Commons Sitting of 12 June 1820

CORK HARBOUR BILL.
Mr. Boswellpresented a petition from the ship owners and others of Ayrshire, earnestly entreating that the bill might not be passed into a law. The petition set forth, that the bill would impose an increased expense on coals imported from the county and neighbourhood of the petitioners; that there were already funds sufficient to meet the expenses; and that the proposed measure would affect the little commerce that remained between the coasts, most injuriously, especially the lime and coal trade.
Sir N. Calthurstmoved the second reading of the bill. He hoped there would be no objection to this motion as the me-
1036
rits of the bill could then be canvassed in the committee up stairs.
Sir Isaac Coffindeclared himself to be an enemy to all jobs, and such he conceived this bill to be. The people of White haven and its neighbourhood had already taken the alarm, and entertained a strong dislike to the measure; a paper containing some powerful objections to the bill had been put into his hands, and unless those objections could be upset in the committee, he should continue to say "No" to the measure.
Mr. Curwensaid, he had a petition most respectably signed by several hundred of the inhabitants of Cork, against the measure. This petition he should shortly present. In the mean time, he wished to state that the people of Hull were against the bill. The competition in the trifling branch of trade which was carried on between Hull and the Irish coast, was at present so great, there was little or nothing to be got by it at present; and the bill would render matters still worse. For his part, he considered the principle of the bill so objectionable, that no alterations that could, be made in the committee could make it at all palateable. He would therefore move, "that the bill be read a second time on that day three months."
Sir N. Colthurstentreated the hon. member not to take the sense of the House in that early stage of the bill. He hoped he would suffer it to go to a committee up stairs.
Sir James Grahamentered his solemn protest against the bill. From all that he had heard, and all that he had read, he was satisfied that the measure altogether was a most obnoxious and a most unjustifiable tax on the property and industry of those who had no right to pay it. He trusted it would be thoroughly sifted in the committee, and as he was anxious that it should be so sifted, he hoped his hon. friend (Mr. Curwen), would consent to withdraw his amendment.
Mr. Curwenconsented to withdraw his amendment. The bill was read a second time, and, on the, motion of Mr. Boswell, the petitions against it were referred to the committee up stairs.

PETITION OF W. A. BECKWITH COMPLAINING OF DAMAGES BY RIOT.
Mr. Peter Moorepresented a petition from Mr. Andrew Beckwith, who complained that, in the year 1817, his windows had

1037
been broken, his house forcibly entered, and his shop robbed of arms by a riotous mob. He stated that he had made unsuccessful attempts to obtain redress in courts of law, and he therefore prayed for such relief as the House might think proper to grant. He (Mr. P. Moore) conceived that the relief required was pecuniary relief, and therefore that the petition should be recommended to the House by the chancellor of the exchequer.
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid a few inaudible words, after which
The Speakerobserved, that though a petition, praying for pecuniary relief, ought to receive the sanction of the ministers of the Crown, yet that the rule should never be extended beyond' the strict necessity of the case; and here, though the hon. gentleman who presented the petition stated that he conceived that pecuniary aid was that which was required by this petition, yet the terms of the petition did not necessarily impose on the House so strict a construction [Hear, hear!].
Sir Francis Burdettthought it extremely hard that the petitioner should be deprived of a remedy. The present evil arose out of the anomalous condition of the law. Persons were required to keep the peace, and were punished for not keeping it, though the government, by taking their arms from them, deprived them of the means of keeping it. It was the duty of government, while it punished men for not doing that which it disabled them from doing, to make up and provide a recompense for those losses, which were the consequences of their own new laws.

CALLINGTON ELECTION.
Sir Charles Burrellreported from the Committee appointed to try the merits of the Petition against the Callington Election reported,
"That it appeared to the committee that the merits of the petitions did depend in part upon the right of election; and that therefore the said committee required the counsel for the several parties to deliver to the clerk of the said committee statements in writing of the right of election for which they respectively contended: that, in consequence thereof, the counsel for the petitioners, Matthias Attwood and William Thompson, esqrs. delivered in a statement, as follows: 'That the right of election is in persons seized of
1038
freeholds, whether resident or not, and in leaseholders, being resident house-holders, and rated within the borough:' that the counsel for the petitioners, William Hender and others, delivered in a statement, as follows: 'That the right of election is in persons seized of free-holds, whether resident or not, and in leaseholders, being resident householders and rated, and in inhabitant householders paying scot and lot:' that the counsel for the sitting members delivered in a statement, as follows: 'That the right of election is in freeholders of houses or lands within the borough, resident or non-resident, and in beneficial lease-holders of entire tenements, consisting of houses or lands within the borough for years determinable on a life or lives, being resident householders for forty days before the day of election, and rated to the poor at forty shillings at the least:' That upon the statement delivered in by the counsel for the petitioners, Matthias Attwood and William Thompson, esqrs., the said committee have determined, that the right of election, as set forth in the said statement, is not the right of election for the said borough: That, upon the statement delivered in by the petitioners, William Hender and others, the said committee have deter mined, that the right of election, as set forth in the said statement, is not the right of election for the said borough: That upon the statement delivered in by the counsel for the sitting members, the said committee have determined, that the right of election, as set forth in the said statement, is the right of election: That the said committee have determined, that sir Christopher Robinson, and the hon. Edward Pyndar Lygon, are not duly elected burgesses to serve in this present parliament for the said borough: That Matthias Attwood, esq., and William Thompson, esq., were duly elected, and ought to have been returned burgesses to serve in this present parliament for the said borough: That the petition of the said William Hender, and others, did not appear to the said committee to be frivelous or vexatious: That the opposition to the said petitions did not appear to the said committee to be frivolous or vexatious".
The deputy clerk of the Crown was ordered to attend to-morrow, to amend the return.

