Sitting of 3 June 1817

Preamble
The Deputy Usher of the black rod appeared at the bar, and commanded the attendance of the Commons in the House of Peers, to hear the royal Commission read. The new Speaker accordingly went forth, attended by a considerable number of members. On his return,
The Speakeraddressed the House as follows:—" I have to acquaint the House, that this House has been in the House of Peers and heard the commission read by his majesty's commissioners, and that his Royal Highness, acting on behalf of his majesty, had been graciously pleased to signify, through those commissioners, that he approved of the person whom they had elected as their Speaker. I trust I may be permitted, on this occasion, to avail myself of the opportunity once more to assure the House how deeply sensible I am of the honour its members have bestowed on me, by electing me to a situation so highly honourable to him upon whom it may devolve. For the incalculable favour they have thus bestowed upon me, and the confidence with which they have honoured me, I feel those sentiments of gratitude which it is not in my power to express. I am conscious, but too conscious, I shall have often to appeal to their indulgence; and for that indulgence I am assured, that so long as I shall endeavour to the best of my abilities faithfully to discharge my duty, I shall never have to appeal in vain. It shall be my study and solicitous endeavour to support the regulations and orders of this House, and maintain those rights and privileges, which I consider no less necessary for the safety of the people than for the very existence and well-being of parliament. Perhaps I may be permitted, on this occasion, to suggest to the House, that most of the Orders have dropped, and it will be necessary to revive these dropped orders before the House proceeds to dispose of any fresh business."
The several dropped orders were then resumed.

BREACH OF PRIVILEGE—POLICE REPORT.—
Mr. Bennetrose to mention a circumstance which had occurred, of a Sunday paper having printed the whole of the report of a committee of that House, which had sat to inquire into the police of the metropolis. He did not mention it, with any desire to make a complaint against the editor of the paper in question, but merely to bring under the consideration of the House the negligence of those whose duty it was, to keep such documents from public circulation till regularly delivered to the members [Hear, hear!]. At the present moment, he believed, not one copy of that report had been issued for the use of the members. He knew that, for himself, he had only an imperfect one.

LISTS OF WITNESSES SERVED ON THE PRISONERS IN THE TOWER.—
Mr. Curwensaid, he rose to move for a paper, to the production of which he apprehended, there would be no objection. He had availed himself of the privilege which every member possessed of bringing forward a motion, without previous notice, because the importance of the subject was such, in his opinion, as justified that course. It related to what was of the most immediate interest to the people of England, being nothing less than the pure distribution of criminal justice. It was the duty of that House at all times to watch with jealousy the proceedings of the executive government, and particularly so at the present moment, when the constitution of the country was in abeyance, and the rights and liberties of every man in it at the disposal of ministers. By the law of treason, which had always been represented as one of great wisdom and justice, it was required that the lists of witnesses, who were to be summoned, should be delivered to the accused, ten days previously to their trial. But if it should appear, that not more than 41 witnesses were examined to find the bill against them, what would the House think, when lists of 240 witnesses were served upon the prisoners, as the number of those who were to be arrayed against them on their trial? Individuals who were indicted for high treason, had to contend not only against strong prejudices, but against the power of the Crown. That was enough to create jealousy in any mind, but still more so in his, who remembered the introduction of the traitorous correspondence bill in 1793, when it was proposed to substitute felony for treason. The question was

883
then argued, and profoundly argued, by one of the greatest men that ever sat in that House, he meant the late Mr. Fox, who contended that the privilege of knowing the witnesses who were to be summoned, was of the utmost importance.
Lord Castlereaghhere rose to suggest to the hon. member, the expediency of abstaining from entering upon the discussion at that moment.
Mr. Curwen,in continuation, said, he should undoubtedly be disposed to give way, if he did not feel it an imperative duty to bring the matter forward. On the occasion, to which he was alluding, he heard Mr. Pitt declare, that the privilege in
Mr. Curwen,in continuation, said, he should undoubtedly be disposed to give way, if he did not feel it an imperative duty to bring the matter forward. On the occasion, to which he was alluding, he heard Mr. Pitt declare, that the privilege in question was, in fact, no privilege, because it might be abused. He (Mr. C.) had called the attention of the House to that declaration, and it received in consequence, the reprobation of the House. Was it, then, to be endured, that they should now act upon a principle, which was then condemned! There never was a time when that House was called upon to exercise a greater jealousy than at the present moment. With respect to treasonable practices, he had no doubt there might be some individuals who were culpable, but as to an organised conspiracy for overturning the constitution, he did not believe that any such existed. What must be the kind of treason, he would ask, that required 240 witnesses to establish it? The calling so many witnesses could be for no other purpose but to prevent the individuals from knowing precisely who were to be brought against them. If the thing had been done without the knowledge of the Crown, it was time a remedy should be applied, and the prisoners have the full benefit of knowing exactly all who were to be examined against them. He hoped no report would be made from the committee about to be appointed, till the individuals who were arraigned, were brought to trial, and their trial concluded. He then moved for "copies of the lists of witnesses served on the prisoners in the Tower, now under arraignment for High Treason."
The Attorney-General[Sir Samuel Shepherd] began by distinctly disavowing any intention on the part of those concerned in the prosecution, to embarrass the prisoners by an unnecessary increase of the witnesses to be called. It was true there were a great number, and the number was great because the law had made it imperative to state the name and de-
884
scription of every witness whom, in the course of the trial, it might by possibility be found expedient to call. The necessity for including in the list all persons who were likely to be examined, was obvious. It sometimes happened in the progress of a cause, that particular circumstances came out which it was necessary to confirm by positive evidence, but which, at the commencement, it never occurred to those concerned in it, it would be requisite to bring forward. When, therefore, the law-said that a list of every witness intended to be called should be furnished to the prisoners, the law also said (or at least that inference was fairly deducible), that no witness should be called whose name could not be found in the said list. Surety, therefore, if due credit were given for integrity of intention to those who had the conducting of the present prosecutions, it would be presumed that they put into the list of witnesses, not only those names which they supposed they would have to call, but those, likewise, which they considered there was the slightest possibility of being obliged to call. The parties concerned in the prosecution would disdain to augment unnecessarily the number of witnesses, for the purpose of perplexing the prisoners. It would be an unpardonable negligence not to provide themselves with a host of witnesses, if he might so call it, provided they previously acquainted those against whom that host was arrayed. He firmly believed there was not one witness in the list, to whom some knowledge of some fact was not ascribed, and which it might not be proper to elicit [Hear, hear!]. He Should therefore venture to oppose the motion of the hon. member, because at this time the agitation of such a question could not tend to the furtherance of justice; but, on the contrary, was calculated to prejudice its unbiassed administration.
Mr. Curwensaid, that after what he had heard, he did not wish to press the matter.
The motion was then withdrawn.
Lord Castlereagh presented a Message from the Prince Regent relative to certain seditious practices, similar to that presented this day to the Lords (see p. 859). It was ordered to be considered on Thursday.

