Sitting of 22 May 1830

SIR JONAH BARRINGTON.
The Order of the Day for the further consideration of the report of the Committee appointed to take into Consideration the Conduct of Sir Jonah Barrington, having been read,
Counsel for Sir J. Barrington, were ordered to be called in.
Mr. Denmanappeared at the bar, and addressed the House for Sir J. Barrington. He observed, that he was instructed not to enter upon the merits of the case, but to confine himself solely to the course of proceeding which had been adopted. It had now, he said, become a constitutional principle that no Judge should be removed from his situation unless a clear charge of malversation could be made out against him. Then, supposing the suspicion of malversation to exist, the question was, what course of proceeding was to be adopted in order to ascertain the fact. He believed that the course which had been pursued with respect to Sir J. Barrington was quite unprecedented. The misconduct of Judges had frequently come under the consideration of Parliament. Two Select Committees of the House of Commons had each made a report condemnatory of the conduct of the present Chief Baron of Ireland for increasing his Fees; but the House refused to interfere, on the ground that it was not bound by the decision of a Select Committee. He understood, that on the present occasion, the Select Committee had pursued the investigation in
966
the unavoidable absence of Sir J. Barrington. If that were the fact, and the House should act upon the report of the Committee, it would, in his opinion, be acting in hostility to the elementary principles of justice. He thought that the verdict of a Jury should be the foundation of the proceedings of the House. Sir J. Barrington might have been proceeded against by impeachment. If it were objected that that was a tedious and cumbersome proceeding, he could mention two others which might have been pursued. A scire facias could have been sued out to abrogate the patent of office; or a criminal information could have been filed by the Attorney General. The latter proceeding would have occasioned no delay. That course was still open, and he submitted that it was the most constitutional one to pursue. At all events, if the House resolved to take the matter into its own hands, it should hear evidence at the bar, and not decide according to the opinion expressed by a few of its Members. In his opinion the House of Commons was an unfit place for an investigation of this kind. No popular assembly did itself honour by erecting itself into a Court of Justice, and entering upon an inquiry, for which by its constitution it was incompetent. The present proceeding would establish a dangerous precedent, which might be fatally imitated in bad times. It was not an extravagant supposition, that on a future occasion the Ministers of the Crown might wish to get rid of a Judge, and to put another person in his place; and all that would be necessary to enable them to effect that object would be, to obtain a report from a Select Committee, as had been done on the present occasion. It was on behalf of all Westminster-hall that he entreated the House not to act upon the decision of a committee. If it should, no Judge, however correct in his office, would be safe against the attacks of a Minister.
Counsel withdrew.
Lord F. L. Gowerobserved, that he could not agree in the view taken by the learned gentleman. There was a great difference between the case of the Irish Chief Baron and the one under consideration; for in the former there were strong doubts entertained as to the degree of criminality, whilst in the present case there were none. He could not agree with the learned Counsel, that it was necessary to have

967
the verdict of a Jury as the foundation of the proceedings of the House. The House would surrender up its power if it recognized such a principle. If that were the principle of the law or the constitution of Parliament, or of the country, he could see no reason why the Statute of the 12th and 13th of William 3rd should have been passed at all. In his opinion, it was a total misconstruction of that Statute, to suppose that it was necessary for Parliament to call for the decision of any other body of men in cases like the present. The learned Judge himself in the case now before the House, virtually submitted to its authority, by appearing before a Select Committee of Inquiry. He did not mean to contend that the House was bound to act on the decision of that committee. But the evidence given before it had been laid before the House; and, having examined it, the House ought to pursue that course which would best meet the justice of the case; and thus having maturely weighed the evidence, and well considered every part of the case, it appeared to him that no other course could be taken but that of moving an Address to his Majesty, praying for the removal of Sir J. Barring-ton from his office of Judge of the Admiralty Court in Ireland. The charges had been too clearly substantiated to admit of any doubt; and, as a proof of this, it should not be forgotten that the learned Counsel who had been heard at the Bar did not enter into any inquiry with reference to the merits of the case, and did not attempt to controvert the facts which were given in evidence. His Lordship concluded by moving "that the first Resolution of the Committee of Inquiry, with respect to the Conduct of Sir J. Barrington, as Judge of the High Court of Admiralty in Ireland, be read a second time."
Sir R. Wilsonsaid, that when any inquiry, whether of a civil or criminal nature, took place in our courts of law, the defendant had the advantage of examining and cross-examining witnesses. He hoped that the same course would be pursued in this case, and that the House would not exercise its power, and call for the dismissal of the learned Judge without first hearing his witnesses.
