Sitting of 15 February 1819

PETITION FROM LONDON FOR THE SUPPRESSION OF DISORDERLY HOUSES.
The Sheriffs of Londonpresented a Petition from the Lord Mayor, &c. setting forth,
"That the Petitioners have long and deeply lamented the extent and prevalence of female prostitution, and its unhappy and pernicious effects on society at large, but more especially among the rising generation; and that they are convinced that the number of brothels and disorderly houses which are to be found in various parts of the metropolis, and the methods which are devised and practised by the proprietors of such houses to evade the existing laws, have greatly contributed to the continuance and increase of this alarming evil; that, notwithstanding the utmost vigilance of the magistracy, their efforts have too frequently proved unavailing for the suppression of houses of this infamous description, by reason of the heavy expenses which attend the prosecution of the parties by indictment, and the ease with which they can occasion delay, by the adoption of legal artifices; also, on account of the great and almost insuperable difficulty of procuring evidence of that nature and degree which the existing laws require to convict the owners or occupiers of such disorderly houses and brothels; that in many instances of conviction and punishment, after much delay and expense, the occupiers are found

433
frequently to transfer the possession to others of the same description, and who continue to practise the same iniquitous conduct; the petitioners therefore humbly submit to the House the necessity which exists of rendering the laws more adequate and efficient to the remedy of this evil, by such means as in the wisdom of the House shall appear expedient."
Mr. Alderman Wood, on moving that the petition be printed, took the opportunity of reminding the House of the great importance of the subject. The present law was, he said, quite insufficient to repress the existing evil. The disgraceful mode in which those unfortunate women were managed during their confinement, kept without labour, and mixed up with paupers, was also a topic that demanded serious attention. It was not his intention to propose any measure on the subject; but perhaps the law officers of the crown would, at some future period, apply themselves to its legislative correction.

SLAVE TRADE.
Lord Castlereaghlaid on the table papers relating to the Slave Trade, and minutes of the conferences which had taken place on this subject at the Congress of Aix-la-Chapelle.
Mr. Wilberforcesaid, that the documents were too voluminous to be taken into consideration to-morrow, as the noble lord had proposed.
Lord Castlereaghconcurred, that members could not be prepared for a discussion on the subject until the papers had been printed; he therefore would postpone his notice until Friday next.
Mr. Smythwished to obtain from the noble lord some information on another important point connected with this interesting question. The House were aware that conventions had been signed between this country and Spain and Portugal, for the establishment of commissions for the adjudication of captured slave ships on the coast of Africa, in South America, and in the island of Trinidad. The ratifications of those conventions were to be exchanged within a limited time; and at the expiration of twelve months at the latest, the commissions were to be established. He wished to know whether that desirable object had yet been accomplished, and if not, when it was probable that it would be attained.
Lord Castlereaghobserved, that there
[434
had been three conventions concluded of the nature described by the hon. gentleman, one with the government of the Netherlands, which had not been proceeded upon, as it had not yet received the sanction of the legislature. With respect to the conventions with Spain and Portugal, bills had passed which had enabled his majesty's government to act on them. They had followed up all the details of the subject with the utmost anxiety for their completion, and although the necessity of combining their arrangements with the arrangements of foreign powers had retarded the operation, he had the satisfaction to say, that at a very early period the commissions would be in action.
Mr. Wilberforcecomplained, that a strange delay had occurred in sending out the commissioners. He did not mean to impute it to the noble lord opposite; but the House should know, that every day which was suffered to pass before they went out, signed the death-warrant of hundreds of their fellow-creatures.