PRINCE REGENT'S MESSAGE RESPECTING LORD COLCHESTER.—
Lord Castlereagh presented the following Message from the Prince Regent:
"George P. R.
"The Prince Regent, acting in the name and on the behalf of his Majesty, thinks it right to inform the House of Commons, that having taken into his consideration the eminent and distinguished services of the right hon. Charles Abbot during the long and eventful period in which he has filled the situation of Speaker of that House, has conferred upon him the dignity of a baron of the united kingdom by the title of Baron Colchester, of Colchester, in the county of Essex; and the Prince Regent recommends to the House of Commons to enable him to make such provision for Charles lord Colchester, and for the heir male of his body who may next succeed to the title, as shall, under all the circumstances, be judged just and reasonable. GEORGE P. R."
Lord Castlereagh then gave notice that on Thursday next he should move a vote of thanks to the late Speaker. The Chancellor of the Exchequer moved, that the Message of the Prince Regent respecting a provision to lord Colchester, be taken into consideration on Thursday next.
Mr. Wynnexpressed his astonishment at the mode of proceeding adopted by the advisers of the Crown on this occasion. No body would concur more willingly in a vote of thanks to lord Colchester than himself, because it appeared to him to be a just and necessary proceeding: but why did the Crown interfere to prevent the House from going farther, and from originating any other reward which was due to his acknowledged merits? His services had been performed in that House, and from that House, therefore, ought their recompense to proceed. The only similar case was that of Mr. Speaker Onslow, and in that case the proceeding was initiated by an address from the House to the throne. This was not a mere question upon a point of form; it was not a matter of indifference that persons sitting in that chair should be accustomed to look to the Crown for the reward of their exertions in it. Strictly speaking, the Crown could know nothing of what passed in that House, nor be able to appreciate the merits of the Speaker in the discharge of the duties of the chair. Had the message been preceded by an address, every objection would have been precluded; but the services in question were of that nature which, for peculiar reasons, ought, in the first instance, to be fully recognized and appreciated by the House [Hear, hear!].
Lord Castlereaghhoped the House would do ministers the justice to believe that it never could be their wish or intention to stand between the liberality of the House and the individual in question; but that right hon. person having been raised to the dignity of the peerage, the purport of the message ought to be understood as inviting the House to make a provision in consideration of the title, and not of his services as Speaker. [Cries of No no!].
Mr. Ponsonbyprofessed himself quite astonished at the explanation offered by the noble lord. How he could say on his legs in that House, that the proposed reward was not in consequence of the late Speaker's services, or how, being in what was vulgarly called a scrape, he could endeavour so to get out of it, was to him a most surprising incident. The very words of the message itself declared that it was founded upon those services. The Crown had not, in fact, any constitutional right to take notice of their Speaker's services, and it was a flagrant violation of their first privileges in ministers to have thus advised it. He knew not what course it might be now most expedient to pursue, but he hoped the House would not cease to maintain its constitutional and established rights. [Hear hear!].
Mr. H. Sumnerstated his objections to the present form of proceeding but saw no way of getting out of the difficulty into which ministers had led them. He entertained even a farther objection: whatever had been the intention of the noble lord, the fact was, that the message did stand between their late Speaker and the liberality of the House. It was true that a blank was left with regard to the sum, but the term of the grant, namely, for two lives, was distinctly recommended.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerthought it could not be supposed that any disrespect to the House was intended by taking the earliest opportunity of proposing an adequate reward of the services which the House had received from the noble lord in his late office of Speaker of that House. He could not conceive that the prerogative of the Crown had been improperly exercised in carrying such a purpose into effect. Whenever the rank of the peerage had been conferred in recompense of distinguished merit, the Crown had been in the custom of sending similar messages. It was done in the case of the duke of Wellington, and had always

887
been understood to be the settled and necessary form of enabling that House to carry into effect the wishes of the Crown.
Mr. Wynndeclared, that under the circumstances of the case he felt it his duty to oppose the present motion. Trusting that the House would proceed to accomplish the same purpose by an address in the first instance, should the present motion be negatived or withdrawn, he thought such a course would be infinitely more honourable to the noble lord whose merits were the ground of such a proceeding. He could see no analogy between this case and that of naval or military services. Of these last the Crown was the natural and proper judge, but could not be of services rendered in that House. The Crown had already the power of granting a pension for life; and had this power been exercised on this occasion, he knew no legal objection that could have been urged against it: but all would admit that it must have been a very ill-advised proceeding. Such a mark of favour would have been a very inadequate compliment for the occasion. The House was the theatre of the services performed, and ought not to seem as if it wanted to be put in mind of the obligations it was under. Neither ought it to be held out to future Speakers that they were to look elsewhere for their reward. He had so decided an objection to the course proposed by ministers, that if the motion were pressed, he would meet it either by a direct negative, or by moving the previous question. He entreated, however, in honour and justice to the late Speaker, that the House would not be pressed to such an alternative, that the ministers would see the necessity of withdrawing the present motion, and substituting in its place an address similar to the one adopted in Speaker Onslow's case.
Mr. V. Fitzgeraldcontended, that no want of respect to lord Colchester could be argued from the present proceedings. Without presuming to give an opinion on the precedents, he must say, that it was at all events a struggle between the Crown and the House, which should best appreciate the acknowledged services of that distinguished character. It was impossible to infer that the Crown had not the means of being informed of those services, when it was well ascertained that on the many occasions of re-election, when the late Speaker was presented for the approbation of the Crown, an explicit declara-
888
tion was made of the high sense of his services.
Sir John Newportagreed in all that had fallen from his hon. friends in reprobation of this novel and unconstitutional procedure. He contended, that the remuneration so justly due to the late Speaker would be more honourably conferred by the unanimous address of that House, than by the suggestion of any minister.
Mr. Huskissonconsidered, that the precedent of lord Onslow's case stood upon different circumstances. At present the Crown had no funds at its disposal beyond a pension for life of 1,200 l. If, therefore, an address was presented, this was all that could be done, and the Crown must again refer the matter to the House. In the former case, the Crown had the power of granting a pension of 3,000 l. a year for life; and was thus very differently situated.
Mr. Wynnsaid, he had never imagined that the Crown could proceed in this case without the authority of the House; but if an address were presented, praying that a suitable reward should be conferred, a message might then be brought down stating the existing limitations on the power of granting pensions, and the House would, then have it in its power to supply the deficiency. But these were mere technical points; the main objection was, that the first knowledge they received of a remuneration to be given for services performed in the chair of that House, should have come from the Crown. He would repeat his anxious wish that the motion should be withdrawn, and another substituted, that would meet the wishes of every member in that House.
The Chancellor of the Exchequeradmitted the candour of the hon. gentleman's intimation. The great object on all sides, he apprehended, must be, to do that which would be most gratifying to the feelings of the distinguished person immediately interested. If it was the pleasure of the House to adjourn the consideration for the present [Cries of No, no!], he apprehended then that it might be the most satisfactory course to withdraw the motion he had already made, and give notice of his intention to move an address to the Crown on this subject on Thursday next.
The motion was accordingly withdrawn.