The Solicitor Generalsaid, that having carefully examined the evidence, he was certain that he came to a safe conclusion when he averred, that a case was never more directly or distinctly made out against
968
any man than was the charge preferred against the learned Judge. Leaving the parole evidence out of the question, and only making those statements which were given in under his own hand, he was bound to say, that every charge alleged against the learned Judge was fully substantiated. The orders written by him placed the matter beyond the possibility of doubt. The learned gentleman entered into a detailed examination of the evidence adduced before the committee, and argued that it clearly proved gross malversation on the part of Sir J. Barrington. He proceeded to say, that it had been asked why, instead of taking the course which had been pursued, a criminal information had not been filed against the learned Judge? He would answer, that the only reason why a criminal information had not been filed, or a criminal prosecution instituted, against the learned Judge was, his advanced age and his many infirmities. The present course was adopted from a feeling of compassion towards him. Ministers had taken this step, considering at the same time what was due to the country, and what was due to the situation of the learned Judge. Of this he was convinced, that no judicious friend of the learned Judge would have advised him to make the application which the House had this day heard. If a criminal information had been prosecuted, most unquestionably it would have been followed by severe personal punishment.
Sir R. Wilson.—He wished to brave it.
The Solicitor Generalsaid, those who had felt it to be their duty to investigate this business were not to be guided by what the learned Judge wished, but by their own view of what was most proper to be done. The question was, whether the present was or was not the most proper course of proceeding that could be adopted? In a case susceptible of doubt, he should be inclined to proceed differently; but there was no doubt here. The investigation, both by the Commissioners of Inquiry and by the Committee, clearly proved the truth of the charges. And why was a prosecution now demanded? Precisely for the same reason which had induced the learned Judge heretofore to throw every obstacle in the way of a speedy decision. The learned Judge was anxious for delay; but he hoped the House would feel that sufficient indulgence had already been extended towards him.
Sir C. Wetherellcould not accede to the doctrine that the House ought to send this case before a Jury. If it did so, it would be a virtual surrender of the great privilege which the Constitution had conferred on the Commons of England. There was, however, another question, on which he entertained considerable doubt, namely, whether the proceedings before the committee were of such a nature as ought to be acted on judicially by the House. He felt so much doubt on that point, that he was induced to wish that the noble Lord's resolution should not be pressed at the present moment. It should be observed, that in cases of equal and of superior importance which had been brought under the cognizance of the House, the uniform practice had been to examine witnesses at the bar. This was the course which had been taken in the case of the Duke of York, and in many other instances. Indeed, it was quite unusual to take a condemnatory step against a public officer, without first hearing evidence at the bar. A proceeding of that kind did not imply a disbelief, on the part of the House, of the evidence given before a committee, or a doubt as to the propriety of its report; it was merely the carrying into effect a great constitutional principle.
Mr. Harrison Batleysaid, the evidence, as it stood, was conclusive, as to the delinquency of the learned Judge; but if evidence were called, and subjected to cross-examination, a very different case might be elicited. He was therefore in favour of hearing witnesses.
Mr. C. W. Wynnsaid, that there were both advantages and disadvantages connected with the examination of witnesses at the bar. Cross-examination, he admitted, was a very considerable advantage; but there was this great disadvantage, that many Gentlemen left the House after having heard the first part of the evidence, and others came in, who were thus only in possession of the latter part. In such cases, very few Members were acquainted with the whole of the evidence when they were called on for their decision. Besides, a spirit of party was often observable in an examination before a committee of the whole House, which tended to pervert the course of justice. He had, on some such occasions, seen men whose conduct was generally impartial, led, by the feeling of party spirit, into acrimonious dissensions, which diverted their minds from the real bearings
970
of the case under consideration. With respect to what had fallen from his learned friend (Sir C. Wetherell), he doubted very much whether it was the uniform practice of the House to hear witnesses at the bar. The mode of proceeding by Address was essentially the same as proceeding by impeachment. In the case of Lord Melville, the proceeding originated in the report of the Commissioners of Inquiry, and the charge was afterwards investigated by a committee up-stairs: no evidence was called to the bar. Nothing was more common on questions of privilege than such a proceeding. In many of these cases the charge was considered in a committee up-stairs, and, on their report, the House pronounced its decision. He was surprised to hear it said that any hardship was inflicted on the learned Judge by the course which had been adopted. So far was this from being the case, that he did think it, to a certain extent, discreditable that the report of a commission, so deeply implicating Sir J. Barrington, should have been allowed to remain a year and a half upon the Table without steps being taken in the matter. Every opportunity was afforded to the party to defend himself, and, if possible, refute the charges brought against him. The right hon. Member, after tracing the steps taken by the commissioners, and subsequently by the committee of which he had been Chairman, observed, that all their acts evinced the greatest anxiety to give Sir J. Barrington a fair hearing. With respect to the course to be adopted now that the charges against the Judge had been proved, undoubtedly the House could proceed to address the Crown for his removal. Such a power was vested in Parliament; and as it had been given by the Statute, the only reasonable inference was, that it was intended to be exercised. That it ought to be resorted to on the present occasion also there could be no doubt. Indeed, if it were not for Sir J. Barrington's age and infirmities, he (Mr. Wynn) should have considered the case in the light of one calling for the exercise of still greater severity. Considering the great importance of keeping the judicial station pure and untainted, it was the duty of the Legislature, when judicial delinquency was proved, to punish it with adequate severity, and if, in the present instance, the House was not called on to proceed with the

