on it, and eighteen private houses erected within its walls, it appeared, wanted a still further sum to increase its public offices. From thus considering the expenditure of the country, he felt a decided objection to the adoption of a measure like the present, which at all events he thought it would be well to postpone. With this view he would propose as an amendment, "That the Report be received that day three months."
Mr. Lockhartsupported the amendment, on the grounds, that the pressure of the times required a strict attention to public economy. Besides, if means were necessary for a purpose of great local improvement, why not draw them from some of those great city funds, the application of which had been, from a variety of causes, diverted from the original intention of the donors? For instance, large sums were appropriated for the redemption of Christian captives in Algiers, and he had not of late years heard that any such persons had been so released. If a liberal contribution were called for, why not afford it from some part of this local purse, which would be particularly augmented by the adoption of the measure, instead of drawing it from the public, under the present state of the country?
Mr. Holme Sumnerwas of opinion, that
[574
if a new post-office must be erected, there could be no better spot chosen than Somerset-house, in which case that building could be put in a state of architectural completion. Much had been said of the unwholesome nature of the situations in which the present office was compelled to transact its business; and yet when Mr. Freeling was examined upon this point, he admitted that no argument in favour of the alteration could be drawn from the existing state of health of those who were employed in the various departments. The hon. member then took a review of the proceedings of the city of London, when they caused the London-bridge toll to be taken from their own backs, and placed on those of their neighbours, and maintained, that at a moment when five million of subsidy was about to be transmitted for the common defence of the country, such a principle of local taxation as that which the present measure imposed, ought not to be admitted. Nearly 1,000,000 l. had already been drawn from the public for such purposes; there was 500,000 l. for new streets 3 or 400,000 l. for this post-office, 35,000 l. for a penitentiary-house, and 30,000 l. for the colonade in Cannon-row. The aggregate of these sums would be sufficient for a two-months subsidy at least, and there were moments when the ready payment of such a sum would probably terminate a campaign, which otherwise would be incomplete. He was therefore decidedly hostile to the measure.
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, that if he had thought it possible to save the money that would be expended in the erection of a new post-office, in his responsible situation he should have been most anxious to do so; but after the fullest inquiry, and the most patient examination of witnesses, he had been reluctantly compelled to decide in favour of the measure. The sum expended on this post-office would repay itself in a very short time, and there seemed a great probability, that by the arrangements which the new building would facilitate, an increase in the revenue of 50,000 l. would, at no great distance of time, take place. On the ground of public economy, therefore, the measure was justified. As to the application of the local fund at the disposal of the city of London, it was but fair that the local improvement should be paid for out of the local fund. The public, who would receive the greatest benefit, would contribute the largest share, and