THE NEW SPEAKER APPROVED BY THE PRINCE REGENT.—
At half-past three o'clock, the lord chancellor, the marques of Cholmondeley, the earl of Shaftesbury, earl Bathurst, and the earl of Liverpool, took their seats as his majesty's commissioners, to notify the approbation of the Prince Regent of the choice of the, right hon. Charles Manners Sutton as Speaker of the House of Commons. Mr. Quarme, the deputy usher of the black rod, was sent to require the attendance of the House of Commons. Shortly afterward, the new Speaker, supported by Sir John Nicholl and Mr. Littleton, and accompanied by a great number of members of the House of Commons came to the bar. The commission was then read, authorizing the Lords sitting as commissioners, and others, to

857
notify the royal approbation of the choice of the right hon. Charles Manners Sutton, as Speaker.
The Speakerthen addressed the Lords Commissioners as follows:—"My lords; In obedience to the commands of his royal highness the Prince Regent, acting in the name and on behalf of his majesty, his majesty's most faithful Commons of the united kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland have proceeded to elect a Speaker, and it is my duty to acquaint your lordships, that their choice has fallen on me. When I contemplate the many and arduous duties necessarily attached to that high and distinguished situation, it is impossible but that I must feel apprehensive of my own inadequacy to the full and proper discharge of those important duties. If it should be the pleasure of his royal highness the Prince Regent to disapprove of this choice, his majesty's faithful Commons may have reason to be grateful, as I am persuaded they would have no difficulty in selecting from amongst their members some other individual better qualified than myself for this high and important office."
The Lord Chancellor—" Mr. Manners Sutton; We have received his royal highness's commands to state to you, that he is so entirely satisfied of your abilities to perform the various and arduous duties of the high situation to which you have been elected, that he has caused the commission, under the great seal, which has just been read, to be issued; in obedience to which, and by virtue of it, we do declare this his majesty's royal allowance and confirmation of you to be his Speaker."
The Speaker.—" My lords; I submit, with all humility, to his royal highness's most gracious will; and I beg to avail myself of this opportunity of expressing the sense of gratitude I feel for this high and distinguished mark of approbation. If, my lords, in the discharge of the various duties of this situation, and in supporting the rights and privileges of the Commons House of Parliament, I should involuntarily commit any error, I implore that it may be imputed to me alone, and not to his majesty's faithful and loyal Commons."
The new Speaker and the Commons then withdrew.
The Earl of Liverpool presented a Message from the Prince Regent respecting lord Colchester. [See this day's proceedings of the Commons]. It was ordered to be taken into consideration on Thursday.

ROMAN CATHOLIC QUESTION.—
The Earl of Donoughmoreadverted to a statement in "the Courier" of what had been said in the debate on the Catholic question by a right rev. prelate (the bishop of Ossory), with respect to the titular archbishop of Dublin, Dr. Troy, to the effect that Dr. Troy had, in a pastoral letter, called upon the Catholics to refrain from petitioning, and to trust to their numbers and their strength. His lordship observed upon the great importance of not throwing unmerited calumny upon a large portion of the population of the empire, particularly upon those who had the education of that population in their hands; but was satisfied, at the same time, that there was no blame to be imputed to the editor of "the Courier." He did not therefore, intend to make any complaint; his object was, that the imputation which had thus been cast upon Dr. Troy should be completely done away. His lordship read a letter from Dr. Troy to himself upon the subject, stating that no such pastoral letter had been issued by him, and observed, that there was not a more loyal man in his majesty's dominions than Dr. Troy, who, instead of at all urging on the Catholics to acts of violence, had frequently declined even going those lengths, with regard to the Catholics, which their Protestant advocates considered as essential to this cause. He did not believe that the right rev. prelate alluded to uttered the words imputed to him; but he felt it his duty to call upon the right rev. prelate to state whether such words had been used by him or not?
The Bishop of Ossoryexpressed as sincere a regard for the character of Dr. Troy as the noble earl, and stated, that the expression imputed to him, with respect to Dr. Troy, had never fallen from his lips. His lordship was proceeding to state, that the point of time in the debate alluded to by the noble earl, was when he (the bishop of Ossory) was answering aright rev. prelate (the bishop of Norwich), whom he considered to have asserted what was unchristian and unconstitutional.
Lord Hollandspoke to order, observing, that though the courtesy of the House allowed to noble lords to explain any misrepresentations that had occurred of what took place in a former debate, it was going beyond the line marked out upon such occasions, to animadvert upon what had been said by others, particularly those who were not now present.
The Lord Chancelloragreed in opinion with the noble lord, and observed, that if they were to enter into discussions with respect to what had been said in newspapers, regarding what had passed in that House, he could not see where it was to end. He himself had been grossly slandered in the newspapers within these three days, but he should be ashamed of himself if he were to take notice of it within that House.
Lord Hollandsaid, he had no wish in what he said, to prevent the right rev. prelate from explaining what he thought necessary, with regard to his own speech.
The bishop of Ossory was about to rise again, but there being a cry of no; no; his lordship did not persist, and the conversation ended.

THE PRIRCE REGENT'S MESSAGE RESPECTING THE CONTINUANCE OF SEDITIOUS PRACTICES.—
Lord Sidmouth presented the following Message from the prince Regent:
"GEORGE P. R.
"His royal highness the Prince Regent, acting in the name and on the behalf of his majesty, has given orders that there be laid before the House of Lords, papers containing information respecting the continuance of practices, meetings, and combinations, in different parts of the kingdom, to which, at the commencement of the present session of parliament, his royal highness called the attention of the House, and which are still carried on in such a manner, and to such an extent, as are calculated to disturb the public tranquillity, and to endanger the security of the established constitution of these realms.
"His royal highness recommends to the House of Lords to take these papers into their immediate and serious consideration.
"GEORGE P.R."
The Message having been read,
Lord Sidmouthobserved, that it was with very painful feelings that he brought down a message of such a nature, but he trusted their lordships would do him the justice to believe that it was only the strongest sense of duty that could have prompted the advisers of the Prince Regent to counsel his royal highness to send down such a message. It was for their lordships to determine what course of proceeding should be adopted with regard to the message. They would probably not object to his first motion for an address to
860
the Prince Regent, thanking his royal highness for his communication, and declaring their intention of taking the papers into their immediate and serious consideration; he trusted also that they would not object to the motion which he afterwards intended to make, for referring these papers to a committee of secrecy; but instead of a new ballot, he would suggest that the same members who had sat on the former committee should be invited to this, with the exception of a noble duke (Bedford), who was prevented by the state of his health from attending the former committee, and who had signified a wish that be might not be appointed on the present. The noble lord then moved an address.
Earl Greysaid, he did not object to an address of thanks, but he wished it to be understood that he did not thereby pledge himself as to any ulterior proceeding.
The address was agreed to.