971
utmost rigour, it was solely ascribable to the circumstances of the party. He must protest against the proceeding of that day being drawn into a precedent in similar cases. The right hon. Gentleman further observed, that the cases of Judge Fox, Chief Baron O'Grady, and Mr. Justice Johnstone, were in many respects different from the present case, and Parliament did not deem it necessary to address the Crown upon them, but he contended, that the case of Sir J. Barrington clearly called for that proceeding. He then proceeded to prove, that there could be no reason for the House instituting a second investigation at the bar, of a matter which had been already distinctly established, unless some Member should be found to say that there were points connected with the case that required further elucidation. He was not of opinion that any further inquiry was necessary. Putting aside the testimony of witnesses, the documentary evidence arising out of papers, every one of them admitted by Sir J. Barrington as authentic, placed the case beyond the limits of controversy.
Mr. D. W. Harveysaid, that in the able address delivered by Counsel at the bar, it was maintained, that Parliament had not the power to proceed by address to the Crown for the removal of Sir J. Barrington. Now, without going into the merits of this argument, considered in a constitutional point of view, he must dissent from it as inapplicable to the present case, inasmuch as it was at variance with the prayer of the petitioner, which was to be heard at the Bar, in order to disprove the charge; Sir J. Barrington thus recognizing the authority to investigate it,—an authority that would be altogether nugatory, if the House could not afterwards proceed to address the Crown for his removal. The hon. Member proceeded to quote, from the fourth report of the Commissioners of Inquiry into the state of the Temporal and Ecclesiastical Courts in Ireland, a part of the remarks applicable to the Admiralty Court. In reference to the emoluments of Mr. Pineau, the registrar of that court, the commissioners stated, that his average receipts in three years, ending 1814, were 216 l. 13 s. 4d.; but added their opinion, "that it was probable some advantage was derived by this individual from the custody of monies paid into court." He would be the last individual in the world
972
to defend such a practice, but it was obvious that it existed, and further, as the commissioners stated, that "there existed no other security or responsibility for those monies than that which was to be found in the integrity of the officer." Thus it appeared that the registrar was the banker of the court, and if he had power to deal with its funds, it was competent to him to lend them to whom he pleased; he might lend a part of them to Sir J. Barrington. He admitted that it was discreditable to the country, and disgraceful to the Government, to allow a report to lie for years on the Table, in which such an undue use of the monies of suitors in a court of justice was stated, and to adopt no measures for the prevention of the evil. Still, looking at the case as it stood, it amounted to this,—Sir J. Barrington borrowed money from an officer of the Admiralty Court, who, according to the custom existing there, appeared to be justified in lending it. That was all. The hon. Gentleman then urged the House to call Sir J. Barrington to the bar, and ask him whether he had any testimony, oral or written, which he wished to lay before Parliament in explanation of the transaction, or in refutation of the charges adduced against him. This was all that was demanded by Sir J. Barrington, who stated, that he had such evidence to lay before the House, if an opportunity were afforded of doing so. Having intimated his opinion that the committee had somewhat deviated from the principle of impartiality in their report, and that they appeared to labour to produce a sort of ad captandum effect by insinuating that frequent misapplications of the funds of the court had been made for the convenience of Sir J. Barrington, the hon. Gentleman went on to say, that such misapplication was only charged by Mr. Pineau in two cases, those of the Nancy and Redstreak. The hon. Member then enumerated some of the details of those transactions, for the purpose of showing that, assuming the right of the Registrar to deal with the funds of suitors of the Admiralty, Sir J. Barrington was justified in borrowing a portion of them, the pecuniary responsibility resting between him and the Registrar. In conclusion, he hoped the House would allow this individual, aged and worn down by infirmities as he was, to appear at the bar for the purpose of

973
offering evidence, oral or documentary, to rebut the imputations cast upon him. Sir J. Barrington had declared, that he possessed the means of exculpating himself, and in his petition courted further inquiry. The House would do well to grant his request: if Sir J. Barrington failed in his attempt, they would be justified in adopting ulterior measures, after giving him a fair hearing; if, on the contrary, this individual should succeed in establishing his innocence, no Gentleman in the House could regret the time spent in the investigation which should have enabled Sir J. Barrington to emancipate himself from the serious and imperishable consequences of an address of Parliament to the Crown to remove him from office.
