Sitting of 6 April 1814

APPRENTICE LAWS
Mr. H. Davis presented a petition from certain master manufacturers of the city of Bristol, praying that so much of the Act of the 5th of Elizabeth, cap. 4, as inflicted penalties on persons exercising trades to which they had not served regular apprenticeships, should be repealed—Ordered to lie on the table.
Mr. P. Moorepresented a petition from the manufacturers of Coventry, praying that that part of the 5th of Elizabeth, cap 4, which inflicted penalties on persons exercising trades to which they had not served regular apprenticeships, should be rendered efficient. He should merely move "that the petition do lie on the table;" but, before he sat down, he wished to inquire of the learned gentleman (Mr. Serjeant Onslow) who had given notice of his intention to introduce a Bill on the subject, whether he meant, in his proposed measure, to confine himself merely to the repeal of that part of the 5th of Elizabeth which sanctioned those penalties, or to do away with the Act altogether? He also wished to know, whether the learned gentleman intended to push his Bill through the different stages in the present session; or, having introduced it, to let it he over till the next? In his opinion, a committee ought to be appointed, in the first instance, to examine the whole of the petitions that had been presented relative to the 5th of Elizabeth, and also to look into the provisions of that Act.
Mr. Serjeant Onslowsaid, most unquestionably he did not mean to go beyond the terms of his notice, in the measure he should introduce. He had stated, explicitly, the part of the Act that he wished to have repealed, and he had not since altered his determination. With respect to the second point of the hon. gentleman's interrogatory,—"Whether he intended to
424
hurry the Bill through the House" he would answer, that he certainly did not. But the hon. gentleman seemed to forget, that the present period was, virtually, almost the commencement of the session and that very important business was yet to come on. He (serjeant Onslow) undoubtedly did wish to have the sense of the House taken on the Bill before the session terminated. And this, he thought, could be done without any imputation of hurry. In the last session the Treasurer of the Navy (Mr. Rose) had presented a petition from a great number of persons who were desirous that the penalties should be continued; and moved for a committed to investigate the allegations of the petitioners. A committee was granted—it sat from day to day—and the evidence adduced before it was printed. He (serjeant Onslow) inquired of that right hon. gentleman, whether he intended to found any motion on this evidence? And, understanding that he did not, he stated, at the close of the last session, that he would himself submit a motion on the subject. Soon after parliament met, he gave notice of a motion for the 30th of November; but, in consequence of a number of gentleman, who represented large manufacturing districts (particularly the hon. member for Yorkshire) not being then in town, he postponed it till the 22nd of February, and had finally put it off till the 27th of the present month—knowing that a call of the House would take place between that period, which would ensure a full attendance when the proposed measure came to be discussed. That the country was not unprepared for it, was evident from the numerous petitions which had been presented in favour of it. Petitions of that nature had been received from Leeds, Birmingham, Hudddersfield, Bristol, and many other populous neighbourhoods. Several petitions had also been presented against it. How they were procured he did not know; but the language in all of them appeared very nearly the same. With respect to the principal trade carried on by the constituents of the hon. gentleman, it would not be at all affected by the new Bill, because, it was already guarded by a variety of enactments, totally independent of the 5th of Elizabeth.
Mr. P. Mooresaid, it was very true, that his constituents (the freemen of Coventry) were obliged by act of parliament to serve a regular apprenticeship, before

425
they could carry on the business alluded to by the learned gentleman. Now, they were alarmed, lest by the proposed Bill they should be deprived of a right which they had long enjoyed. They therefore were anxious that the Bill should not be hurried through the House.
The petition was ordered to lie on the table.