575]
the city of London would contribute that proportion which was a fair compensation for the benefit it would receive from the improvement in point of convenience and appearance, from opening an avenue in that part of the town where the office was to be built. A further delay would much enhance the expense of purchasing the site, and the public would pay at a most ruinous rate of interest for the saving which might be occasioned by that delay. An objection had been made lo the application of money from the Orphans' Fund; but that fund, whatever was its origin, was at present to be regarded in no other light than any other local fund; many of the same nature existed in the ports of the kingdom: the duty by which it was supplied, sixpence on the chaldron of coals brought into the port of London, was scarcely felt: a proof of which was, that no one had experienced any benefit from the repeal of the war-duty to a much larger amount, viz. 3s. a chaldron. As the post-office must be rebuilt, and as no equally good situation could be found, he thought the House had strong reasons for agreeing to the Report.
Mr. Rosesaid, that in the opinion which be gave, he was entirely guided by the previous recommendation of the committees which had sat on the subject. If the present post-office was decided to be inadequate for its uses, the balance of expense between its enlargement and the erection of a new one, was, in his opinion, in favour of the latter, from the many advantages which it embraced.
Mr. Brownedefended the decision of both committees, which had fully entered upon every consideration relative to this question, although they had heard every thing which was pertinaciously urged in opposition by the hon. gentleman near him (Mr. Sumner), and also by the hon. member for Taunton (Mr. Baring), who he supposed had altered his opinion on the subject, as he no longer persevered in his opposition.
The House divided, when the numbers were:—For receiving the Report, 56; Against it, 16:—Majority 40. On the motion of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Report was ordered to be received on Monday next. The Chancellor of the Exchequer then moved the order of the day for the House resolving itself into a committee of supply. In the committee, the right hon. gentleman moved, "That a sum, not exceeding 240,000 l. be
[576
advanced from time to time out of the revenue of the Post-office of Great Britain, for defraying the expense of providing a site for a new Post-office, and making proper avenues thereto; one third, part whereof shall be repaid to the said revenue from the Orphans' Fund."
Mr. Gordonobserved, that some delusion must have been practised on the House, as it was understood that the whole expense to the public, both for the purchase of the ground and the erection of the building, was to be 240,000 l.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerobserved, that there was a deduction made in the estimate on account of the value of the present Post-office materials, and the ground on which it stood.
Mr. H. Sumnerthought it should be distinctly understood, before the House voted a large sum for clearing the ground, what was to be the building to be erected on it. No plan had been before the committee of the upper stories of the building; and he much suspected that those parts would be occupied with apartments for the officers, which, besides being an indirect increase of their salaries, would by augmenting the number of residents increase the danger of fire.
Mr. Grenfellread a part of the Report, which distinctly stated that the whole expense to the public would be only 240,000 l. both for the site and building of the new Post-office.
Mr. Bankesobserved, that such would be the amount (it was true) of the ultimate expense; but in the mean time the purchase-money must be provided, which would be reduced by the re-sale of part of the ground, by the contribution from the Orphans' Fund, and the value of the old Post-office.
Mr. Gordonurged the propriety of building the Post-office at Somerset-house, where there was sufficient ground already in the hands of Government.
Mr. Wrottesleythought the space vacant at Somerset-house would be quite inadequate to the extent of the building required.
Mr. H. Sumner, on the ground that the sum of 240,000 l. would not be required till the exact extent of the building to be erected was determined on, proposed an amendment, that the sum of 100,000 l. be voted for the purpose above mentioned.
Mr. Butterworthobserved, that the sum of 240,000 l. would be paid, not all at once, but by instalments.

577]
After a few words from Mr. Pole Carew, Mr. H. Sumner, and Mr. P. Grenfell, the amendment was negatived, and the original grant was carried.
The Chancellor of the Exchequernext proposed, that the parish in which the new Post-office is to be erected shall be compensated out of the revenue of the Post-office, for the diminution of parochial and ether rates, for paving, lighting, &c. which may be occasioned by the houses to be pulled down.
This proposition was opposed by Messrs. Calvert, Gordon, Sumner, Grenfell, and sir M. Wood, on these ground:—that no estimate of the amount of the proposed compensation was presented; that in fact no indemnity was due for poor's-rates, because as the houses were to be taken down, if the amount of the poor's-rates were reduced, there would be also a proportionally diminished claim upon those poor's-rates in consequence of the reduced population; and also that there was no precedent for such claims; nothing of the kind having been ever suggested in Westminster, upon the removal of so many streets to make room for the recent improvements.—The Chancellor of the Exchequer argued on the other side, that it would be unfair to allow the funds of a particular district to suffer a severe loss, by the creation of an establishment for the public good, and that there was a precedent for this proposition in the case of the new gaol of the City.—A division took place: For the motion, 52; Against it, 21: Majority, 31.

CHAPEL EXEMPTION BILL.
On the motion of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Bill "to exempt churches, chapels, and other places of religious worship from parochial rates," was recommitted.
Mr. Wrottesleysaid, it was his intention to propose a clause, that no chapels which should be built hereafter, should be exempted from the payment of parochial rates, unless in every chapel a certain number of free seats were provided, proportioned to the size of the chapel.
General Thorntonwas extremely averse to giving patronage to dissenters: he considered that the Bill would be injurious both to Church and State. He then moved to leave out the words 'meeting-houses,' and to insert in their stead, 'chapels according to the established religion.'
Mr. H. Martinbegged to know whether the hon. general meant that chapels not
[578
conforming to the established religion, should be subject to the payment of poor-rates?
General Thorntonsaid, he objected to the principle of the Bill, and would oppose it in every stage. He had a great dislike to the levelling system, and thought it improper to throw additional rates on parishes. The Bill was brought in by the Chancellor of the Exchequer; but he hoped it was not a measure of administration. He was not for giving such encouragement to dissenters, by making the persons of the established church pay for the rates of meeting-houses. It would be much better to throw them on the public.
Mr. Martinsaid, that if such were the sentiments of the hon. general, he ought to have opposed the introduction of the Bill.
Mr. Serjeant Onslowobserved, that there never was an amendment more hostile to the principles of a Bill. He perfectly agreed with the opinions of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and thanked him for bringing the Bill forward. If the hon. general meant to make the Bill ridiculous, he was perfectly right in proposing his amendment; but he hoped he would stand single.
Mr. Protheroesupported the Bill, as he thought it would remove a very galling distinction now subsisting between two classes of the community.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerdefended the introduction of the Bill as relieving a number of meritorious individuals from considerable vexations, and by no means infringing upon any parochial privileged. At the same time he did not wish to be considered as giving any other weight to the measure than what it might justly derive from its own merits.
Mr. Davies Giddyconsidered the Bill a matter of conciliation, and that it ought to be adopted. He observed, that the rates arising from places of worship were inconsiderable.
General Thorntonstated, that in one parish, that of St. George's, Hanover-square, the amount was 151 l. 18 s. 4d. He did not at all desire to infringe on the Toleration Act, but he thought this Bill extremely injurious to the established religion.
Mr. Bankesobserved, that as many chapels were built in the west end of the town, on speculation, and for the sake of profit, it was perfectly just to compel the payment of rates. If those parochial rates were not enforced, it would be putting so much the