Mr. C. Wynnsaid, that the hon. Gentleman would observe, that the documents referred to were interlined by the Judge. The hon. Member, too, thought that if the Registrar might lend the money of the suitors, the Judge might borrow it. Such a state of things would be monstrous enough; but it was not necessary to deal with this argument, because Sir Jonah Barrington, if he had borrowed the money, had borrowed it as gentlemen borrowed purses on Hounslow-heath. He made a peremptory order on the Registrar which subordinate officer to the Judge was bound to obey.
The Solicitor Generalagain referred to the evidence to shew that Sir Jonah Barrington had appropriated the money to his own use.
Sir R. Inglissaid, that the prayer of Sir Jonah Barrington's petition had been practically granted, and that the evidence taken before the Select Committee had been virtually admitted by Sir Jonah, by the course which his Counsel at the bar had thought proper to follow. Whenever a tribunal had been appointed to investigate this case, Sir Jonah Barrington had avoided going before it, and seemed to look out for another tribunal. The time for appealing to the Court of King's Bench, or to the House of Lords, had, he thought, gone by last year, and he should therefore support the Motion.
Sir R. Peelsaid, he thought the more convenient course would be, to consider the propositions before the House separately. His hon. and gallant friend (Sir R. Wilson) proposed, that they should abandon the proceedings before the House,
974
and that a criminal process should be instituted against Sir Jonah Barrington. He could not acquiesce in this proposition. He would not leave it to a court of law to determine, on evidence strictly legal, whether there was ground for the removal of a Judge. If such a course were sanctioned, the law which provided for the independence of the Judges would be a curse instead of a benefit to the country. That Judges should be, as they were, independent of the Crown, no one, he supposed, would question; but was a Judge to be allowed to take advantage of that law which conferred this independence on him, to neglect his duty to the country? Surely not. Let him remind the House that there were many disqualifications, short of legal crimes, which would justify the removal of a Judge. If, for instance, a Judge should be guilty of gross and continued immorality, that would justify the House in addressing the Crown for the removal of such a person from the bench, though, in the eye of the law, it might not be sufficient for a formal sentence to that effect. Again, the absence of a Judge from the realm; pretended indisposition on the part of a Judge; advanced age or infirmities which unfitted a Judge for performance of the judicial functions; any of these circumstances would justify the House in addressing the Crown to remove a Judge. Was it to be endured that a Judge, who performed no duty, should be allowed to draw his salary from the public funds? Would it become them, the guardians of the public purse, to suffer this? There were many sufficient grounds, then, for an address for the removal of a Judge, though no legal crime could be proved against him. If he had a moral conviction that a Judge had committed acts which disqualified him for the judicial office, though he could not be convicted of any legal crime, he should think himself justified in joining in an address to the Crown for the removal of such Judge, without waiting for positive proof of the individual's guilt. On these grounds, therefore, he could not adopt the principle on which his gallant friend had founded his proposition. The second proposition turned on the question, whether it was competent for the House to proceed on the report of the Select Committee, or whether it ought to hear further evidence at the Bar before proceeding to address the Crown, He

975
should be very sorry to sanction it as a rule, that in every case like the present they ought to examine evidence at the bar. If such a rule were to be admitted, he did not see the use of appointing a committee, and he would say, let them never appoint a select committee again. But in this case they had the report of a Commission appointed by Act of Parliament, and they had evidence taken on oath before that Commission in addition to the report of the Select Committee. The conclusion to which those authorities had come, and the conclusion to which he had come with respect to the conduct of Sir Jonah Barrington, was founded on documentary evidence, which Sir Jonah did not even now pretend that he could negative. Two different opportunities had been given to Sir J. Barrington to explain, or to rebut that evidence. By two different tribunals, Sir J. Barrington had been invited to do this, but he had neglected those opportunities, and he had not accepted those invitations. Upon these grounds he was morally convinced of Sir J. Barrington's guilt. If Sir Jonah had told them that he could disprove any, and what, part of the evidence, the case would have been different; but to a vague proposal of hearing evidence, which would only create further delay, he had no hesitation in giving his refusal. He deeply regretted the necessity of such a proceeding against a gentleman of advanced age, and belonging to an honourable profession, but he did not see how the House, upon which this duty exclusively devolved, could possibly avoid the performance of it, however painful it might be.