GALWAY—RIGHT OF ELECTION.
Sir J. Mackintoshpresented a petition from the inhabitants of the town of Galway, who complained of some abuses in the management of their corporation. He had no intention to found any motion on the petition at present, except to move that it do he on the table. He observed that the first sentence of the petition contained one of those lively expressions which, though so familiar to our neighbours, must always appear strange to the duller intellects of the inhabitants of Great Britain. The corporation was described as having been "incorporated by prescription."—Ordered to he on the table.

SECRET COMMITTEE ON THE PAPERS RELATING TO THE CONDUCT OF THE QUEEN.
Lord Castlereaghsaid: I rise for the purpose of moving the order of the day for the further consideration of his majesty's message, with a view to its postponement until Friday next. In moving this adjournment, I trust the House will feel that it would be unbecoming in me to state any thing that has passed during the discussion, or to say a single word, as on the former occasion, as to the situation in which matters now stand. But I entreat hon. gentlemen to keep themselves and their impressions on the subject precisely in the same state, until a full explanation shall be given as to the position in which the great question may ultimately stand. In proposing to the House Friday next for the postponement of the order of the day, I mention it as the most convenient day. On Thursday his majesty's birth will be celebrated, and it has been usual for the House to adjourn upon that occasion, and I would rather take a later than an earlier period for the further discussion of this important matter. These successive adjournments ought to be viewed, not only as satisfactory to the House, but as material to the public interest, in order that the real state of the question may be made known as early as possible. Before I sit down, I have to beg the noble lord (J. Russell), further to defer the discussion of a question in which he is particularly concerned: any other day would be more convenient than the present, as it will be the duty of his majesty's servants to be in deliberation in the course of the evening. If the discussion to which I refer should be now brought on, I must therefore retire from it.
Sir M. W. Ridleysaid:—I rise to express the anxious hope I entertain that every individual, in the House and out of the-House, will so far forward the views of the noble lord, as rigidly to abstain from injuring the cause of either of the illustrious parties, or of the nation at large, by giving publicity to any documents or any correspondence, whether genuine or garbled, which may by possibility fall into their hands. I am sure that I need only mention the circumstance to the House; for every gentleman who hears me will be immediately convinced of the danger that must inevitably arise, from publications which can have only one effect, however unintentional—that of exciting prejudice against one party or the other.
Mr. Broughamsaid:—I heartily concur in the recommendation of the noble lord, and of my hon. friend who last- spoke, in wishing to abstain from saying one word upon the progress of these transactions. I rise only to express my entire concurrence more particularly in the latter part of the worthy baronet's observations, and to make my most positive assertion, if is be required, that neither the illustrious personage for whom we are concerned, nor her legal advisers, entertain any other sentiment. It is our sincere desire that every thing should be concealed, or known only to the illustrious personage, and to us three, her majesty's legal advisers. If any other disclosure have taken place (though I have seen nothing disclosed, because I have seen nothing the least like the real state of the facts), it can only have been produced by some incredible degree of indiscretion or breach of confidence, for which no blame is attributable to my learned colleagues or myself, nor to the illustrious personage for whom we act; but it must in fairness be in part ascribed to a circumstance, I am sure, as unprecedented as all the rest of these transactions—that her majesty is placed in a situation which renders it difficult to prevent the access of indiscreet persons [Cheers].
Lord Castlereagh.—In the spirit of what has been just said, I may add, that this is a question on which all parties ought to say as little as possible; and I cannot give the House a stronger pledge of my feeling regarding it, than the determination I evinced to pass it over on the present occasion in complete silence. I am happy to hear what has been so properly stated by the hon. baronet and confirmed by the

1041
hon. and learned gentleman, regarding publications, though I certainly feel that the latter part of his observation was unnecessary.
Mr. Brougham.—I meant nothing, I can assure the House, offensive to any quarter, because I know that offers have I been made to her majesty which would have enabled her majesty to be better; accommodated—pecuniary offers to an unlimited amount, that the queen might be provided for in a much more suitable style. Thus many of the chances of disclosure to which I alluded might have been removed; but accidently her majesty was placed in a situation which rendered it more difficult, as I said, to prevent the access of indiscreet persons.
The motion was then agreed to.