579]
more money in the pockets of the proprietors. He thought that the clause to be introduced by the hon. gentleman (Mr. Wrottesley) respecting free seats, should not be prospective only, but also retrospective.
Mr. Serjeant Onslowwas a strong friend to the Established Church, but he could not look on this Bill in the light in which some gentlemen had viewed it. As to free seats, he perfectly agreed with the clause which the hon. member was about to propose.
General Thornton's amendment was then put, and rejected. Mr. Wrottesley then brought up his clause, which was carried. General Thornton next moved, that the words 'or for the gratuitous instruction of the poor,' should be omitted. After a few words from the Chancellor bf the Exchequer, Mr. Martin, and general Thornton, the motion was put, and negatived. The report was then brought up, and ordered to be taken into further consideration on Monday.

FOREIGN SOLDIERS ENLISTMENT BILL.
—The order of the day being read, for taking into further consideration the Report from the Committee of the whole House, on the Bill "to continue two Acts of his present Majesty, for enabling Subjects of Foreign States to enlist and serve as Soldiers in his Majesty's service, and to enable his Majesty to grant Commissions to Subjects of Foreign States to serve as Officers, under certain restrictions,"
Lord Folkestoneobserved, that the present Bill was one of the most serious importance, considered in a constitutional point of view, as its object was to admit 16,000 foreign soldiers, commanded by foreign officers, into the kingdom. The Bill likewise differed from the former, inasmuch as the present authorized the introduction of such a force during any war, while the former limited it to that during which it had been enacted. But, not satisfied with admitting those foreigners into the kingdom, to enjoy rank within their immediate corps, the Government had given them commissions in the English army, and had advanced them to the rank of generals commanding brigades and districts. On what principle was it, that while Englishmen of rank and fortune were prevented by the rules of the service from arriving so suddenly at the head of the army, these foreigners should be exempt from their operation; and, having entered
[580
the service as lieutenant-colonels, be advanced to the rank of generals? At the commencement of the French Revolution, private persons were permitted to raise regiments, in which they held the temporary rank of colonels, but were at the same time precluded from the possibility of promotion, in consequence of the nature of their commissions. Among others he noticed lords Uxbridge, Craven, and Lynedock, each of whom was compelled to resign his temporary commission, entering the service de novo, and passing through the regular gradations, in order to obtain the capability they before wanted. From this necessity the German officers were exempted, while our own were compelled to submit. Sixteen Germans were now generals in our service, which he conceived a great hardship to British officers. On the late regulations with regard to the Order of the Bath, ten Grand Crosses were reserved for foreign officers in our service. The present Bill he conceived to be contrary to the Act of Settlement, and he would therefore move, "That the Report be taken into consideration that day three months."
Lord Palmerstonthought the House would hardly entertain the noble lord's proposition, which went to cut off 20,000 men from our army, at the very moment when the country was again at war. As to the other observations of the noble lord, it would be very hard if the German officers in our service were to lose that rank in peace, which they had merited by their conduct in war.
Mr. H. Martinthought it rather alarming for the House to hear, that at no period, even of peace, these foreign officers would cease to belong to the British army.
Lord Palmerstonexplained, that all that was meant by this Bill, was to continue the services of German officers, as we were now at war. The Act was limited to the return of peace.
Lord Folkestone'smotion was then put, and negatived. Several clauses were introduced into the Bill, which was ordered to be read a third time to-morrow.