Sir R. Wilsoncontended, that Sir Jonah Barrington ought not to be punished until he had been legally tried. With few more than fifty Members in the House, and on an unusual day, they ought not to proceed to vote this Resolution; and he should therefore move, as an Amendment, "That Sir J. Barrington be called to the Bar, and asked what is the nature of the evidence he is desirous to produce." The House would then be able to judge respecting the admissibility of the evidence, and what ulterior measures should be adopted.
Lord F. L. Goweropposed the Amendment, on the ground that it would create further and unnecessary delay.
Mr. A. Dawsonsaid, the reason why he seconded the Motion was, that he wished to have no vague mention of other evi-
976
dence that could be offered. Let Sir Jonah Barrington be called to the bar, and let him be asked if he had any witnesses to call, and what were their names.
Mr. D. W. Harveysaid, if it should appear, when Sir Jonah Barrington was called to the bar, that his object was delay till the next Session, he, for one, would not consent to it; but if he wished bona fide to have witnesses produced and examined immediately, he ought not to be refused; the less so, as there was reason to believe, that if the late Government had continued, this prosecution would not have been brought forward. He had seen a letter to Sir Jonah Barrington, from Mr. Lamb, now Lord Melbourne, in answer to one on the subject of the retirement of the former from his office as Judge of the Admiralty Court. The hon. Member then referred to the first salary received by Sir J. Barrington, as Admiralty Judge, which was only 500 l. a-year; but afterwards, on the recommendation of Lord Stowell, to whom Sir Jonah's memorial on the subject was referred, it was raised—not to 2,000 l. a-year as Lord Stowell had recommended, but to 1,000 l. There was also a compensation which Sir Jonah was to receive for some situation he had held before the Union, and this compensation, it was understood, was to come out of the Droits of Admiralty. This feeling it was, that made him think he had some right to appropriate some of those droits. Sir Jonah might have retired at one time, and if he had, this prosecution would not have been heard of; he had some claims too on the country, and on these grounds he should support the Motion of the gallant General.
Sir R. Peelsaid, that at the time of the correspondence to which the hon. Member alluded, Mr. Lamb could have known nothing of the transactions in which the present case originated. Mr. Lamb's letter was dated 12th May, 1828, and the report of the law-commissioners on the subject of these transactions was not made till January 1829. As to the remarks of the hon. Member, respecting the understanding about the compensation from the Droits of Admiralty, the hon. Member himself must see, that, if urged as a defence, they must involve an admission of the fact of appropriation.
Mr. D. W. Harveyhad only mentioned

977
them as the funds out of which the compensation was to have been given.
The Solicitor Generalhad understood the hon. Member to urge the fact in vindication of Sir Jonah.
Mr. W. Harvey: Not in vindication; he vindicated nothing. He only repeated what was urged by Sir J. Barrington in his vindication.
Sir J. Newportremarked, that at the time of the correspondence with Mr. Lamb, there was nothing known of any charge of corruption against Sir Jonah Barrington.
Mr. Alderman Woodthought it but fair that Sir Jonah should be heard before he was condemned. Any prisoner at the Old Bailey, before receiving sentence, was asked what he had to urge why sentence should not be passed on him. No feeling of inconvenience to the House should prevent the accused from being heard.
Lord F. L. Gowerdid not speak of any inconvenience to the House. What he said was, that it would be inconvenient to public justice to let the matter stand over to the next Session.
Mr. Dundassaid, the course proposed would be unusual after Counsel had been heard.
Sir R. Wilson: The Counsel argued the question only on constitutional grounds.
Mr. C. W. Wynnsaid, that when a party was heard by Counsel, he was bound by the defence set up for him. If he chose to have called witnesses, that was the time to urge the claim; but Counsel having retired without making any such demand, it was now too late.
The House divided:—For the Amendment 4; Against it 56—Majority 52.
The original question, that the first Resolution [for which see ante, page 485] be then read a second time, was agreed to.
On Lord F. L. Gower moving the second Resolution,
Sir C. Wetherellsaid, that as a constitutional question, he thought the address to the Crown, for the removal of a Judge from his office, ought to be founded on evidence taken at its bar, and not before a select committee. There were, he was ready to admit, circumstances in the present case which would justify a departure from the general rule for which he contended, as the charges here were mainly dependent on the written documents of the party accused; but then
978
those circumstances should be stated in the Resolution as the ground for departing from what he considered the constitutional practice. He threw out this as a suggestion for the consideration of the House.
Resolution agreed to.
At moving the third Resolution.
