Commons Sitting of 28 March 1822

ILCHESTER GAOL—PETITION FROM BETHNAL GREEN.
Sir R. Wilsonpresented a petition from the inhabitants of Bethnal-green, praying for a remission of the sentence on Mr. Hunt. The petition had been signed by a thousand inhabitants in the course of a few hours. It complained of the aggravated treatment which Mr. Hunt had received in violation of the directions of the judge, and it stated the great service which Mr. Hunt had conferred on the country by detecting the abuses which existed in the gaol of Ilchester. It commented severely on the conduct of a certain clerical magistrate; and certainly, if the charges brought against that magistrate were well founded, he appeared to be a most rigid disciplinarian, and one who attended but little to the precepts of the religion which he professed to teach. There was one paragraph in the petition, which would probably call forth some observation. In that paragraph a distinction was taken between two classes of members in that House, which, he believed, was sufficiently well ascertained and understood in the country. It was well known that House was composed of two descriptions of members; one class nominated by their constituents, and who represented the people; the other sent there to represent individuals and particular private interests—one class who were free agents; the other, who were the organs of the will of others—one class, who really attended to the debates in that House, and whose minds were capable of being influenced by reason and argument; the other class, whose previous engagements rendered it unnecessary for them to apply their minds to the subject under discussion. The following was the paragraph of the petition to which he alluded:—"Your petitioners disclaim any the least intention to insult your honourable House, by any remarks they may make upon its character, which they wish to see pure and unblemished in public opinion; but
1370
they canoot help observing, that when it has been stated in the public prints, that the purchase of seats in your honourable House, which should only be obtained through the free and unbiassed voice the people, 'is as notorious as the sun at noon-day;' when they see it stated by these prints, that a cabinet minister openly avowed the necessity of having useless places to confer upon members of your honourable House, in order that government might have sufficient influence to carry any ministerial question in your honourable House, which was originally designed to be a check upon the government: when your petitioners see it stated in "the New Times" paper of the 11th of February last, that a Mr. Spooner asserted at a public meeting at Worcester, that 'he had been in parliament but a very short time, still an opportunity had been afforded him of seeing how the majorities of ministers were constituted. That boys were sent into parliament, who came solely, to vote according to the dictation of ministers, and never heard a single iota of the merits of the question on which they were to decide. That he had seen the most important question agitated, the presence of sixty or eighty members, till the, period of division approached—when swarms were suddenly collected from coffee-houses, theatres, or balls, who only looked on which side stood the marquis of Londonderry, and on which side Mr. Tierney, in order to determine their votes.' When your petitioners see such statements made repeatedly in the public papers, without meeting the least contradiction, and the publishers remain unpunished, while Mr. Hunt is languishing and suffering in a pestilential gaol, for publicly expressing his opinion that such abuses ought to be removed; they cannot help thinking that shallow must be the mind, or blind the interest of that man, who does not see the necessity of an immediate remedy for the abuses which have crept into the institutions of the country, in order to preserve them from destruction."—He could, not say whether this paragraph would, or would not, be considered to be properly worded; but, leaving the House to decide that point, he would move, that the petition be now brought up. [Cries of "No, no."]
Mr. Dickinsonexpressed his disapprobation of the terms in which the petition was conceived. They were highly disrespectful, and it was not true that "boys"

1371
were brought into parliament as members.
On the question that the. petition be brought up, the House divided: Ayes 17 Noes 67.

List of the Minority.

Bernal, R.

Price, R.

Calvert, N.

Rice, S.

Duncannon, lord

Ricardo, D.

Hobhouse, J. C.

Ridley, sir M.

Hume, Joseph

Sykes, D.

Kennedy, T. F.

Tennyson, C.

Lennard, T. B.

Wood, alderman

Newport, Sir J.

TELLERS.

Normanby, lord

Bennet, hon. G.

Palmer, C. F.

Wilson, sir R.