SECRET COMMITTEE APPOINTED.
Lord Sidmouthrose again, and observed, that he was not acquainted with any instances on the Journals in which a committee was moved for on the same day in which a message was brought down from the Throne; but the hands of parliament were not to be tied up, merely because there was no precedent for such a proceeding. The object intended by the usual course of moving for the committee on the following day was, to prevent the House from being taken by surprise. His noble friend had obviated such an objection in the present case, by giving notice of the day on which he expected to bring down the Message, and of his intention to move for the committee on the same day. No one, therefore, could say that the House was taken by surprise. If any other mode of proceeding than by committee was proposed, and an interval was necessary, in order to compare their respective merits, he would allow that such a consideration would furnish a good reason for delay; but no such proposal had been made. All they were called upon to do was, to pledge themselves to an immediate consideration of the subject, with which view he should move, That the papers be referred to a committee of secresy.
Earl Greysaid, that the words "immediate consideration," used in the address, ought not to be understood as pledging any member to more than such an immediate consideration as was consistent with

861
the known forms of parliament. The noble secretary of state had confessed that there were no precedents in his favour, at least he had stated none. The noble secretary had asked, what was to preclude the House from establishing a precedent? Certainly nothing, provided it were convenient or necessary; but in a most important measure, which was ultimately to affect the rights and liberties of the whole people of England, it was impossible to proceed with too much deliberation. If one question more than another required a strict observance of all forms, it was that now brought under the view of the House; the onus, therefore, did not lie upon him to prove the inconvenience of this needless dispatch, hut the noble secretary was bound to show that there was some urgent and uncontrollable necessity, requiring the abandonment of the ordinary practice. The message, indeed, and the address, pledged the House to nothing; but they gave the country but too much reason to apprehend that a measure would be once more resorted to, which was not the true remedy for its distresses and its difficulties. He was willing to wait for the decision of the committee, hoping that it would proceed seriously and anxiously to make the most minute inquiries into the real state of the country; and hoping, too, that with the warning it had already received, it would not be satisfied upon any point, without the best evidence that the nature of the case admitted of the truth of the allegations. He trusted, too, that the members would attend more strictly than heretofore to the characters and conduct of those who supplied information; that they would not forget that they came forward in support of the measures of government, and to propagate rumours, hazardous, not merely to individuals, but to the state. If it should be found, on this new inquiry, that any part of the intelligence that influenced the former report had been given under any peculiar or disqualifying bias, he hoped it would now be rejected, and that the motives and situations of all the witnesses would not be left out of the account. The noble secretary had appeared at a loss what to say in favour of the re-appointment of the committee; he seemed at a loss for a reason; but he (earl Grey) would read to the House a paper, than which nothing more dangerous or inflammatory, nothing more calculated to produce disorder and com-
862
motion, had been laid before the previous committee: it was the copy of a hand-bill circulated in the city of Norwich during the late election, and in favour of the candidate who professed principles corresponding with those of his majesty's government. It began thus:—
"Englishmen, what has caused the high price of bread? A. The corn bill.—Q. Who aided that unjust and cruel measure which grinds the poor industrious man to the earth, and entails misery and starvation upon his helpless family? A. The man who takes the freeholders of Norfolk by the nose, and leads them where be pleases—Q. Who oppressed the industrious little farmer, that virtuous and independent member of the community, and incorporated his land with his own, for the purpose of swelling his already bulky estate? A. The proud and unfeeling despot of Norfolk, who is a tool of others—Q. Who is it that, by the enormously extensive use of machinery, not only in agriculture, but in manufactures, has reduced thousands to a state of pauperism, madness, and despair, which has led to the commission of crimes at which humanity shudders? A. He who takes upon himself the name and style of patriot.—Q. Shall this system have no end, or shall the feelings of mankind be still farther outraged and trampled upon? A. No! rise and do your duty."
He appealed to the House, whether any of the papers submitted to the last committee had been framed in a more diabolical spirit? Did it not touch upon all the topics of discontent? Did it not address itself to the lowest and the worst passions by which the species was degraded? The corn bill, a measure of government, was attacked; the employment of machinery was used as a handle for popular discontent. It had unquestionably the most dangerous tendency. He was informed that it could be proved, beyond doubt, that this nefarious publication had proceeded from a person with whom the noble secretary had held recently a correspondence; who was at the head of a society called the Knights of Brunswick—one of those political associations to which ministers had no objection, and which professed about the same principles in England that were promulgated by the Orange societies in Ireland, and a spice of which was contained in the hand-bill he had just read—principles, wholly incompatible with those established

863
at that revolution which had seated the present family on the throne of these kingdoms. He hoped that the committee, if re-appointed, would not fail to investigate these matters; and that the imprudent and inflammatory productions of the supporters of the present system would not be forgotten, while every endeavour was used to detect the errors of those who had been active on the opposite side of the question. He made this remark because at the present moment government were holding out lures and incitements to informers of all descriptions, to bring forward budgets of falsehoods agreeable to their employers. What necessity had been shown for this irregular rapidity? The Habeas Corpus suspension bill did not expire until next month. Why I could not this message have been deferred until the decision of the pending trials? These were questions to which: no satisfactory answer had been given; and until they were answered, it would become the House to pause before it deserted its ancient and wholesome precedents. He was glad to find that the noble secretary did not mean to re-appoint the committee by ballot: he detested any thing like hypocrisy; and to pretend to name a committee by ballot, as if the choice were free from the influence of the Crown, was a fraud and an insult upon the people of England. A ballot was, in truth, the most convenient mode by which ministers could select the friends they wished to be nominated. He would, therefore, move the previous question.
The Earl of Liverpoolsaid, that his noble friend had not asserted that no precedent existed for the step proposed, but I that he was not at that moment prepared to produce one exactly analogous. It could not be alleged that the House was taken by surprise, because even notice of the message (a course not usually; adopted) had been given. The very appearance of the House, the fulness of the benches, was an evidence that more than formal business was expected. The postponement of this motion for even a day or two, at this late period of the session, might be attended with great inconvenience. Nothing but a strong sense of duty could have induced ministers to adopt a course so unpopular. Whatever odium might attach to them in consequence, they were ready to sustain: they had acted under a conviction of duty, and from that duty they would, not shrink.
864
The noble earl had alluded to the report of the former committee, but he could say, that that committee was so constituted, as to embrace persons of different political opinions, and that notwithstanding much difference upon other points, they were all unanimous in recommending the suspension of the Habeas Corpus act. The noble lord had also alluded to a proceeding which had taken place at a contested election. He had never heard of the hand-bill until the noble lord had produced it; but he was surprised to think that any one could suppose it agreeable to the government when the corn-bill, which was brought in by that very administration, and which was only supported by the silent vote of the individual alluded to, was made the subject of animadversion. All hand-bills, calculated to inflame the minds of the populace, should ever be reprobated by him; but, it was well known that such publications would take place at popular elections. He trusted that the lesson would be felt; but could see no reason for agreeing to the motion of the noble earl.
Earl Grosvenorheartily joined in the regret expressed by his noble friend that the royal message, threatening such dreadful consequences, had been sent down to parliament. Under such circumstances, all due forms ought to be rigidly observed. A departure from the established practice might be attended with the most dangerous consequences, as on some future occasion the proceedings of that night might be quoted as an authority, when the ministers wished to carry in haste some arbitrary and unconstitutional measure. Under the present circumstances, such a neglect of established forms could not but be viewed with an eye of suspicion.
Earl Spenceracquitted the noble secretary of all intention to take the House by surprise: the notice of the message pot an end to all doubt upon that point. The question was only this—whether on a subject of such magnitude, the reference of the papers to the committee should be postponed for two days: and recollecting the measures to which the report of the former committee had led, he would say, that if many precedents had been adduced in favour of precipitation, he should have deprecated any obedience to them: no number of precedents could satisfy him that the House should renew, without the utmost caution and repugnance, a measure giving powers unknown to the constitution

