§ Lord A. Hamiltonrose to present a petition from Mr. James Turner, a respectable person, who had resided for twenty-two years in Glasgow, carrying on the trade of a tobacconist. The petitioner complained, that he had been arrested on a charge of high treason, and had never been brought to trial, or received any compensation. The petitioner did not mean pecuniary compensation, for he was far above accepting any such; but he complained that his character had not been cleared by an acknowledgment that he was innocent of the charges for which he had suffered. He stated, that on the 9th of April, 1820, he was awoke in the night-time by officers, who entered his house with a warrant to search for papers and arms: he was taken immediately to the police-office, and was marched from thence, guarded by a file of soldiers; to the common Bridewell, where he was locked up in a solitary cell with a stone floor, and denied the use of writing ma- 485 terials, as if lie had been the worst of felons. On the 14th, he was brought up from his cell to be re-examined, and was then told that he might be admitted to bail. Now he (lord A. H.) had always understood that high treason was not a bailable offence, and therefore he was at a loss to comprehend why that charge had been alleged against the petitioner, unless it was to afford a pretext for the cruelty with which he was treated. The object of the petitioner in making this appeal to the House was, to clear his character, which he had not been allowed to do by a trial in a court of law. He had therefore to assert that Mr. Turner was innocent of the crime with which he had been charged, and he hoped the lord advocate would feel himself called on to make this admission, which was the only reparation that the petitioner demanded, and to which he was entitled on every principle of justice. If the learned lord did not make a distinct avowal of his innocence, he should trouble the House still farther on the subject.
The Lord Advocatecould not avoid calling the attention of the House to the time at which this complaint made its appearance: this transaction took place in April 1820, and eleven months had been allowed to pass before the present petition was put into the hands of the noble lord. During all that time the doors of the courts in Scotland had been open to the petitioner, if he thought himself aggrieved. This House had also been open to him; and if the petitioner had suffered the injury which he alleged, he owed it to himself to bring forward his demand for redress at an earlier period. As far as regarded himself—and he was the only party responsible—he was not bound to produce the grounds on which the charge of high treason had been made against this individual. But supposing that there were even no grounds at all, he was prepared to contend, that the petitioner should have called for redress in a court of law, where the lord advocate's mouth would have been open. He contended, that he had the best grounds for causing the apprehension of the prisoner, and denied that he was treated with harshness and severity; on the contrary, he was taken to the Bridewell instead of the prison of Glasgow through lenity, as there were then about one hundred culprits in the prison, and in Bridewell he had every accommodation which it was proper to 486 allow. He added, that it was very extraordinary, while the petitioner complained of harsh treatment, a complaint was also made that he was admitted to bail, although the offence with which he stood charged was high treason. The reason why he was not brought to trial was an insufficiency of evidence, like what had happened in many other instances lately in England. If, however, the petitioner would bring the case into a court of law, he would prove that he had sufficient cause for acting as he had done, and would show that his depute had not only done his duty, but that if he had not detained him, he would have been guilty of gross misdemeanor. On the whole, he insisted that the petitioner had been justly arrested, and afterwards treated with humanity.
Mr. Maxwellobserved, that though he agreed that the case of the petitioner was not so severe as he had first supposed, yet he thought it was more severe than ft ought to have been. The reason why the petitioner had not brought his action was, his conviction (whether right or wrong) that he could not obtain justice in a court in Scotland against the lord-advocate. The charges against the whole of the persons arrested on the occasion alluded to were similar in their nature to those against the Spa-fields rioters. It turned out that the accused was only guilty of a riot. He was sorry that the learned lord had not taken example by what had occurred on that occasion.
§ Mr. Monteithrelated the circumstances which had given rise to the apprehension of the petitioner, and observed, that the Bridewell in which he had been confined having been cleared of its usual inmates, was more comfortable than the gaol. Such a variety of information, some good, some bad, was laid before the magistrates, against individuals engaged in the riots in question, that it was surprising that more had not been apprehended. ts
§ Mr. Humehad not heard the learned lord say, that the deposition on which the petitioner had been apprehended, was on oath. If it was not, what could warrant such an infringement of the rights of the subject?
The Lord Advocatereplied, that that was not the practice of the law of Scotland. The public prosecutor proceeded on the information which he received, and was of course responsible for his acts.
§ Mr. Humeappealed to the House whe- 487 ther it was to be borne that the rights and liberties of Scotsmen should be divested of those shields which the law had provided for Englishmen. It was deplorable to think, that any Scotsman could be dragged from his home and family, perhaps upon false testimony, and without the previous security of an oath to justify his detention. This was to be done, too, upon the mere responsiblity of an official person, and upon information of any kind. If any thing more than another called for a committee to inquire into the allegations of this petition, it was the avowal of authority just made by the learned lord [Hear, hear]. No man was safe under such a power. He (Mr. Hume) might himself, on going down to Scotland, fall tinder the lash of some official person, and be cast into prison, without ceremony, for the remainder of the session. If this was the law of Scotland, it would not be safe for him to pay a visit to his native country.
§ Ordered to lie on the table.