TRIAL BY BATTLE ABOLITION BILL.
The Attorney General, in moving the order of the day for the House to resolve itself into a committee on this bill, begged to be allowed to make one or two observations on the subject. He understood that he had been accused of having surreptitiously introduced into the bill the Abolition of Appeals of Murder—his original proposition being merely the Abolition of the Wager of Battle; and that he had also been accused of hurrying the measure through the House. The truth of those charges he utterly and absolutely denied. He might appeal to every hon. gentleman who was a member of the last parliament, whether, in giving notice on the subject in the last session, he did not distinctly state that it was his intention to propose the Abolition of Appeals, and of course the Wager of Battle as comprehended in them. He did not at the time of giving that notice, name a day for making his motion, because he knew that various opinions were entertained on the subject, and he wished hon. gentlemen to turn their minds to it in the interval between the dissolution of the last and the assembling of the present parliament. When, in the present session, he gave notice of his motion, he also distinctly stated that he intended to propose the Abolition of Appeals of Murder, and having brought in the bill

435
on the 1st of February, he was so far from making any attempt to smuggle it through the House, that he delayed the further proceeding, on it until the Tuesday se'nnight after. It was his intention, if the House; went into the committee on; the bill, to propose several amendments, chiefly in the phraseology of the clauses, but one of a material nature. An hon. and learned gentleman had thrown: out a doubt if the appeal of treason was yet in existence. Unquestionably, the appeal of treason committed in this country had long ceased; still there might be some doubt with respect to treason committed abroad, although it must be considered as virtually abolished, since there was no court in which an appeal could be brought, unless by especial interference of the king. But, if the abolition of it was not expressly stated in the law books, he could have no hesitation in introducing it in this bill. Holding the official situation which he did, he felt himself bound to justify himself from the charges which had been brought against him; although he was persuaded that no hon. member on either side of the House could believe him capable of such conduct as that of which he had been accused.
Sir F. Burdettperfectly acquitted the hon. and learned gentleman of all intention either surreptitiously to introduce a subject into the bill of which he had given no notice, or of endeavouring to hurry or smuggle the measure through the House. On the contrary, the hon. and learned gentleman had given more than the usual and necessary notice of his proposition. The hon. baronet said, that he wished to save one part of the law of appeal; namely, that which was made in cases of murder; and he intended, when the bill was recommitted, to submit an amendment to that effect. He admitted it would be a hardship to have any man liable to be tried twice for the same offence; but he considered the right of appeal in such cases necessary, as a protection against an undue exercise of the power of the crown in pardoning persons convicted of murder.
Sir James Mackintoshsaid, he would have offered himself upon this subject on a former occasion, had he anticipated any serious objection to the bill; but he considered it so wise and so much called for a measure, that he did not imagine any individual would have opposed it. He would listen with pleasure to any argu-
[436
ments which might be offered in favour of the appeal in cases of murder; but he professed he did not see how any part of the law could be suffered to remain, without leaving a principle equally inconsistent with humanity and justice. The objections to the repeal of that part of it which applied to cases of murder, rested upon no better authority than the observations of Junius upon the case of the Kennedies.
The bill was then committed.

CHIMNEY SWEEPERS REGULATION BILL.
On the order of the day for the second reading of this bill,
Mr. Ommaneymade two objections to it. The first was that the laws as they stood at present gave the climbing boys sufficient protection; and the second, that the machinery which was proposed to be substituted for them was not found to succeed.
Mr. Bennetsaid, that if the hon. member had devoted an hour of his time to reading the reports of the committees which had investigated the matter, be would have found a complete and satisfactory answer to his objections. The answer to the first might be found in the evidence of the masters themselves, who had all admitted that the laws were not sufficient for the protection of the children. His answer to the second objection would be, that that could not be called a failure in the machinery which succeeded in 990 cases out of 1000.
The bill was then read a second time.

USURY LAWS REPEAL BILL.
On the order of the day for the second reading of this bill,
Mr. Calcraftsaid, he did not intend to offer any objection to the bill in its present stage, nor to its going into a committee; but when the report of the committee should be brought up, he should feel it his duty to give the measure every opposition in his power.
Mr. Protheroealso expressed his intention of postponing his opposition to the bill. It appeared to him to be much too bold an experiment at the present time; and he trusted that at a future stage the hon. and learned gentleman would be induced to withdraw the measure.
Mr. Serjeant Onslowsaid, that as the opposition to his measure was postponed, he would of- course also postpone his defence of it. He fervently hoped that it would be fairly considered, his firm

437
opinion being that it was most desirable.
The bill was then read a second time.