Mr. C. W. Wynnsuggested, that as this was a serious malversation in office, a stronger expression ought to be used in the Resolution as applying to it.
Sir Robert Peelsaid, the difficulty in the adoption of the suggestion was this—that as the accused party had no notice, it would not be fair to him to alter the character of the delinquency now by any description different from that of which he had received notice. He was fully impressed with the importance of the argument of the hon. and learned Gentleman (Sir C. Wetherell,) whose very able view of the case entitled his suggestion to much weight. As a general principle, he would certainly admit that the hearing of evidence at the bar would, in a case like the present, be proper; but there were circumstances in it, particularly the evidence being chiefly documentary, which justified the departure from that principle in this case. It appeared to him that the case had legitimately concluded when the Counsel retired from the bar, and that the House would be fully warranted in leaving the special circumstances to be collected from the record.
The rest of the Resolutions were agreed to seriatim.
Lord F. L. Gowerthen moved, "that an humble Address be presented to his Majesty, requesting that he would be graciously pleased to cause the said Sir Jonah Barrington to be removed from the office of Judge of the High Court of Admiralty in Ireland."
Mr. S. Riceobjected to the Motion, on the ground that no previous notice had been given to the House that it was the noble Lord's intention to move such an Address immediately on acceding to the Resolutions.
Sir R. Peelobserved, that it was quite impossible to put Resolutions of this nature on record without following them up forthwith by an Address to the Crown as a necessary consequence. It would, of course, be requisite to give time to the committee which should be appointed to prepare an address in conformity with the Resolutions.
Mr. C W. Wynnthought it inexpedient that Sir J. Barrington should be permitted to remain in office an hour longer than the proper forms would allow, after having been stigmatized by the House of Commons in such a manner as to render his continuance as Judge of the Court of Admiralty incompatible with the public interests.
Motion agreed to, and Committee appointed to carry it into effect.

BREACH OF PRIVILEGE.
At this stage of the proceedings a person in the Strangers' Gallery started up, and flung down a number of copies of a printed document on the heads of the Members in the body of the House. He was in the act of dispersing similar papers amongst the spectators in the gallery, when the Speaker ordered that he should be brought to the bar by the Serjeant at Arms. The offender, on being arrested, observed, with great composure, that he "cared little for that, as he had only done his duty." He was then placed at the bar, and interrogated as follows:—
The Speaker.—What is your name?
Prisoner.—William Clifford.
The Speaker.—Do you know this paper?
Prisoner.—I do.
The Speaker.—What induced you to be guilty of the offence of throwing a number of such papers into the body of the House?
Prisoner.—I have watched the effect of the laws passed by your hon. House for twenty-six years, and have perceived a great inconsistency between your laws and your professions. It has become impossible for an honest man to live in the country.
[The concluding words of his answer were quite unintelligible in the gallery.]
The Speakerthen ordered him to withdraw.
Sir R. Peel, observing that there seemed to be no alternative but to order that he be committed to the custody of the Serjeant at Arms—made a Motion to that effect.
Sir R. Wilsonsuggested, that it was possible he might not have designed to offend the House, and recommended that he should be recalled and questioned further, with a view to elicit whether his motive was improper.
Mr. Sadlerintimated his opinion that
980
the individual was most probably not accountable for his actions.
Sir R. Peelreminded the hon. Member that it would be difficult to ascertain that point at the moment, and as they could not act on mere presumption, he thought the best course would be to let him remain in custody, at least until Monday, when the question as to his further disposal might be more easily decided.
Mr. J. Woodwas understood to express his assent to this arrangement.
Motion agreed to.
The following is a copy of the papers distributed.
"THE INIQUITOUS CAUSE OF POOR-RATES, PAUPERISM, AND CRIME EXPOSED.
"To the Judges, Magistrates, Clergy, and Gentlemen of the Vestry of the United Parishes of St. Giles in the Fields and St. George, Bloomsbury.