PETITION FOR LEAVE TO PRESENT A PETITION RESPECTING THE OFFICE OF GAUGER OF LONDON.
A Petition of the court of mayor and aldermen of the city of London was read; setting forth, "That his Majesty's royal predecessor Edward the 4th, king of England, being entitled to the gauging of all wines, oils, and other gaugable commodities, imported for sale into England, by his letters patent under the great seal of England, bearing date at Westminster, the 26th day of June, in the 18th year of his reign, in consideration of 7000 l. released to him by the said mayor and commonalty and citizens, was, amongst other things, graciously pleased to grant to the said mayor and commonalty and citizens the office of ganger within the said city, to have the said office, and the disposition, ordinance, oversight, and correction of the same, together with the fees, profits, and emoluments to the same office due and by use belonging by use and custom to the said mayor and commonalty and citizens and their successors for ever, and also the exercise of the same office, by themselves or their sufficient deputy, which said office has been exercised by the petitioners from the granting of the said letters patent, hitherto to their emolument, and to the great advantage and benefit of the public; and the forfeitures accruing to his Majesty and his predecessors, received by the petitioners or their deputy, in the exercise of such office, have been duly accounted for annually, upon oath, by the gauger and deputy gauger of the city of London, in the court of Exchequer; and that, from the granting of the said letters patent until the completion of the docks and quays authorized and established by the acts of parliament hereinafter mentioned, much the greater part of the gaugeable commodities, imported into the port of London for sale, were landed and brought within the said city and the liberties thereof, by reason whereof the petitioners had the gauging of the same, and the fees, profits, and emoluments arising therefrom; but
426
that an Act passed in the 39th year of the reign of his present Majesty, intituled, "An Act for rendering more commodious, and for better regulating the port of London;" and, by another Act passed in the 39th and 40th year of his Majesty's reign, intituled, "An Act for making wet docks, basons, cuts, and other works, for the greater accommodation and security of shipping, commerce, and revenue within the port of London," the several quays therein mentioned, which are now completed, are made legal quays for the importation and landing of merchandize imported for sale into the said port of London; and almost all the gaugeable commodities imported into the port of London must now, by the respective provisions of the said Acts, necessarily be landed on the said quays respectively, and cannot lawfully be landed elsewhere; and that the said quays are situated out of the local limits of the said city and the liberties thereof; and although the gauge of all gaugeable commodities coming into the port of London, and landed without the actual limits of the city of London and liberties thereof, have, from the date of the said charter down to the completion of the docks constructed by virtue of the above mentioned Acts, been taken by the city gauger on each shore of the river up to upon and beyond the local situation of the said docks, without question or dispute of the city's right of gauge, and although the lord chief justice of his Majesty's court of King's-bench, upon the first trial of the question, decided in favour of the city's right so to gauge under the charter of Edward the 4th, yet, upon a subsequent trial of the question, that court adopted a contrary decision, and adjudged that the petitioners could not, under the said letters patent, legally claim to exercise their said office of gauger on gaugeable commodities there imported and landed, whereby they have lost nearly the whole of the profits of their said office, so purchased by them as aforesaid, for a large pecuniary consideration, and the public have lost the advantage of a gauger legally constituted to gauge and ascertain, an oath, between the buyer and seller, as also an arbiter between the gaugers for the revenue and the merchant, in the measure of the gaugeable commodities so imported and landed at the said quays; and that the consent of the lords commissioners of his Majesty's Treasury to this application was not obtained until within a few

427
days last past; and praying, that leave may be given to present a petition for leave to bring in a Bill to enable his Majesty to grant to the said mayor and commonalty and citizens the officer of gauger at the said docks and quays, and at all legal quays and sufferance wharfs wherein gaugeable commodities may now or hereafter be lawfully landed within the port of London, in like manner as they now hold and exercise the said office within the city of London, or that they may have such other relief as the House shall think just and equitable."
Ordered, That leave be given to present a petition as desired.
The House being informed, That one of the sheriffs of the city of London attended at the door, he was called in, and at the bar presented to the House, a Petition of the court of mayor and aldermen of the city of London:—and then he withdrew.
And the said Petition was read; containing the same allegations as the last preceding petition; and praying, that leave may be given to bring in a Bill for the purposes therein mentioned.
Ordered, That the said petition be referred to a committee, with power to send for persons, papers, and records.