REFORM OF PARLIAMENT—PETITION FROM MONMOUTH.
Mr. Humesaid he had a petition to present for a reform of parliament, from the Mayor, and Commonalty of Monmouth; but after the extraordinary course which the House had pursued with respect to the last petition, he did not well know what to do with it. It was the right of the people to call for a reform of parliament, and he would say, that the circumstance which had just occurred sheaved the necessity of that reform. To reject a petition without hearing it read, was contrary to the just rights and privileges of the people. Reform might be put off by temporary expedients, but it could not be defeated; the principle was working and would ultimately triumph. He could not but consider it a marked insult on the people, to dismiss their petition even without hearing it read.
The Speakersaid, that the House could not suffer persons outside the walls of parliament to cast improper reflections upon it. Inside these walls he was sure that hon. gentlemen would speak of its proceedings with decency.
Mr. Humesaid, he had always understood, that it was the right of the people to petition parliament; but be never heard before that it was the right of parliament to reject their petitions. They were bound to hear them read; and then, if any thing appeared to be inadmissible, they might reject them. He had not heard a single improper word in that part of the petition from Bethnall-green which had been read by the gallant officer. It contained truths, though they might be unpalatable ones. In the petition which he now held in his hand, the petitioners humbly set forth that they considered a reform of parliament absolutely necessary for the salvation of the country; and they prayed that it might be speedily effected.
Lord G. Somersetsaid, that the petition was by no means signed by the most respectable inhabitants of the town of Monmouth: he could not look upon it as a petition coming from the commonalty of that town; he did not see, that it contained any objectionable passages, however he might differ from the sentiments it contained.
Mr. W. Courtenayseconded the bringing up of this petition, for the sake of pointing out the great difference between it and that which the House had just rejected. It was said that the House had rejected a petition without hearing its language; but he would appeal to the gallant officer, whether, in the passage which he had read, it was not his meaning to call the attention of the House to the language? He did conceive, that those who contended for the unlimited admission of petitions, whatever the language might be in which they were couched, were, in truth, the most formidable enemies of the sacred right of petition. He valued the right of petition as much as the hon. member for Aberdeen could do; but he thought that hon. gentleman was quite wrong in saying that the House had no right to reject petitions, numerous instances having occurred within his own memory, in which such a right had been exercised.
Mr. G. Bennetcould not go the length of saying, that there was no petition, whatever its language might be, but what the House was bound to receive. The question then was, whether the petition presented by his gallant friend had come before them with a fair case made out, and a statement of grievances, for the purpose of obtaining redress; or whether it was conceived in language that was insulting to the House? This was the only test by which to try any petition; and. the result of its application in this instance was, that the petitioners had a fair case, and had properly stated their grievances. They began by disclaiming all intention of insult, and they alluded to a declaration (that the sale of seats was as notorious as the sun at noon-day) which most undoubtedly had been made in that House by no less a person than the late Mr. Ponsonby. If any one could doubt the fact for a moment, he would take upon himself to prove it at the bar of the House in less than ten minutes. Besides, the petitioners did not state a case, as if it was put on their own authority; but they stated it,

1373
as they had seen it in the public newspapers; and added, that they conceived it to be a libel on parliament. The gentleman alluded to (Mr. Spooner), while he was in the House, seldom favoured opposition with a single vote; but was generally to be found in the crowded ranks on the other side. His declaration, therefore, was rather a curious one. No doubt he could tell the House a few secrets connected with its own history; and so could an hon. gentleman opposite, (Mr. Wynn), who was secretary to the Treasury under the administration of lord Grenville. He himself (Mr. Bennet) did happen to know a little about the constitution of that House in 1806, which, if he were to repeat, would be found not less curious than the declaration of Mr. Spooner. He thought it was most impolitic to reject petitions connected with the subject of reform, unless under very peculiar circumstances; for the House ought always to remember the declaration of the great lord Chatham—that if it was not speedily reformed from within, it would be reformed with a vengeance from without.
Sir J. Newportsaid, it very often happened that hon. gentlemen presented to that House, petitions, containing sentiments in which they themselves did not concur. Now, if the principle that had been that evening laid down was to be acted upon, the consequence would be, that any member so circumstanced would have nothing to do but to select some strong passage from the petition, and describe it in his speech as being objectionable, to ensure the rejection of the petition. He, therefore, did mean to contend, that the House ought never to exercise this strong power of rejection, until after it should have heard the petition read. It was on these grounds that he had supported the reading of the petition lately rejected.
Mr. Dickinsonre-stated his objections to the petition which had been rejected. It was affirmed in the body of it, that "boys" were brought into parliament to vote. Now, this was not fact. By the term "boys," an indifferent person would naturally suppose, that striplings under age were intended. Every hon. gentleman well knew that the youngest members of that House were between 21 and 25; and that of these, there were very few. He believed there was but one instance, in which an individual had been admitted to sit in that House, being under the age prescribed by law. He alluded to the
1374
case of Mr. Fox; and it was remarkable, that even Mr. Fox, though he had spoken before he attained this legal age, never once voted till after he had completed it.
Sir M. W. Ridleysaid, he was the last man to support any petition that might seem to convey any thing like an insult upon the House. In the case before them, however, the petitioners made no direct allegation. They merely affirmed, that such a report had gone abroad. In his opinion, the House would neglect its duty, if it persevered in rejecting petitions without hearing them read.
Mr. Humebegged to correct the misstatement of a noble lord who had said that this petition was not signed by the majority of the commonalty of Monmouth. Though the names of the noble lord's friends and supporters might not appear at the foot of it, it certainly was subscribed by the majority.
Lord G. Somersetcontended that information was as good as that, of the hon. gentleman, and if it were correct the majority of the burgesses had not signed the petition.
Ordered to lie on the table.

