HC Deb 22 December 1819 vol 41 cc1445-9
Mr. Bennet

said, he had a petition to present from an individual, praying that the House would not entrust additional powers to magistrates, as he had suffered peculiar hardship from the exercise of that discretion with which they were now invested. The magistrate who was particularly referred to in the petition, was a colonel Fletcher, of Bolton. He should have hesitated to have received such a statement, if he had not inquired respecting the character of the petitioner, John Lever, and found that, though in a humble walk of life, he bore a good character. So early as 1812, it was proposed to the petitioner, by Samuel Fletcher, whom the petitioner considered an agent of colonel Fletcher, to become a spy. This the petitioner refused. He was told by Sam. Fletcher that it was wished to send him through York and Lancashire to Derby; and he was told, as a rule for his conduct, that he might go the length of cursing the king to set others a-going; that if he was apprehended, he need not be alarmed, as he would be liberated, though he might not know by what means. The petitioner, with more spirit than discretion, informed his acquaintance of the offer that had been made to him. In consequence of this, he conceived he had fallen under the anger of colonel Fletcher. He was some time after taken up and carried to prison, and while in confinement he was exhibited as a sort of spectacle, under the name of general Lud, as no other individual could be found to answer to that supposed character. After some time, as no allegations could be proved against him, he was dismissed. A short time after, he was taken out of his bed, and put into confinement, without knowing for what, till at last he found that he was committed to Lancaster gaol on a charge of murdering a man he never saw. As to this part of the case, he had inquired, and found in the calendar for 1812, that John Lever, the petitioner, was committed by colonel Fletcher, on the suspicion of having murdered Mr. Chadwick, of Beechhall. He was also able to state that a physician had certified, that the individual, so far from having been murdered, had died of a fever; that there had been an absurd report of his having been injured by a blow received in a scuffle, but that it had been proved on the inquest to be untrue. Yet, notwithstanding this, colonel Fletcher committed the petitioner on suspicion of murdering this individual. The petitioner stated, that to his astonishment no bill was presented to the grand jury against him. Whether this was true, he had not the means of knowing, but from the books of the gaol he found the entry respecting the commitment which he had read, and underneath "a bill for misdemeanor." His belief was, that there was no bill preferred, and no one bound over to prosecute. When the petitioner was brought up, expecting to be tried for murder, he was tried for a political misdemeanor, and, as he had no means of repelling any charge, was found guilty. The witnesses against him were two persons of notoriously bad character, who swore to what the judge was said to have pronounced the most ridiculous story. The two witnesses swore that the witness told them, that "he was for the death of the king, and that it must be sweetened with a pound of sugar." The petitioner prayed for an inquiry into his case.

Mr. Huskisson

said, that the House could not think of entertaining and retrying a case which had been already disposed of in a court of justice. As to the other part of the complaint, if the magistrate in question had misconducted himself, he could be severely punished by the law; and if the petitioner had received injuries, the law was open to him for redress.

Mr. B. Wilbraham

said, that the facts of the case were very different from the representation of the petitioner. In May, 1812, the petitioner had been apprehended, not by colonel Fletcher, but by another magistrate, for giving as a toast "the death of the King." While he was detained for that offence, colonel Fletcher received a letter from Mr. Graham, inclosing another from the deputy inspector of hulks at Portsmouth, with an affidavit made by John Harper, a convict, that three years before, about the time Mr. Chadwick of Beech-hall, was murdered, the deponent returning from market heard two men at a little distance from the road ill-treating another. The two men were John Lever and A. Gordon. They threatened the deponent, that if he told what they had done, they would serve him the same. He was terrified and went on his knees, and promised never to speak a word of it. He afterwards received a present of a suit of clothes from Lever. Mr. Fletcher finding that the relations also entertained suspicions, very properly committed Lever; but about the time of the trial, it was found that the relations would not prosecute, the evidence being insufficient, and merely resting on the assertion of the convict, for whom it would have been necessary to have procured a free pardon before his testimony could have been received. Yet it was not on this account to be expected that be should not be tried for the former offence, and he was accordingly brought to trial, found guilty, and sentenced to a year's imprisonment. The House must feel in its justice, that it was rather a hard case to have an accusation of this nature preferred against any gentleman, after a lapse of seven years, when the papers essential for his defence, were likely to be lost. Really the hon. gentleman's mouth seemed as open for the reception of charges of this sort, as the lion's mouth at Venice. This accusation was brought forward against, a gentleman who had for 22 years performed the duties of a magistrate, to the satisfaction of every loyal man in the country. But this magistrate was one of those who acted at Manchester on the 16th of August, and hence was exposed to the hostility of a certain class of persons, who were now endeavouring by petitions to that House, and every other species of expedient, to cast reflexions upon all the magistrates concerned upon that occasion. It had been repeatedly stated, that the magistrates acted on the 16th of August under the special directions, or with the previous advice of his majesty's ministers. This statement had been positively contradicted by some of the ministers themselves—but still the charge was repeated. He had, however, now the authority of the magistrates themselves, to state to the House, that they had received no directions whatever from ministers, how to proceed on the 16th of August—that their conduct on that occasion was entirely their own, and that whatever might be thought of that conduct, the responsibility for it belonged to themselves alone, Then as they were so responsible, and as they were likely to be called upon to answer for their conduct before a legal tribunal, he submitted, whether it was fair towards these gentlemen, to have farther prejudices excited against them by such petitions as that before the House.

Mr. Bennet

said, that the petitioner complained that, after having been confined for some time upon a charge of murder, he was tried only for a misdemeanor, of which he was convicted, mainly upon the evidence of two persons, who had been heard to threaten, that they would go to Lancaster for the purpose of "doing him." As to what the hon. member had said with respect to the lion's mouth at Venice, he should only observe, that he felt it his duty to prefer any charge which he believed to be true, against those who abused their power, for the purpose of oppressing the people. When parliament was about to invest the magistrates with new and extraordinary powers, it was right to state the manner in which the powers already possessed were abused.

Mr. Brougham

observed, that he recollected the trial of the petitioner in 1812, and perfectly remembered that the petitioner, who had been committed for a misdemeanor, was, before he obtained bail, detained upon a charge of murder, which detainer must have rendered it difficult for him to collect the materials for his defence. The petitioner was, it appeared, treated very harshly in the course of his imprisonment; but, notwithstanding all those circumstances, it was much to be regretted that this complaint should not have been preferred long since. For it was certainly a grievance to the accused, that it should have been deferred for seven years, as that must render it more difficult for him to make out the grounds of his vindication. But it was a strange fact, that notwithstanding the committal of the petitioner by the magistrate alluded to for murder, no bill was presented against him to the grand jury. The petitioner was, however, convicted of the misdemeanor for seditious words, which he uttered when half jocular and more than half in liquor. In consequence of this evidence, the judge charged in favour of the petitioner, but still he was convicted. He (Mr. B.) had, however, a much more extraordinary sample of the same jury at this assizes, for they, with express reluctance, acquitted thirty-eight persons who were charged upon the evidence of only one spy, whose evidence was contradicted by the most decisive proof of an alibi, accidentally discovered. The judge's charge was in favour of the accused, and yet the jury hesitated for ten or fifteen minutes before they returned the verdict of acquittal, declaring at the same time, that they thought the accused guilty, although the evidence was insufficient. This declaration excited the disgust of every candid man in court, and especially because it appeared to proceed from prejudice, the prisoners being accused of a political offence. The jury were, however, so indignant at the disappointment of their prejudice in the acquittal of these men, that they actually convicted every one accused before them throughout the remainder of the day.

The motion was negatived