865
to individuals who might abuse them. True it was, that the House had not been taken by surprise; but although previous notice of the message had been given, that would not appear upon the Journals; so that in after times the proceeding of this night might be quoted as an authority, not merely for voting an address, but for immediately, and without inquiry, referring papers sent down with it to a committee of secrecy. Might not such a precedent be employed on some distant occasion for the most dangerous purposes? Had the noble secretary stated any peculiar urgency; had he told the House that an insurrection had broken out, or even that it was apprehended, it might have been proper to proceed with all possible dispatch. On the contrary, ministers had themselves delayed for ten days, and then they called upon the House to make up for the time they had lost, by the abandonment of its acknowledged rules. If the message had merely referred to an individual, he should have objected to such needless precipitation; but when it respected the rights and freedom of the whole nation, he could not but resist it to the utmost of his power. With regard to the composition of the late committee, it was, in his opinion, unobjectionable, for all the noble lords, who were members of it he had great regard, but for some he entertained a more particular respect. Their lordships would not be at a loss to understand that he alluded to those noble lords with whom he was accustomed to act. He confessed, at the same time, that he could not see sufficient ground, so far as his own knowledge went, for the measures which had resulted from the appointment of that committee: but at the time the report was made, he considered himself bound to respect the authority whence it proceeded. Circumstances, however, soon occurred which excited greater doubts in his mind than he had before entertained on the subject; as they threw, he thought, discredit on some of the statements of the report. All this was calculated to render him more unwilling to give his assent to any new measures of the same kind. He hoped, therefore, that in the inquiry about to be gone into, care would be taken that the facts stated should be well ascertained, and that their lordships would not be satisfied with the mere declaration of an opinion without strict investigation. The measure now proposed was of infinitely more importance than that which they had already adopted.
866
They were now asked to do away the most important privilege of the constitution, not merely for a limited time, and during the sitting of parliament, but for an unlimited time, and whilst parliament was not sitting. If there was a real necessity for the measure, let that necessity be clearly shown; but he trusted parliament would not agree to any restraint on the liberty of the subject without clear and satisfactory proof of that necessity. As to the present question, he objected to the precedent which the mode of proceeding proposed by the noble viscount would establish.
The Marquis of Buckinghamthought the present question had nothing to do with the inquiries which were to be the objects of the consideration of the committee, and ought to rest entirely on its own merits. Their lordships had not now to make up their minds as to the necessity of any measures, but to decide whether there should be a committee or not. Sufficient notice had, in his opinion, been given; and what their lordships had now to consider was, whether a prima facie case had been made out for any committee at all. Now, he must contend, that such a case had been fully made out by the report of the former committee. The first duty of parliament, when such a communication as that which had been delivered was brought down from the throne was, to take care that not a moment should be delayed in entering on an inquiry. If no necessity existed for the measures now in force—if the state of the country was no longer what it had been proved to be—their lordships ought not to let a moment elapse before the laws which had been passed were repealed; but when the ministers of the Crown stated that a necessity for the continuance of those measures did exist, it was the duty of the House to enter into an immediate inquiry on the subject.
Lord Hollandwas not a little astonished at what had fallen from his noble friend. The noble viscount regretted to have to bring down messages like that which had been that day submitted to the House, though he contended for the necessity of the measures he proposed. That he should be anxious for forwarding his measures without delay was what he could easily conceive, but he could not understand why other noble lords should show an extraordinary impatience for the continuance of measures, the object of which

867
was to subvert that system of liberty which had been established and maintained by our ancestors. It was true, the noble lord had given ten days notice that he would bring down the message; but this had nothing to do with the present motion, which was a mere dry question of precedent. The noble lord who had brought down the message considered a question of precedent as of very little moment. He disdained to be bound by considerations of so dull a nature as mere matters of form. He (lord H.) confessed, however, that he did not think so lightly of the subject. He could not carry his mind to that flight of Pindaric irregularity which the noble viscount appeared to have attained. Other noble lords, not so totally careless about precedents, had called for proof of their being none. Now it was singular enough that the onus probandi should be expected from those who said there were no precedents, rather than from those who asserted that they did exist. But his noble friend had said there was a prima facie case made out for the continuance of the measures proposed by ministers. This reminded him of the transition from war to peace—though that transition had now lasted, if not so long as some wars, at least as long as many a peace—being cited as a reason for the continued distress of the country. Now, the report of the last committee was to be taken as prima facie evidence of the continuance of disaffection. The next report would afford a new prima facie evidence; and so they might go on ad infinitum, without ever wanting a ground to deprive the people of their rights and liberties. What had passed with respect to the late report, would, he hoped, convince any secret committee that might henceforth be appointed, of the necessity of investigating with the greatest strictness the validity of the evidence submitted to their consideration. Their lordships remained without any information as to the persons who had been examined; and though it had been offered to be proved at the bar that statements in the report of the committee were incorrect, the evidence so offered had not been accepted. From these circumstances it was to be concluded that the report had not been the result of a fair inquiry; and that must be a very good reason with plain men for saying, that such a report could not be prima facie evidence of the necessity of Continuing the suspension of the Habeas
868
Corpus act. The ministers had asserted that great danger to the constitution existed; they had asked for extraordinary powers to enable them to avert that danger. Great and extraordinary powers had been granted them, and they had possessed them for three months; but instead of removing the danger, as they pretended they would, they ask for the continuance of the same powers. This was a proof that the cure to which they had resorted was not the proper remedy for the disease. On these grounds he should oppose the motion for appointing the committee.
The Marquis of Buckinghamstated, in explanation, that he had been misrepresented, no doubt unintentionally, by his noble friend, as his desire for the speedy appointment of the proposed committee proceeded from an anxiety to ascertain whether it was necessary any longer to suspend the privileges of the people.
The motion was then agreed to.
Lord Sidmouthsaid, that as their lordships had agreed to refer the message of the Prince Regent, and the papers which accompanied it, to a committee, it was now necessary to consider in what manner that committee ought to be appointed. The usual mode in which former secret committees had been appointed was by ballot; but that mode required the preparation of glasses, and the depositing of lists, which would occasion considerable delay. He thought, therefore, that immediate nomination would be more consistent with the course which had been taken. The noble viscount concluded by moving the names of the noble lords who composed the former committee, but substituting the earl of Talbot for the duke of Bedford.
Earl Greysaid, that though a ballot required glasses, lists, and various preparations, which would occasion a delay, he did not consider that objectionable. When it was proposed to continue the suspension of the Habeas Corpus act, it was the duty of the Mouse to proceed with the greatest caution, and every delay was therefore an advantage. The noble earl: concluded by proposing lord Rosslyn instead of the earl of Talbot, as a substitute for the duke of Bedford.
Lord Hollandhad no objection, personal or political, to the noble earl who had been proposed by the noble viscount; but as it was understood that that noble earl was going to Ireland, he did not think him on that account the most proper per-

869
son that might be chosen. Ireland was the only part of the empire to which ministers had not thought it necessary to extend the benefit of their precautionary measures; and why a noble earl who was about to proceed to that part of the United Kingdom should be appointed on this committee he could not see, unless it was wished that he should take a lesson as to the manner of getting up measures of this sort before he proceeded thither.
The motion was agreed to.
Earl Greysaid, that as the learned lord on the woolsack had much business to do in the court of chancery, it would be most unfair to throw a new duty on him to examine the papers to be laid before the committee; he should therefore move that his name be omitted, for the purpose of introducing that of the earl of Rosslyn.
The motion was negatived, and the committee, as proposed by lord Sidmouth, agreed to.