"My Lords and Gentlemen,—Both yourselves and the industrious inhabitants of these united parishes have lately experienced great and vexatious litigation, and other most evil consequences, all arising out of the cruel circumstances attending our present dreadful state of pauperism; but it will appear fully clear, upon a little reflection, by the statement which your petitioner is about humbly to lay before you, that the real and iniquitous cause of pauperism and poor-laws is but too successfully concealed from your view. You have just caused laws to be passed by the Legislature, the nature of which is, to compel the industrious housekeeper, whether father of a helpless family, a widow, or orphan, to give up a part of his or her dear-gained profits of industry to provide a miserable pittance for a degraded host of paupers, without having at all taken into consideration that the cause of pauperism may be ascribed to a monstrous conspiracy against the remaining free institutions of your once free, prosperous, and happy country! If this conspiracy had been known to have existed for sixteen years—at least—you would certainly have paused before you added another unjust weight of oppression to the already too monstrous pile of iniquity which is crushing the industrious community to the earth—first, in the name of taxes, excise, rates, rent, &c., and then by the most wicked and oppressive system of laws that ever degraded and demoralized a nation:—you could not have been sensible that it may be owing to this diabolical conspiracy that our laws place persons in power to watch till the industrious trades-person gains a few pounds by honest labour, which is no sooner discovered than those in power seize upon the industrious victims, and compel them to give up either the profits of industry or housekeeping, till at last they retire to a room—and from thence they continually become paupers, and are, after gross

981
abuse, received into the workhouse, where they soon end their lives in a state of misery; and, finally, their bodies are either given to, bargained for, or stolen by the resurrection-man for the purpose of dissection: and that all this, my Lords and Gentlemen, may lead to the accomplishment of a powerful tyranny over the rising knowledge of the human mind. And yet, the late occurrences relative to these two parishes clearly prove that all this monstrous iniquity is in actual passing, without your being at all acquainted with so horrible a state of things. Could a bill have been so lately passed through both Houses of Parliament, and have received the King's sanction, to station a police soldiery at every man's door, to compel the parishioners to submit to such a state of things, if the high law-officers, the clergy, and peers, who are in so great a number in these parishes, had known that such a state of things does exist? Would such a bill have passed through both Houses of Parliament, and received the King's sanction as that which has so lately deprived the majority of the industrious inhabitants of the full power of removing a part, at least, of these horrible abuses, if the high law-officers, the clergy, and the peers of these parishes had known that all this monstrosity was intended to be perpetuated through the passing of such laws? No! it is impossible that men of liberal education, men of piety, and men of honour, could be knowingly guilty of so horrible a design upon mankind, the noblest work of God's creation. No! it is to the effects of misdirected laws and power we must attribute the beginning of this monstrous conduct—and it is to an habitual practice of that power we must attribute its continuance—but it is with a hope of now-making a beginning effectually to put a stop to its destructive career, that your petitioner has had the courage to address you so promptly, so unexpectedly, and under so great a risk of his own personal advantage.
"My Lords and Gentlemen, the important information which your petitioner wishes to communicate is to the following effect:—He served as an active volunteer in the late war; and, through the nature of his rank and activity he ventured into the enemy's camp, and from thence he joined the camp of the allied powers just as they had crossed into France in the year 1814. By this means he gained the confidence of many noble chiefs of the allies; and one of these noble chiefs declared the following important fact to your petitioner—namely, that "it was the firm resolution of the allies not to lay down their arms until they had established such a system of laws and religion as should for ever prevent the people of any country from opposing their governments!" &c.
"Now, my Lords and Gentlemen, your petitioner will lay before you so much information relative to the above "firm resolution," as will not fail to open your eyes, and move your hearts and souls in behalf of the suffering poor of these realms. Your petitioner need not
982
say much about the beginning of our late war with France—that event is too well known to all—he will only state so much of its consequences as came within his own knowledge and personal experience. It is universally known that it was owing to the misgovernment of the Bourbon kings that the people of France were compelled, in behalf of their rights, their liberties, and their very existence, to oppose their governments; and the consequence was, that the Bourbons were compelled to yield to the power of the people! But now, my Lords and Gentlemen, it will be imperious on you to weigh well in your minds the measures which the Government of George the 3rd, and of Mr. Pitt, adopted at that eventful epoch. It is well known that the people of England and Ireland were, at that time, suffering under some causes of complaint; and that our Government did not adopt wise measures to allay those causes of partial discontent, if any causes did exist, or if no causes of dissatisfaction did exist, that measures of humanity and kindness had not been tried, in order to set the whole nation right upon the matter. But the very contrary of this was resorted to. Ireland was suffered to be thrown into confusion by incendiaries!—her Parliament was corrupted!—her local Government was taken from her!—the manufactories of England and Ireland were partially put a stop to, and a war was declared. We cherished the fugitive oppressors of the people of France, and Mr. Pitt said, that "the raising the quartern loaf to 2s. 6d. was an excellent plan to pave the way for raising recruits and soldiers to go against France." So, therefore, the most powerful exertions were made for carrying on the incessant war; and by the time of renewed hostilities in 1803–4, all the monies previously possessed and borrowed by the Government were expended in paying supplies, large salaries, and pensions and sinecures, &c. &c. to the supporters of the war, &c.; and as these salaries, &c. were to be continually paid, more money was continually borrowed at a most destructive rate of interest. A soldiery or army was raised after the following ingenious manner:—First, it was everywhere declared in the most public manner that the French were guilty of every thing bad! and every man, from the age of about fifteen to the age of about forty-five years, was seduced by every possible means to go either as a soldier, volunteer, or a sailor, in defence of his King, his laws, and the then happy and free institutions of his country, all of which were declared, by proclamation, and from the pulpit, &c, to be threatened by a most determined, inveterate, and powerful enemy.