ADJOURNMENT OF THE HOUSE.
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, that as they were then almost on the eve of the holidays, and as there was no business of importance before the House, he did not think there was any necessity for prefacing the motion of adjournment, of which he had given notice on the preceding evening, and which was perfectly in unison with the ordinary proceedings of the House, with any observations. He then moved—"That this House do, on its rising, adjourn to Monday se'nnight."
Mr. Whitbreadfelt it his duty to take notice of the manner in which the right hon. gentleman had proposed his motion. The present, it was true, was a very unusual session; the recesses had already been very long, and they had been proposed at most extraordinary periods. But these were circumstances that could not justify the right hon. gentleman in thinking, that the proposed adjournment was a mere matter of course. It seemed to him, that the right hon. gentleman acted somewhat disrespectfully to the House, in not informing them why they were then called on to adjourn to a period not, in his opinion,
428
very common; because it was by no means unusual for that House, as the right hon. gentleman's parliamentary knowledge must suggest, to meet on the Wednesday in Easter week. Now, he could conceive, that the absence of a noble lord (Castlereagh)—the want of time to arrange the documents received by government—or the expectation of events of great importance (on which he would not offer an observation)—might induce the right hon. gentleman to move an adjournment till Monday se'nnight.—But having, at one time, stated, that the adjournment should take place on Thursday, and having now anticipated that day, it did not appear to him to be quite a matter of course: and, therefore, he called on the right hon. gentleman to assign his reasons for taking this step. It was to him, as a member of parliament, a very unsatisfactory mode of proceeding, although the right hon. gentleman passed it over so lightly and indifferently.
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, he was certainly not conscious of any want of respect for the House, in proposing an adjournment which was usual, and in which the convenience of members was consulted. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Whitbread) had himself assigned a powerful reason, if such were necessary, for the adjournment in question; or even for a longer adjournment, if the interests of the public required it. It had always been, customary at this season of the year to propose such an adjournment as that which he had suggested, unless public business of a paramount nature required the House to meet at an earlier period; and as there was no such inducement for departing from an almost uniform practice, he did not think it was necessary to enter into any particular explanation.
Mr. Whitbreadhad said distinctly; that he did not mean to oppose the adjournment, and had only objected to the manner in which it had been proposed by his Majesty's ministers.

SPIRITS INTERCOURSE.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerrose, in pursuance of notice; to move for the renewal of the committee which sat in 1800, to enquire into the intercourse of spirits between Great Britain and Ireland. Since that committee had been appointed, repeated Acts had been passed to prevent the intercourse between the two countries; and as it now became desirable that the subject should

429
be brought to some arrangement advantageous to both countries, as a preparatory step to that proceeding, he begged leave to move—
"That a committee be appointed to inquire into the regulations which govern the drawbacks and countervailing duties on the importation and exportation of spirits the manufacture of Great Britain or Ireland, from one country to the other respectively; and also what alterations it may be expedient to make in respect of the same, in order to place the intercourse between England and Ireland, and Scotland and Ireland respectively, in the article of spirits, upon those terms of reciprocity which are required under the articles of union between Great Britain and. Ireland; and that they do report their observations and opinion thereupon, from time to time, to the House."
Sir John Newportwas extremely desirous that the committee now proposed to be appointed should examine the question for their consideration fairly, and with a determination to come to some certain regulation upon this important subject; as nothing was so improper as the temporary acts which had been passed, and which were in direct violation of the first principles of the Act of Union. It was extremely impolitic always to be looking solely to the present moment, without paying any regard to futurity. With respect to the motion of the right hon. gentleman, it was not his intention to oppose it; but he did apprehend that the object in view would be attained with more certainty, if the instructions to the committee were not of a nature so general as those contained in the motion. The inconveniencies of such instructions had been fully proved by the result of the deliberations of the last committee, which had never been able to come to any fixed conclusion, in consequence of the variety of matters by which the attention of its members had been distracted. He thought it would be best to confine the attention of the committee solely to the question at issue between the two countries; and with that view, he begged to suggest to the right hon. gentleman the expediency of so wording his motion.
Mr. W. Fitzgeraldsaid, that there was no wish on the part of his Majesty's government, that the committee should direct their attention to any other point than that in which the two countries were particularly interested.
Sir John Newportsaid, that as long as the instructions to the committee were so general, it would be in the power of any member to bring forward the discussion of any collateral branch connected with the spirit intercourse of the two countries.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerhad no wish that the committee should go further than the hon. baronet thought necessary; and had formed his motion merely with a view of letting it be understood that the committee was similar to that appointed on a former occasion.
The question was then put and carried.

POPULATION OF IRELAND.
Sir John Newportwished to be informed, whether there was any reason for omitting to lay before the House, according to the terms of the act of parliament which was passed in a former session, an account of the population of Ireland?
Mr. R. Peelsaid, he was extremely glad the hon. baronet had given him an opportunity of explaining to the House the cause of this omission. The fact was, that returns had been received from the clerk of the peace in Ireland of the nature alluded to; but they were in such an imperfect state, that they were utterly unfit to be laid on the table of the House. Many of the counties had neglected to send in any returns whatever; while others were of so incorrect a nature, that they were wholly unsatisfactory. He had however, since written to the Judges and to the foremen of the grand juries of different counties; and was in hopes that by the next session such returns would be made as would meet the wishes of the House.
Sir J. Newportexpressed himself satisfied with this explanation.