MIDDLESEX COUNTY COURT.
Mr. Lennardsaid, he had to call the attention of the House to a subject of considerable importance to the working classes of the county of. Middlesex. By the 23rd Geo. 2nd the county court of Middlesex was constituted in its present form. The object of the court was, to facilitate the recovery of small debts not exceeding 40 s. The county clerk was the judge, and it was necessary he should be a barrister of ten years standing. Accounts had been presented to the House of the number of causes and fees paid. In the hundred of Ossulston, which comprehended the metropolis alone, nearly 17,000 causes were tried on an average of years, and in- the last year nearly 18,000. The court sat one day a week in the hundred of Ossulston; one day a week in the Hundred of Enfield; and one day a week in the Hundred of Isleworth. In point of fact, however, the court sat twice a week in London; but even this increased number of sittings he was prepared to shew was insufficient. As 18,000 causes were tried in a year, 180 causes would be to be tried every day of the sitting of the court; but frequently 210 to 220 causes were tried in a day. Among these, some questions of intricacy arose, and the examination of

1375
witnesses was required. The process of the court was this. The plaintiff suing for a debt took out a summons, which he served, and attended with the defendant on the next court day, at nine o'clock. From the quantity of the business before the court, he had often to wait till nine in the evening. The object of the constitutional government of England being the easy, expeditious and cheap administration of justice, he was assured that if a committee were appointed he could prove that the county courts of Middlesex should be more frequently held, and that every practicable reduction should be made in the trouble as well as in the expences attendant upon suitors in those courts. He was willing to bear testimony to the merits of the present clerk of the county; but when it was recollected that he had usually between 16 and 17,000 causes to try in these courts within the year, upon each of which he received a 3 shilling fee, and that consequently his salary was nearly equal to 2,000 l. a year, it could not be deemed unreasonable to call upon this officer for the devotion of more of his time to the discharge of the duties of the court. Upon executions from this court the sum of 3s. 4d. was granted, and if the execution were. not levied, this sum remained in the hands of the clerk of the court. He also understood that certain sums were paid for the postponement of causes in this court, while plaintiffs, from frequent delays, had often to go to the court five times before their causes were decided; so that supposing a plaintiff resided at Turnham-green, he might have 80 miles to travel back and forward to the court at Red Lion-street, before he obtained payment of a debt of 10 s. But what, he wished to know, became of all these sums? In the aggregate, he understood they generally amounted to about 10,000 l.; and was it right that such a sum should be vested in the hands of the clerk of the county, in addition to the several sums paid by instalments upon debts which were never ultimately discharged. For this sum, or for the amount of the unclaimed dividends upon it, the late clerk of the court, who held that office no less than twenty-five years, was never called upon to account. Another fault belonging to this county court was, that only one day in the week (Friday) was appointed for the payment of the claims of plaintiffs, and such plaintiffs as could not attend between ten and two
1376
o'clock on that day, were obliged to call again. This he considered as a very serious evil; and were a committee appointed he had no doubt he should be able to shew that this court should be opened every day for the purpose which he had stated. The hon. member concluded with moving for the reference of the papers laid before the House with respect to the administration of justice in the county court of Middlesex, to a committee of that House, with a view to inquire whether the amount of fees paid, may riot be diminished, and whether it may not be expedient, for the county clerk to sit oftener in each week in the Hundred of Ossulston and to increase the number of sittings in the other Hundreds where the court now sits."
Mr. Bernalsaid, there was no proof or allegation before the House, that there had been any delay or denial of justice in the court alluded to. There had been no complaint preferred by any suitor that justice had been mal-administered, and in the absence of any such complaint why should a motion be adopted that would impeach the character of the present county clerk, whose character was highly respectable? This county clerk (Mr. Heath) had, it was said, a salary of from 1500 l. to 2000 l. a year; but then it should be known, that he had lately purchased from his own funds the scite of premises for the accommodation of the court in Kingsgate-street, Holborn, for no less than 2000 l. The county clerk had also abandoned his practice in the court of King's-bench, as well as upon the home circuit, in order to devote his time to the business of his own court. As the motion of his hon. friend was not founded upon any allegation of necessity from the parties more immediately interested, or from any distinct complaint, or from any petition from the homage jury of the county; he could by no means support it.
Mr. Bennetsaid, it was impossible, from the very showing of the officer himself, that substantial justice could be done to the suitors in this court. It appeared that the court sat two days in the week, to try causes which averaged 17,000 in the course of the year, and which, including summonses, amounted to about 200 cases for each day of sitting. The commissioner might be a very intelligent person, and extremely anxious to do his duty, but the return plainly proved that the business of the court could not be performed in that