RIGHT OF MAGISTRATES TO VISIT STATE PRISONERS.
Lord Hollandsaid, he should now proceed in a motion, of which he had given notice. He had a charge against the noble secretary of state, heavier than that of dispensing with precedents; it was a charge that he had assumed a power to dispense with the written laws of the land. An act, it was known, had been passed that session, commonly called the suspension of the Habeas Corpus, but which more properly might be called, an act divesting persons of their right of being brought to trial within a limited time. By that statute the secretary of state was invested with the power of keeping any person charged with certain offences, in prison, and of transferring him from prison to prison; but the law gave no other power nor took away any power with which he was previously invested. A few days since he had met with a correspondence in a public journal, between some magistrates in Berkshire and the secretary of state, with respect to the conduct to be pursued to some state prisoners in Reading gaol. He did not understand how these gentlemen had thought fit to apply to the secretary of state. They had to act on their own responsibility, and it was their business to become acquainted with their duty from their own legal research: the secretary of state was no authorized expounder of the law. So it was, however, that these magistrates had sent to
870
the noble secretary a series of queries, to which the noble secretary had returned a series of answers. These queries he should read. Some of them were repugnant to his ideas of humanity; but one was, as he believed he should make clear to every man's mind, utterly illegal:—
"Q. May magistrates generally of the county of Berks visit the state prisoners in common with other prisoners, which they are privileged to do, and ask questions, and enter into conversation with them? A. No, except upon special reasons being assigned, which must be submitted to and be judged of by the secretary of state.—Q. If state prisoners may have a copy of official directions to gaolers? A. No.—Q. If state prisoners may have free use of pen, ink, and paper, under certain restrictions, as ordered by the official directions? A. Vide official directions, which must be strictly observed.—Q. If they may read the public London or provincial newspapers, under certain restrictions? A. No.—Q. If they may have books to read from circulating libraries? A. Such books as are approved of by the visiting magistrate.—Q. If they may have wine, or strong beer, or ale, in limited quantities at their own expense, or that of government? A. What quantity is desired?—Q. If through the day they be confined in solitary cells, and at night in better apartments, if such can be procured by magistrates for them A. To be confined in such manner as has been usual, and in such apartments as have been heretofore allotted to state prisoners."
It was to the first query and the answer that he wished to direct the attention of the House. The latter ones he thought were harsh, and he did not see what right the secretary of state had to send down his official directions as to the management of prisons; it might be the practice, it might be the law; but he had yet to learn where that law or that practice was to be found. It was harsh to prevent those persons from reading newspapers. It had also been said, that in whatever places persons might be confined under the suspension of the Habeas Corpus, they would have the right of petitioning the Crown or parliament. But this would be nugatory, if the persons were not allowed to have a copy of the official directions to the gaolers, to see the conduct which those persons were bound to observe towards them? These regulations, he conceived, were dictated by a harsh

871
spirit, but he wished it to be understood that he did not mean to rest his motion on that part of the case. It was on the first query, and the answer to it, that he grounded his motion. He should now toad a section of the statute 31st of Geo. 3rd chap. 46. His lordship then read the section of that act, which enjoins "that justices of the peace shall, at every general or quarter-sessions, appoint two or more visiting justices, who shall personally visit the common gaols, houses of correction, and penitentiary houses, at least three times in the quarter of the year; shall take cognizance of the habits and condition of the prisoners, of the state; of the prisons, and of the conduct of the gaolers; and shall give redress according to the circumstances that come under their view; that the visiting justices shall, at every quarter-sessions, report their compliance and their observations; and that the chairman of the quarter-sessions call upon them for such report." This was imperative on the visiting justices. There was another clause, giving power to all magistrates to visit the prison's as often as they thought fit, and to report thereon to the sessions, when any abuses required intervention. Nothing could be clearer than these provisions, or more directly in opposition to the authority which the noble secretary had assumed of ex-eluding the magistrates from the prisons in question. This correspondence, he understood, had thus arisen—two respectable magistrates had applied to be admitted to the prisoners, but had been shown the official directions by which they were ordered to be excluded: and another magistrate had made a similar application, and had been met in a similar manner, The visiting magistrates had consequently written to the noble secretary for information in the new character he had assumed of expounder of the law, and had received the answer which he had read. He could not conceive a more unconstitutional measure than this habit in the secretary of state of dispensing with the law, and of directing his usurped authority to prevent the justices from doing what by law they; were commanded to do. This was in direct contravention of the Bill of Rights, the two first articles of which (repeating one another, in a manner which showed the anxiety of our ancestors on this subject) declared that the law could not be dispensed with, except by authority of parliament. With this act staring him in
872
the face, why had not the noble secretary boldly applied to parliament, if he had found the law insufficient—if he had found its antiquated provisions so entirely repugnant with the spirit of the new system introduced by the suspension of the Habeas Corpus? Yet this noble lord, who had that night so summarily disposed of precedent—who had, on a former occasion, taken on himself to call on the justices to act, not on their own knowledge but on his letter—had told them, without thinking it worth while to allude to the act of parliament, that they were not to do what by that law they were commanded to do.—The two first articles of the Bill of Rights, and the section of the 31st Geo. 3. cap. 46, having been entered as read, the noble lord moved for "Copies of all Communications from the magistrates of the county of Berks, to the principal secretary of state for the home department, respecting their right to visit prisoners, confined for crimes against the state, in the gaol of Reading, with the Answer of the secretary of state thereto."
Lord Sidmouthsaid, he had been charged with having assumed an authority, and having harshly exercised it. In the performance of the arduous duties he had to discharge, he had always taken the advice of the law officers of the Crown, and by their opinions he had been guided; though he begged to be understood, that he did not wish to throw off from himself the responsibility of the line of conduct he had adopted. As to the gaols of the kingdom, he had always understood they were his majesty's gaols, and that it was a part of the king's prerogative to give orders for the government of those gaols, which power was only restrained by justice, humanity, and the law of the land. The clause in the act of the 31st of the king could in no wise affect the prerogative, as that could not have been done without special enactment. The course taken with regard to state prisoners was always different from that pursued with other prisoners. Persons in general were merely committed to the custody of the gaoler; in state offences the warrant expressed it "to close and safe custody. The privy council or secretary of state by which soever they had been committed, made regulations for their treatment; and when the prisoners were brought under the cognizance of the court of King's-bench by indictment, or by a bill found by the grand jury, that court had always