MOTION RESPECTING THE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST EDWARD BURR.
Mr. R. Martin, in pursuance of notice, rose to move for a copy of the bill of indictment found against Edward Burk, and the proceedings had thereon. After some preliminary observations, the hon. gentleman proceeded to state, that in 1815 a bill of indictment, at his instance, had been found against Edward Burk, for wilful and corrupt perjury; that in consequence of the bill having been found against Mr. Burk, he would have been put on his trial, but for an affidavit, in which he stated the absence of a material witness, of the name of Brown. Another affidavit had been put in by him (Mr. Martin) contradicting the statement in the affidavit of Mr. Burk, but the Court had thought fit to postpone the trial of Mr. Burk to a subsequent term. However, it was not his wish now to object to this first postponement. But at the following term, he, in his turn, had moved for the postponement of the trial to a future terra, on account of the absence of a material witness, Mr. Colliss, an eminent barrister, who was then ill of a bilious fever. His application appeared to him a reasonable one. In his affidavit he had Stated, that he heard Mr. Colliss was in such a slate of indisposition that he could not with safety to his life attend on his trial. He also stated that Mr. Colliss had been served with a subpoena to appear and give evidence at this trial. Mr. Baron M'Lelland, the judge who presided on the trial, objected, however, to that affidavit, for a curious reason, because the person who made the affidavit had not sworn positively that he had seen Mr. Colliss, or could state from his own knowledge, that he could not positively attend. In order to remove this objection of Baron M'Lelland, he had produced the affidavit of a physician, who swore that Mr. Colliss could not, with safety to his life, give testimony at that trial. However, though the trial was postponed when all the witnesses for this crown were in attendance, the Court would not consent to postpone it in November, on account of the absence of a material Witness for the prosecution. The application, too, was not made to postpone the trial to the next commission, but merely from day to day. He had merely wished to have it removed from
[438
the top of the list of causes to the bottom, in order to see whether the witness might not be able to attend during the commission. He could only say further, that every man in Ireland, capable of pronouncing an opinion on the subject, with whom he had ever spoken, agreed in stating that a more outrageous determination than the one in question never had been come to. The hon. gentleman concluded with moving, "That the clerk of the crown for the city of Dublin do lay before this House, a copy of the bill of indictment found against Edward Burk for perjury, together with the proceedings thereon."
Lord Castlereaghsaid, that the House knew how important a subject was a charge against any of the learned judges of the land, and that it ought not, in fairness, to be gone into, until every information on both sides were before them. He should, therefore, put it to the hon. member, whether it would not be better to postpone his motion until his right hon. friend (Mr. C. Grant), the representative of the Irish government, was present. He would be in his place in a few days, and it was natural to believe that he possessed more information upon the subject than any of his majesty's ministers in the House. He was satisfied that the hon. member did not intend to produce any unfavourable impression against the learned judge, until the whole of the subject could be gone into; and he trusted, therefore, he would consent to the delay. For his own part, ignorant as he was of the transaction alluded to, he felt it a duty to state, from a personal knowledge of the learned judge, that there was no one of the learned judges of either kingdom, to whom the strictly honourable character which happily belonged to them all might be more peculiarly applied than to him. The noble lord concluded by expressing a hope, that the hon. member would, for the present, consent to withdraw his motion.
Mr. Wynnthought it would be entertaining the charge against the learned judge, to consent to the motion at present. He therefore suggested that it should he withdrawn, and when brought forward, that it should be simply for the documents alluded to; without going into the merits of the case, until it should be seen from those documents, whether it was one which the House ought to go into.
The motion was then withdrawn for a fortnight.