BRITISH MUSEUM.
The House resolved into a committee of supply, to which a Petition of the trustees of the British Museum was referred; when 8,231 l. 11 s. 4d. was voted to the said trustees to carry on the works of the Museum, and a further sum of 1,000 l. to enable them to purchase books to improve the collection of the Museum.
The House having resumed, the report was ordered to be received on Monday se'nnight.
The House then adjourned to Monday, the 18th instant.

CIVIL LIBERTY-IMPRISONMENT ON MESNE PROCESS.
Earl Stanhopesaid, he rose to present four Petitions which he considered of great consequence, because they related to the very important subject of civil liberty. He had, with some degree of astonishment, met with persons who were bold enough to state their objections to political liberty, from whom he completely differed; and he had seen those who were bigots enough to declare their sentiments

419
against religious liberty, from whom also he as widely dissented; but he never yet met with a man who had the audacity to state that he was an enemy to civil liberty. All their lordships must know so much of the laws of their country as justly to appreciate the 29th chapter of Magna Charta, the most precious part of this statute, provided as a bulwark to our English liberties. If their lordships would turn to the chapter he cited, they would find it enacted, that no man should be condemned without trial, that justice should not be sold, denied, or delayed. "My lords," said earl Stanhope, "it is notorious, that justice is sold in this country. I do not mean to say, that it is sold by the judges; but such are the fees and expences to be paid for its administration, that it is impossible for a certain description of the community to become possessed of it; and if the sellers are permitted to put such a price as to exceed the means of purchase among certain classes of his Majesty's subjects, the result will amount to a denial of justice to those who are placed in that situation. With respect to delay, it is not necessary to remind your lordships of what daily comes under our observation. Perhaps that delay may be the effect of necessity; but while it exists, it becomes our serious consideration to provide such means as to rid our laws of injustice so great, and oppression so monstrous." The noble earl stated, that the petitions he referred to complained of the wrongs which arose through the present system of mesne process; which, in consequence of allowing a man to arrest upon the oath he chose to make for the purpose, might render another liable to suffer a long imprisonment, without being in the least in debt; and under the proceedings of mesne process, it might occur that delay would be equal to injustice. Therefore, without considering at present whether the law of imprisonment could or could not be defended, he was prepared to declare, that imprisonment under mesne process could not be justified.
The first petition which he had to present to their lordships, was that of Matthew Baillie Dennett; to which he would request their particular attention, inasmuch as it described the case of a person imprisoned without any just cause of debt, and detained in custody a considerable length of time; that against the hardships of those proceedings he had pleaded by petition, and in other forms; that the petitioner, on every point, had taken the advice of
420
counsel; and all the statements made were according to their opinions of the law upon the subject. The delays complained of in this particular case were certainly unnecessary.
The next was the petition, of Walter J. Baldwin, esq.; in which, the noble lord observed, without wishing to throw the blame upon any manner of men, what was complained of, in being detained after he declaration of the Court, appeared to him to be unjust and contrary to law.
The third petition he was about to present was that of T. Maney, a prisoner for debt in the King's-bench; by the statements in which it appeared, that he discovered, on the part of a person named, certain frauds; in consequence of which he applied to the Thames police magistrates, who, in consequence, sent officers to search the premises of that person; and upon their search, property was said to have been found. That he (the petitioner) was twice arrested, in order to prevent his being examined as a witness; and, that, on the occasion of the second arrest, the person, who had put him in, had informed those who were interested in the trial, that he had gone abroad.
The next petition (his lordship observed) was that of Stephen Eagleton, a person who had been set free under the Act brought in by a noble and learned lord (Ellenborough); after which, however, it was stated, that he was seized by the turnkeys of the King's-bench and dragged into prison; but he was subsequently liberated by them, which was an acknowledgment that they had acted unjustly.
All these four petitions had the same prayer; namely, the abolition of imprisonment for debt on mesne process. It had been said, in the way of objection to such a measure, that it would decrease credit. To this he would observe that the too great increase of credit was one of the greatest curses. He admitted at the same time, that in certain cases, credit was beneficial; nay, advantageous; as in the instances of professional and some other descriptions of men, who may be in need of assistance of the kind. But as the law stood, a man may be imprisoned, where no assistance had been afforded. His main objection was, to the existence of imprisonment without a crime. The power of imprisonment was in some cases in a manner without control; it may be exercised even by one who may take himself away to America afterwards. The system