873
observed the greatest caution. Lord Holt had decided, that a wife could not see her husband confined on a charge of treason without other persons being present Lord Raymond had decided that near relatives could not visit but in similar circumstances. The suspension of the Habeas Corpus had enabled the secretary of state to commit several persons for high treason, and to him belonged the right of giving all directions concerning them. In the exercise of this right he had consulted the first legal authorities in this country, and in no degree exceeded the powers they thought him entitled to. As to the case referred to, it had hot been the exclusion of the visiting magistrates which had caused the application. Some other magistrates had taken occasion to go to the prisoners, upon which the visiting magistrates had applied to him to know what course they were to pursue. In his answer, he contended, he had neither transgressed the law, nor acted harshly. He admitted the House should entertain a constitutional jealousy; but unless there was a presumption that he had acted illegally, and it was intended to cast an imputation on him, he trusted the House would not accede to the motion, or hold out to the country, that there was any foundation for the attack which had been made on him.
Earl Greywas of opinion that a more mitigated answer could have been given to ail the questions. With respect to papers and books, there seemed to have been a very unnecessary degree of rigour and severity exercised. But whether the noble lord had exceeded his powers, the act of parliament was express and decisive. One clause was explicit, actually compelling magistrates to visit prisoners. Another was equally explicit, empowering them to visit. He had felt very curious to hear the noble secretary's answer to this point. The act had appeared to him evident and distinct; and unless the noble lord could cite some subsequent statutes to justify his conduct, it had appeared to him that his conduct was in direct contravention of a public statute made to protect prisoners from undue harshness and injustice. What answer, then, did the noble lord give? Usage was appealed to. Lords, Holt and Raymond were eminent and distinguished judges. But the decisions referred to were not in point. They regarded quite a different principle. The noble lord ought to have,
874
shown that they had prevented magistrates from visiting gaols; but even then the authority was not in point, because they lived prior to the 31st George 3rd. Since that period nothing was stated to have been enacted to alter the statute. If any usage could be shown against it, the power of this express law was sacred and conclusive; but no usage was in any shape brought forward to justify the noble lord's conduct. But prerogative was appealed to as being above acts of parliament. This was a new and extraordinary doctrine. The manner, too, in which the noble lord availed himself of this argument deserved attention; gaols were the king's gaols, and, therefore, state-prisoners were subject to the arbitrary regulations of the secretary of state! If this argument applied to one gaol, it applied to all gaols; if to one prisoner, to all prisoners. All gaols were the king's gaols, and all prisoners were the king's prisoners. How was it possible to make any distinction? The prerogative must be equally applicable to all. It could not be pretended that the legislature had passed a law of this kind, and excepted state prisoners. State prisoners were rather the objects of peculiar protection; and an act would be found passed by the legislature with an exception in their favour. Abuse he conceived it proper in all cases to guard against. He did not know whether there was abuse in this case; but they were told that the secretary of state had done what on the face of it appeared to be in contravention of an act of parliament. If the noble secretary did not give something better than the opinion of the law officers of the Crown, he would put it to their lordships whether prerogative could be a valid defence for violating an act of parliament. The question was, whether the prerogative gave such a right. But the noble lord here again precluded inquiry by urging that a presumption of blame would arise if an order for the production of the papers in question stood upon their Journals; and he claimed a degree of confidence from their lordships, as necessary for discharging his duties with satisfaction to himself, and benefit to the country. He (earl Grey) on the contrary, contended, that a constitutional jealousy that would not sleep was not only wholesome but necessary. The motion went merely to inquire into an apparent contravention of an act of parliament. The fair inference from such a charge, prima facie, was,

875
that their lordships could not dismiss it without farther inquiry. If the noble secretary should be found to have acted conformably to his powers, he would stand acquitted and absolved, and their lordships sentence would relieve him from blame; but because an inquiry implied that the noble secretary might have acted illegally, they could not enter into an inquiry! This was a proposition, he trusted, which their lordships would never admit. All they wanted was information. The noble secretary was charged with a departure from the line of conduct prescribed to him by law; their lordships could not, without a departure from their duty, refrain from calling upon him for his justification. He felt now more anxious than ever for an inquiry, in consequence of the plea set up by the noble lord.
The Earl of Liverpoolsaid, it was impossible to read the 31st George the 3rd, and to suppose that it ever was meant to apply to state prisoners; it was merely intended to regulate gaols and penitentiary houses in ordinary cases. His noble friend had acted in exact conformity to the uniform practice which had taken place since 1791, with the exception, that under his superintendence more leniency had been shown to the prisoners than they formerly experienced. They had, therefore, an experience of 26 years in their favour, during which time the Habeas Corpus act had been several times suspended. Before the 31st of the king there were other acts regulating the power of justices of peace with regard to gaols; but the provisions of these acts were never supposed to restrain the power of the Crown with respect to state prisoners. It was impossible, in the nature of things, that the provisions of the act of 31st could be meant to apply to state prisoners. It never was in the contemplation of those persons who brought it in, or those by whom it was passed, to deprive the secretary of state of the power of regulating the treatment of state prisoners. He contended, therefore, that his noble friend was justified, by the understanding of parliament, and by all the law authorities, in acting in the manner he had done.
The Earl of Rosslynthought it his duty to look at the expressions in the act itself. In this he was borne out by the noble secretary of state, who, on a former occasion, had observed, that it was not the meaning of the movers and supporters of an act that was to be looked at—but that
876
they were to look at what the law really enacted. Looking at the act, on that principle, he could find none of the exceptions with respect to state prisoners. It gave the magistrates certain powers as to all persons confined in prisons. To take away any of the privileges of the magistrates would, in his view, be acting against the law. If the noble lord could show him that any case on the subject had ever been brought fairly into discussion by a judicial proceeding, and had been decided according to his opinions, he might yield to his arguments and construction; but it did not appear that any such case could be adduced.
The Lord Chancellorfelt it necessary to preface any observations which he might make with the same protest which he had made on a late legal question in that House—he meant, that he must beg not to be concluded or bound by any remark which he might give as a member of that House. The plain reason for such a protest was this—that as that House was the dernier resort of all questions of law, it was important that the ultimate decision should not be prejudiced by any obiter dictum on an accidental motion. It was the less necessary that he should interfere with any opinion, because there was a regular remedy for any abuse of the existing law. If the gaoler did wrong, he might be proceeded against by action. He did not mean to say that the liberty of the subject was not a question deserving the gravest discussion of the House; but he should wish, if so important a subject was under agitation, that due notice should be given. At present he was taken somewhat by surprise, and therefore was not prepared with such authorities as he should have collected, had he expected to be called upon for them. As it was, he must say, that it would be much better to introduce a bill, to declare formally the law on this subject. One thing he could state, which bore strongly on the present question; and this was, that, in point of law, every gaol in the kingdom was the king's gaol, and therefore under the royal control. He could say that, in 1793 and 1794, it was never thought for a moment that the king's counsel or the secretary of state had not the power of giving advice as to the regulation of prisoners: he was perfectly sure that regulations and directions were issued from day to day. He was ready to admit that no right of the subject should be taken away, except on