INSOLVENT DEBTORS BILL.
On the motion of lord Althorp, this bill was recommitted.
Mr. Brightproposed a clause for extending the benefit of the measure to Crown-debtors, as well as to other insolvent persons. He could not imagine any good reason why the former should be placed in a worse situation than the latter, or why the Crown should exercise the power of confining the person of its debtor, after he no longer possessed any property. He should therefore submit a clause, exempting Crown-debtors from; imprisonment, after a full disclosure, and a discharge of all claims beyond the sum of 200 l.
The Attorney Generalwas surprised that his hon. and learned friend should wish to discontinue a provision which had appeared in all former acts of this nature. Some cases ought at least to have been mentioned, as actually proving inconvenience to have arisen from the former state of the law. Had the commissioners, in the exercise of their discretion, ever been known to refuse indulgence to an honest man? If the law were altered, as it now applied to smugglers, be would venture to state, that the revenue would be defrauded with impunity, as it often happened that when the smuggler himself was not a man of property, individuals on the other side of the water would pay down sums of 700 l. and 500 l. in order to procure his discharge—a practice which could hot be expected to continue, if he could be released by other means.
Mr. Brightsaid, there were two descriptions of Crown debtors; one indebted
1042
upon civil process, and the other in penalties. He had a separate proposition for this latter class, and could see no objection why, when a penal sum was owing, and the debtor had no means of discharging it, he should not be enabled to bring himself before the court of King's-bench, and there submit, in lieu of the fine, to some more definite punishment. As for the first class of cases, he had not minutely inquired into them; he referred to the general principle of law, and could see no reason why in debts of small amount, the Crown should have an unrestricted power of continuing a debtor in prison. At the same time he had no desire to press his clauses against the general sense of the committee.
The proposition was withdrawn.

PETITION FROM COVENTRY COMPLAINING OF EXCISE PROSECUTIONS FOR SELLING ROASTED WHEAT.
Mr. Creeveypresented a petition from certain inhabitants of the city of Coventry, sellers of Roasted Wheat; setting forth,
"That the petitioners are poor manufacturers, inhabitants of the city of Coventry; that they and their families have long been suffering from want, approaching frequently nearly to starvation; that for some time past they have used roasted wheat instead of coffee and tea, the wheat being not only much less expensive than the coffee and tea, but being, as the humble petitioners have fully ascertained, much more nutritious and wholesome, and roasted wheat is become an article of very general consumption; that it 19 not at all times convenient to every family to roast and grind the wheat for their own use; that the humble petitioners, therefore, have for some time past roasted wheat, ground it, and sold it, ready for use, in retail to their neighbours; that this afforded some employment to the humble petitioners, and gave a small additional portion of food to themselves and their distressed families; that, to the great surprise and alarm of the poor and humble petitioners, they were in April last served at the suit of the attorney general, with writs in the king's name, and witnessed by the chief baron of the Exchequer, commanding them to appear before the barons of the exchequer at Westminster, on the 15th day of May last; that they did so appear in person; that they were told by the said barons that they must employ lawyers to appear for

1043
them; that the humble petitioners answered that they had no money to employ lawyers; that the barons then retired and left the petitioners; that the petitioners served the clerk of the court with a notice to record their appearance; that the said clerk refused to do this, and that the humble petitioners are now threatened by the supervisor of the excise at Coventry, that unless they employ lawyers to put in appearances for them, their persons will be taken in custody, and that they will be sent to prison; that the humble petitioners being wholly destitute of money, cannot employ lawyers, and that they are in constant fear of being taken away from their homes, while their helpless families I will be left to starve, or to be put in the; poor house; that the humble petitioners have never sold the wheat as being any thing other or more than wheat; that they are well assured that there is no law in England forbidding the sale of roasted wheat; that, so far from thinking that they were committing a crime, they thought that they were doing a praiseworthy thing in promoting the use of a nutritious and wholesome beverage, consisting solely of the produce of the land of their own native country; that they believe, that if roasted wheat were used in all families instead of coffee and tea, the consumption of the whole kingdom, at a quarter of a pint a day in each family, would amount in a year to upwards of four millions of bushels of wheat, requiring upwards of two hundred thousand acres of land to grow it on, giving employment to forty or fifty thousand of the now unemployed j and distressed agricultural labourers, and yielding to the owners and cultivators of the land more than two millions of pounds; and that, in using their feeble endeavours in promoting such an object, while they added a little to the food of their almost starving families, they little thought that they were committing a crime against his majesty, for which his attorney general would prosecute them; that the humble petitioners therefore pray the House to be pleased to take their sufferings into their compassionate consideration, and to relieve them from the perils that surround them and their miserable families, by passing an act to remove all doubts respecting their Tight to sell roasted wheat, or to adopt such other measure as shall seem fit to the House."
The petition was ordered to he on the table, and to be printed.