1377
speedy manner which the legislature contemplated. He should like to hear the history of this situation. He should be glad to learn, whether it was a situation that might be bought and sold—whether its present possessor had not, in fact, purchased it? It surely ought not to be bought and sold. The sheriffs ought not to be allowed to put thousands in their pockets by such means. This, was a most objectionable system, for in proportion to the magnitude of the sum given for the office, the amount of fees was likely to be regulated. The best way of bringing the business under the consideration of parliament, would be, by introducing a bill for the regulation of the court. There was, it appeared, something like a jury connected with the court; but never was the term, jury, more completely misapplied. There was, in fact, not half a jury. Three or four persons were placed in a corner, who had more the appearance of convicts than of jurymen —who were more like men about to receive punishment, than individuals called on to decide causes.
The Solicitor-Generalconsidered this motion as irregular. No petition had been presented, imputing any misconduct to the judge, impugning the conduct of the subordinate officer, or stating that there had been any denial of justice in this court. The hon. gentleman had not, therefore, made out any parliamentary ground for inquiry. The hon. member for Shrewsbury had stated, that the jurymen were selected from a class of persons who were not fit to sit on Juries. He was inclined to think that the hon. member had been misinformed; for, by the act of parliament, the juries in this court were selected from the same class of persons as decided on cases in Westminster-hall. By the same act it was provided, if any misconduct appeared in the proceedings of this court, that two of his majesty's chief justices should have the liberty of investigating the matter complained of, and of remedying the evil where the complaint appeared to be well founded. The constitution of this court had been selected by Mr. Justice Blackstone, as the subject of particular praise. The largeness of the fees demanded was complained of. Now, one of the reasons which induced Mr. Justice Blackstone to praise the constitution of the court, was the moderate rate of the fees? If greater fees were demanded than the act autho-
1378
rized, why had not application been made to the two chief justices? With respect to the commissioner not sitting a greater number of days than he now did, it was the duty of that officer to sit as many days as the business of the court required, and he found that two days were amply sufficient for the purpose. It was a well-known fact, that the individual in question had never retired from court while a single cause remained unheard. The hon. member said, that suitors were obliged to remain in the court, from 9 o'clock until the evening. Here again he was mistaken. The causes were divided into two classes, and two different portions of the day were allotted for their decision. The hon. Member had also stated, that 180 causes were on an average decided on each sitting day. The average was really, according to the return, about 160; and more than one-half of that number were, in general, undefended; so that 80 substantial causes were left for decision. Even of these a considerable portion occupied very little time, the plea of` the defendant being poverty, and his request that time should be allowed for payment. The number of causes left for decision, when these deductions were made, amounted at the outside, to not more than 30 or 40. As to the amount of the profits derived from this situation, it appeared that the commissioner received 2s. 6d. on each cause, or about 2,000 l. a-year. The question then was, what expenses he had to sustain? He had, in the first place, to pay rent for the court-house, and it appeared that he had actually given 2,000 l. for certain leasehold premises with a view to it. To support the officers of the court, he paid 300 l. or 400 l. a-year. The salary, therefore, which he received for a laborious and painful duty, vas not more than 1,500 l. a-year. By the act, two days in the week were required for hearing cases. But for the convenience of the public, though the act did not require it, the other four days were employed in payments into court, and out of court. It was impossible that the party to whom payment was awarded should take measures to recover it. Payments were, therefore, made into court for two days, and two other days were allowed for paving out the money. Two or three persons were thus occupied in paying out 30,000 l. a-year, in shillings and half-crowns. He was unwilling to accede to this motion,

1379
because he thought the management of the court deserved imitation, and because the gentleman who presided, had acted with the greatest skill, care, and integrity.
Mr. Lennardsaid, that nothing was further from his intention than to cast any imputation upon the gentleman who now held the office in question. But if the House granted him a committee, he pledged himself to prove the charges which he had made against the office generally.
The motion was then put, and negatived.