877
the most mature deliberation, and after a perfect conviction of its necessity; and in the present case, if he had not been taken by surprise, he would have gone into the fullest consideration of the subject: as it was, he must say, that the prerogative of the Crown should, no more than the liberty of the people, be taken away without the most attentive, investigation. For these reasons, although he attached the highest importance to the treatment of prisoners, he must object to the present motion, on the ground that the evil sought to be remedied should be made the subject of a particular bill, and should not be concluded by a mere motion of that House.
Earl Spencerconceived the main point to be, whether the magistrates should be deprived of that power of visiting prisons which had hitherto by law belonged to them. The learned lord would perhaps recover from that surprise which he at present professed, if the question were adjourned to another day: he would then be able to give it that consideration which he had maintained to be necessary for a right decision of so important a point: with this view, therefore, and because he thought the question one of the highest moment, he should move to adjourn the consideration of the question to Monday next.
Lord Hollandsaid, that the main point now before the House was, whether the noble secretary was justified in suspending the right hitherto possessed by magistrates of inspecting all the gaols of the kingdom. The noble lord had admitted that the justices were enabled, under the act, to visit the gaols; but he seemed to contend that it was a part of the king's prerogative to keep them out of the gaols. He had called the gaols, the king's gaols, and seemed to consider them exclusively under the jurisdiction of his ministers; but the same language might be held of the army, the navy, the courts of justice, and of many other portions of the executive. It was in common language the king's army, the king's court, the king's navy; but no one ever contended that on that account these branches of public service were exempt from the ordinary operation of the laws. The reasons applied by the secretary of state for exemption from the provisions of this act went equally to sweep away the authority of all acts of parliament. In other cases, indeed, the noble lord had been ready enough to allow the magistrates a
878
power of expounding acts of parliament, but the moment this power might interfere with the exercise of his own authority, he contended that they ought not to be allowed to exercise it. It was no argument to say that the act was an unreasonable act: it stood as the law of the land, and as such could not be departed from. When a pretence had been set up for the suspension of our most valuable rights, it more than ever became the legislature to inquire into the exercise of these new authorities. He could not allow that the practice pursued since 1791 furnished any reason for what had now been done. The point he wished to bring before their lordships was, not whether this business was warranted by precedent, or even whether it was legal, but whether, in the very teeth of an act of parliament, it was competent to the secretary of state to tell the magistrates that they were not to visit the gaols within their jurisdiction.
The amendment was negatived.
The original motion was then put, and was also negatived.

PROTEST RESPECTING THE RIGHT OF MAGISTRATES TO VISIT STATE PRISONERS.
The following Protest was entered on the Journals:
Dissentient,
1st. Because it was acknowledged in debate, that in the correspondence moved for, his majesty's secretary of state refused permission to certain justices of the peace for the county of Berks "to visit the state prisoners confined in the gaol of Reading, to ask questions of them, or to enter into conversation with them;" and it is expressly enacted in the fifth section of an act of the 31st of the present king, intituled, "an act for the better regulating of county gaols and other places of confinement," 'that certain justices of the peace appointed by the general or quarter sessions shall (either together or singly) personally visit and inspect both the common gaols and other the houses of correction or other places of confinement, at least three times in each quarter of the year, and oftener, if occasion shall require, and shall examine into the state of the buildings, and the behaviour and conduct of the respective officers, and the treatment and condition of the prisoners; and furthermore shall at any general or quarter sessions make a report in writing of the state and condition of the same, and of all abuses which may occur to their obser-

879
vation; and the chairman of the said sessions is hereby required to call upon the said visitors for such report;" it moreover in the same section expressly declared, that it shall be lawful for every justice of the peace for such county, riding, or division of his own accord, and without being appointed a visitor, to enter into and examine the same at such time or times, and as often as he shall think fit, and if he shall discover any abuses therein, he is required to report them in writing at the next general or quarter sessions of the peace."
We could not reconcile it to our duty to reject all further inquiry into the violation of a statute neither obsolete nor ambiguous, and when we adverted to the quarter from whence such disobedience to the law had originated, we deemed ourselves called upon to protect one of the most essential rights of the people, vindicated at the revolution of 1688, and asserted in the act of the first of William and Mary, namely,

1. "That the pretended power of suspending laws, or the execution of laws, by regal authority, without consent of parliament, is illegal.

2. "That the pretended power of dispensing with the laws, or the execution of laws, by regal authority, as it hath been assumed and exercised of late, is illegal."

Secondly, Because the argument urged in debate, that the prerogative of the Crown extends to the regulation of all his majesty's gaols, and that consequently no act of parliament relating to them can, without reciting the previous consent of the Crown, be imperative against the mandates of a secretary of state, appears to us unfounded in principle, inconclusive In its application, and highly dangerous in its consequences.
A prerogative, however undisputed, cannot, we presume, counteract the force of an act of parliament, sanctioned by the three branches of the legislature, and consequently consented to by the crown.
The justices authorized by the 31st of the king to visit the common gaols of their respective counties, do not, by complying with the act, alter any regulations made by his majesty; they act under his commission; they are removable at his will, and they are permitted, and in some cases required, to enforce the regulations for gaols, issuing either from the Crown in virtue of its prerogative, or from any
880
other lawful authority. The provisions, therefore, of the 31st of the king, cannot interfere with the prerogative of the Crown to whatever extent that prerogative may be supposed to exist.
If the claim of unlimited prerogative is to be set up in all institutions, which, in the language of the law, belong to the king, and if the laws of the land, after passing the two Houses of parliament, and receiving the royal assent, have no power to limit that prerogative, then in all things relating to the army, the navy, and the courts of justice, the dispensing power, which our ancestors struggled to extinguish, is revived, and the securities devised for our property, our liberties, and our lives by the wisdom of parliament exist only at the mercy of the advisers of the Crown—a system which would substitute arbitrary will for positive law, convert parliament itself into a useless appendage of a court, and our free constitution into an absolute government dependent on the caprice of a monarch and his advisers.
Thirdly, Because the law does not enact, nor does reason require any difference of treatment between state prisoners and other prisoners committed to a common gaol; and should the exigencies of the state require such difference to be made, the secretary of state has it in his power to commit in the first instance, or afterwards to convey such prisoners to fortresses and other places of confinement more immediately under the direction of the advisers of the Crown, and not, as we apprehend, included in the provisions of the 31st of the king.
Fourthly, Because no practice previous to the passing of the act, and none subsequent to it (if any such were pretended), can justify his majesty's secretary of state in departing so entirely from its spirit and its letter, as to prevent the magistrates from executing duties plainly enjoined, and from exerting powers without any reserve or exception conferred upon them by an act of parliament, clear in its construction and consistent in its provisions; and when this branch of the legislature has so recently been called upon to concur in the temporary suspension of the most valuable laws of the land, we felt it more imperiously our bounden duty to watch over the statutes which are still permitted to exist, and to enforce an obedience to the remaining laws in those who are entrusted with the execution of them, and

881
already invested with powers so extraordinary, and so liable to abuse.
ROSSLYN.
LAUDERDALE.
MONIFORT.
VASSAL HOLLAND.