421
so ill accorded with his feelings upon the subject of civil liberty, that he must say it ought not to continue. As to the petitions referred to, whatever might be the individual opinions of their lordships as to the cases, none could say but that they ought to lie on the table.
The noble earl then regularly presented the petitions, which he begged might be fully read by the clerk. This was accordingly done. The first wais, as above stated, from Matthew Baillie Dennett. The statements of the petition appeared to be of the general tendency described by the noble earl in the coarse of his observations to the House.
The second was from Walter J. Baldwin, esq. as follows:
"To the Lords Spiritual and Temporal of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland in Parliament assembled.
"The respectful Petition of Walter J. Baldwin, esq.
"Sheweth; That under the existing system of imprisonment for debt, your lordships' petitioner was arrested on mesne process, in his bed, on the morning of the 23d March, 1813, and was held in prison till the 11th of March, 1814, a period of upwards of eleven months; for a demand which he was not in any manner bound by law to pay, as has since been proved by a decision of the court of King's-bench in the month of February last.
"That petitioner, as soon as possible after his arrest, applied at judge's chambers, by his attorney, to the chief justice of the court from which process issued, for an order to be discharged from a groundless, unjust, and illegal arrest, but was referred to the court, which did not sit for five weeks after: that in consequence he regained at a look-up-house for those five weeks, when he moved the court by counsel for an order as above, but could not obtain it; and that afterwards, on being served with a false and groundless declaration, he applied again by his attorney to another judge of said court at his chambers, for an order to be discharged, but did not obtain it; so that your lordships will perceive that every thing in petitioner's power was done to endeavour to procure his liberation, but without effect.
"That when the action, on which your petitioner had been so arrested, afterwards
422
came into court to be tried on the 23d of February, 1814, eleven months from petitioner's arrest, the plaintiff was non-suited; and the chief justice of the court, as petitioner has been credibly informed, most expressly declared, that your petitioner ought not to have been held to bail; that is to say, ought not to have been arrested, or held in prison at all, in this cause, as there was no ground of action.
"That, after the non-suit of the plaintiff, your petitioner applied, by his attorney, to a judge of the court in which the action was instituted, for an order for his discharge; but although he had already had, as aforesaid, the decision of the court in his favour, he could not obtain it, but was referred to the chief justice of the said court, who did not come to his chambers for many days after: that, on the said chief justice's coming to his chambers, your petitioner again applied for an order, as aforesaid, for his discharge, but was again referred to a future day; and, that on the future day appointed, your petitioner, a third time, applied for said order, and obtained it. Your petitioner, therefore, as your lordships are requested to observe, was thus by means of a most groundless, vexatious, and harassing course of proceedings, held in prison, contrary to law, for eleven months previous to the decision of the court in his favour as aforesaid, and was even subsequently to the said decision in his favour, further kept in prison for upwards of a fortnight, from the said 23d of February to the 11th of March following, although the court had expressly decided that there was no ground whatsoever for arresting him or holding him in custody on the said cause of action.
"Wherefore your petitioner most respectfully implores your lordships, from your regard for the rights and liberties of your fellow-subjects, and by the real prosperity and best interests of your country, to take such measures as to your wisdom shall seem meet, totally to abolish the practice of imprisonment for debt, at least on mesne process, under which such groundless and harassing oppression may be visited on the most innocent most virtuous, and most worthy member of the community; and the abolition of which would be in no way injurious to the fair creditor, but would on the contrary be equally beneficial to him, the debtor, and the country at large.—And petitioner will ever pray;
"WALTER J. BALDWIN"
The third petition was from Timothy Maney, to the effect and tendency described by the noble earl; and the fourth, from Stephen Eagleton, in the like manner.
The petitions being read, they were severally, on the motions of earl Stanhope, ordered to lie on the table.
The House then, on the motion of the earl of Liverpool, adjourned (for the Easter recess) until Tuesday the 19th.