ARMY ESTIMATES.
The report of the Army Estimates were brought up. On the motion for agreeing to the resolution, "That 13,662 l. be granted for the Royal Military College,"
Mr. Humeobjected to a grant to that amount. The mere salaries of officers at this College exceeded 6,000 l. a year. This was for the superintendence of 290 students. He could not see what necessity there was for a governor at 1,500 l. a year, a lieutenant-governor at 1,095 l., a major, at 351 l., four, captains 1,095 l., and various other expensive appointments. He moved to reduce the vote 3,422 l., which would leave it at 10,240 l.
Mr. F. Palmertreated the College as an excrescence, which, if it would not yield to mild applications, must be attacked in the way of radical cure. It was impossible for the country, distressed as it was, to support the charge of such an establishment.
Sir H. Hardingeobserved, that the hon. member had made a most erroneous statement with respect to the cadets educated at the Military College. He had stated the whole number in the college, since the peace, to be 1,764. Now, in this the hon. member made a mistake of not less than from 1,200 to 1,300. The hon. member's peculiar and felicitous mode of calculation was this—he took the number of cadets in the college, for each year of the five or six years, and he added them up, giving the sum total as the number of cadets in the college for that time. Nothing could be more erroneous, and the hon. member should have known, before he made this statement, that more than one year was necessary for completing the education of a cadet; that it took four years, and therefore, in adding together the numbers in every year, the hon.
1380
member was counting the same cadets over and over again. [Hear.] Instead of the 1,764 cadets, in the time alluded to, the whole number did not much exceed 450. Thus, the hon. member proceeded in the same way, as if he were to calculate the number of members in the House of Commons, upon the novel and ingenious principle, that because there are now 658 members, at the end of five years there must be 3,290. Now such statements, whatever little impression they might make in that House, where the error could be detected, were yet not harmless, as they went forth to the public, and created an improper feeling as to the manner in which the army was regulated. Another statement of the hon. member was this—that cadets, the orphans of deceased officers, were frequently set aside, to make room for others who had more interest. Now he could assert positively, that this statement was unfounded in fact; and he would again say that such assertions were calculated to do harm, as it conveyed an impression of undue preference at the office of the commander-in-chief. He could state to the House, that it was impossible a cadet should be set aside when he had passed his examination. He (sir H. Hardinge) was present at one of those examinations, and one cadet passed a very excellent examination. A young nobleman (lord Falkland) was third or fourth on that occasion. Now, so little was interest consulted, that the cadet who had answered so remarkably well was taken, and put at the head of the list that he might have his commission as soon as possible. This young gentleman was the son of a captain Adams, of the veteran battalion, who was not known to the commander-in-chief, and who had no interest whatever. He stated this circumstance to show the impartiality which was observed at the college.
Mr. Humesaid, he would restate his facts, and maintain their correctness, viz. that in the five years, 1816 to 1820 inclusive, there had been each year from 412 to 290 cadets educated at the public expense—at an expense of 115,280 l.; and in the same time only 160 of these cadets had received commissions, and been admitted into the army, making the expense 720 l. for the education of every one of those 160 cadets. As there have been 44 cadets admitted from the college into the army in 1821, the expense of the col-

1381
lege in that year was 18,730 l., making the expense of each of those 44, a sum of 425 l. to the country. Again he asked, ought the country inns present distressed state, to be put to this expense, for the education of 290 youths, when commissions could be given only to a part? The reduction which he proposed would leave sufficient to defray the expense of military officers, to keep order in the establishment.
The committee divided: For the amendment 15. Against it 35.

List of the Minority.

Barrett, S. M.

Newport, sir J.

Blake, sir F.

Price, Robt.

Crespigny, sir W.

Rice, S.

Davies, col.

Smith, W.

Hobhouse, J. C.

Western, C.

Leonard, T. B.

Whitbread, S.

Lushington, Dr.

TELLERS.

Martin, J.

Hume, J.

Maxwell, J.

Palmer, C. F.

The several resolutions were agreed to by the House.