HC Deb 11 May 1824 vol 11 cc643-7
Mr. J. Williams

said, he rose to present a petition from an individual of the name of Joseph Swann, who was, he believed, the solitary remaining prisoner of those persons who were incarcerated and prosecuted in the year 1819. It was, though it had escaped his recollection, his lot to have prosecuted that individual. From the time that had elapsed, it was not to be wondered at that the circumstance had escaped his recollection. It appeared from the petition, that Mr. Swann had been a mechanic and artizan, residing at Macclesfield. In consequence of the very great distress that at that period prevailed throughout the manufacturing districts, the petitioner was compelled to change his means of exertion, and he became a vender of books and pamphlets. He was apprehended on the 21st of August, 1819, on a charge of selling blasphemous publications, and was detained in close custody till October, a period of eight weeks. Having been then discharged upon bail, he was a second time apprehended, on the 28th of December following, and detained at Middlewich to the January following. The petitioner stated, that during that latter period, he was chained with other prisoners. Without resting on the allegations of the petitioner, he (Mr. W.), reflecting on the temper of those times, believed there was reason to fear, that per- sons thus circumstanced were exposed to the extreme of rigour and violence. He was at length tried and convicted on three indictments: two for blasphemy, and the third for attending a meeting at Macclesfield. For the purpose of convening that meeting he had signed the requisition; but he stated positively, that at said meeting he never uttered a word. Whatever was seditious was expressed through the medium of a person of the name of Buckley, who was also indicted with the petitioner. And yet, strange to say, that man, Buckley—the principal in the proceedings of that meeting, who was "the very head and front" of the imputed offence—though indicted, had never been brought to trial to that hour, although at sundry times he had been subsequently seen at large, at and in the vicinity of Macclesfield. It was impossible to explain how it was, that the principal offender should be at large, and the accessary should be thus rigorously punished. It was at least undeniable, that a punishment, which, for the three charges, comprehended an imprisonment of four years and three quarters, was a punishment carried to as great an extent of severity as perhaps was exemplified in the history of political offences. For his part, though engaged in the prosecution, he had nothing to do with the originating of the proceedings, and was not at all responsible for the rigour or extent of the punishment; the sum and quantum of which would speak for itself. Indeed when one considered its duration, it was impossible not to feel that it was marked with severity. At all events, there was, under existing circumstances, sufficient to induce his majesty's government to reconsider its continuance and duration. Could it be forgotten, that at that moment, very generally throughout the country, and particularly in those districts, a series of distress and pressure prevailed; which those who suffered under it would impute, not to the inflictions of fortune, but to the errors of government. The right hon.! secretary for the home department did, no doubt, feel, that that season of suffering and discontent had passed away; and there-fore he trusted, that he had only to remind the right hon. gentleman that the petitioner was the solitary remanet of those political offenders of that season now lingering in a prison. It could not be forgotten, that when the chancellor of the Exchequer made his financial exposition, he congra- tulated parliament and the country on the restoration of order, subordination, and constitutional obedience. But, if such punishments were the remedies for particular disorders, was it wise, was it prudent, was it humane, to continue them, when those disorders had happily disappeared? He put it to his majesty's government to take into their consideration all the circumstances of the petitioner's case. A few months longer, and his imprisonment would be brought to a close, with those feelings in the public mind which usually accompanied excessive and disproportionate punishment; namely, a turning away of all disapprobation of the offence, and the conversion of a culprit into a martyr.

Mr. James

observed, that for the severe punishment which this individual had experienced, and which arose out of the political agitations of 1819, the magistrates were deeply responsible. It was unwarrantable, and could scarcely be paralleled in the history of political persecution. The petitioner was innocent of all criminal acts. He had merely attended a public meeting, where he did not utter a syllable; but a Mr. Buckley made what was called an inflammatory speech. To shew that the magistrates were ashamed of what had been done, they had for twelve months been inducing the gaoler to endeavour to persuade Swann to petition for a remission of his sentence. He had not thought proper to comply with their wish. and was prepared to suffer the extent of his punishment, in order to afford a specimen of the severity with which an individual might be treated under a free government, which was said to be "the envy of surrounding nations, and the admiration of the world."

Mr. Secretary Peel

observed, that the learned gentleman who presented the petition had mentioned the subject to him only yesterday, when he (Mr. Peel) had observed, that as it related to circumstances which occurred two years before he was in office, he could of course have no knowledge respecting it; that therefore, if the learned gentleman presented the petition this day, he (Mr. P.) could not obtain any information as to those circumstances; but that if the learned gentleman postponed presenting the petition, he would obtain every necessary explanation. As the matter stood, the allegations in the petition were merely those of the petitioner himself; and it was singu- lar, that nearly four years should have elapsed before he had made any such complaint. With respect to the severity of the punishment, he begged to say a few words. Of course, all appeals to parliament against the exercise of the prerogative of the Crown, in withholding mercy from offenders, were appeals against the secretary of state for the home department, whose duty it was to advise the Crown in such matters. Now, he readily allowed that he had not advised his majesty to remit the punishment of the individual in question; nor was it his intention so to advise his majesty, No fine had been inflicted on the petitioner. On finding securities for his good behaviour, he would be liberated at the expiration of the term to which he had been sentenced by the law, and it was not his intention to advise his majesty to shorten that term. The petitioner had been tried on five indictments. On three of those indictments he had been convicted. He had not erred without sufficient warning of the probable consequences of his offence; but he was one of many who were at that time deeply engaged in the infamous traffic in seditious and blasphemous publications. His father resided at Stockport, and sold such publications, and his son was sent to Macclesfield for the same purpose. He had compelled his wife to embark in the same traffic. On the whole, therefore, after the warning which the petitioner had received, he did not conceive that it was too severe an infliction. As to the charge of sedition, he would refer to the learned gentleman's own address to the jury, in which the learned gentleman maintained, that the publication on which the prisoner was charged was calculated "to stir the people up to a contempt of his majesty's government." The learned gentleman had also observed, that they spoke too of a convention—a term borrowed from the worst times of the French Revolution." It ought also not to be forgotten, that the conduct of the petitioner while in the court had been offensive in the extreme. He had insulted the bench, and held up his white hat, which was at that time the symbol of the party by whom the tranquillity of the country was menaced. All these circumstances combined to shew the impropriety of extending mercy to such an individual.

Mr. Hume

observed, that the petitioner did not ask for mercy. That he was above doing. What he complained of was the injustice of his sentence. It was, indeed, such a sentence as was seldom witnessed in this country. A blasphemous libel! What was a blasphemous libel? Was that to be determined by the opinion of the magistrates of Lancaster? Up to the present moment, the petitioner knew nothing of the contents of the work, which he was charged with publishing. Under such circumstances, even to prosecute dial was an act of cruelty. The petitioner had not excited the people to insurrection. He had never opened his mouth. Under such circumstances, the punishment inflicted upon him was unprecedented. To add to its severity, he had, in the first instance, been confined in one of the condemned cells, and fed on bread and water, and then removed to the felons' ward, clothed in a felon's dress, and denied the use of pen and ink, and the sight of his wife, who was in a dangerous state of health. There was nothing in the circumstances of the prisoner's case which warranted such barbarous proceedings. Nor was it just, that such individuals as Trafford Trafford should sit in judgment on a case in which they had themselves taken so active a part.

Mr. Sykes

expressed his hope that at least, considering the severity of the sentence in other respects, the petitioner would not be called upon for sureties.

Ordered to lie on the table.