"Your humble petitioner was one of those loyal subjects—just then grown to years full of credulity and inexperience, but too young to understand any thing of the deep-laid schemes of governments, he enrolled his name to serve as a volunteer in any part of Great Britain and Ireland, but was not to go abroad, nor to be retained in the service any longer

983
than five years, or during the war. This was the general understanding as respected all the volunteers; and under such an understanding fathers left their helpless families—husbands their unprotected wives—sons their helpless parents—relatives those dependent upon them—apprentices their masters; and the whole lower orders of society were thrown into a state of wretched confusion, the poor helpless children and females were driven to pilfering, and, as they grew up, they began to practise every species of vice, and as now a laxity of morals took place, generally, new prisons, asylums, &c. have ever since continued to increase, till the whole kingdom is at last made to groan with their dreadful consequences; and thus you had a clear foundation laid for your state of pauperism and crime in Great Britain and Ireland; which I hope is made out fully clear to be understood by the humane and the wise, as it is for their use alone it is intended.
"Your petitioner now calls your humane attention to the treatment and circumstances relative to the soldiers who served as the instruments under that God to whose mighty throne the supplications of this kingdom were offered up to avert the dreadful scourge of war!
"Those soldiers who went as volunteers under the above conditions were taken to the Isle of Wight, Jersey, Guernsey, or some other dépôt, where measures were resorted to, to induce them to enlist for life. Another bounty was offered them, and full time to spend it in drunkenness, or any other way they liked best; but if they refused to enlist for life under these encouragements, they were then tyrannized over, and flogged under the least possible pretences; and this tyranny produced most fatal consequences during the whole time of the war. It was thus our Government managed to obtain soldiers and waste money, and to admit persons into a participation in the reins of Government which have ever since caused the springs of justice to be directed into a corrupt channel, where wisdom, humanity, and patriotism lie obscured, and can only be discovered through a loathsome thick slime of base hypocrisy; and this is the reason why Castlereagh had wound up all the powerful advantages which might have resulted to England out of the late war, and made them completely over to the detestable and impious Holy Alliance, to enable it—as it is "resolved" on doing—to establish a system of laws and religion which shall for ever prevent the people from opposing their governments—that is, in fact, to prevent and oppose the wisdom of God communicated to man—to create his own happiness, and glorify his wise Creator in works of wisdom, knowledge, prosperity, content, and freedom! But the designs of God are not to be thus frustrated, though his wisdom be opposed. This nation and America, and yet powerful France, still retain sufficient of that godly wisdom to crush this monstrous league, called Holy Alliance. The Duke of Wellington, Mr. Peel, and the
984
King, are all in the whole secret of this abominable conspiracy!—but lest any influence should prolong the present dangerous and alarming state of these realms, so well calculated to throw the whole kingdom into confusion, for the purpose, perhaps, of destroying our only remaining safeguard—the liberty of the press, which your petitioner fears is intended,—he has taken this very open and public manner of communicating all this vital matter to this vestry, composed as it is of the first law-officers, of magistrates, clergy, and respectable gentlemen and tradesmen, who must be also acquainted with other influential personages; so that there is now an impossibility of things being any longer left in the present horrible state; all this must, therefore, compel the Government to adopt immediate wise and effective measures to remove all cause for further oppression, while it will instantly begin at the very foundation of the evil; and if that foundation be quickly cleared of the corruption which annoys it, there is no fear but that the industry, intelligence, and powerful means which England has long been in possession of—but which, owing perhaps to the above "conspiracy," have been paralysed and rendered a curse—will soon raise the sons of Great Britain and Ireland from their present degraded state of pauperism and crime to one of comparative independence, prosperity, freedom, and happiness.
"Thus your petitioner having, as he trusts and hopes, effectually drawn your serious attention towards the cause of our monstrous state of pauperism and crime, he will now solicit your attention to a subject relative to this election of assistant overseer. Thirty respectable candidates have offered themselves with strong testimonials, some of whom have held the important and high offices of church warden and overseer. Four only of those candidates have been fortunate, but as all were in want of employment, what means of support is devised for the unfortunate ones? The claims of your petitioner are as follow:—He was one of the first volunteers against Bonaparte when he threatened the overthrow of these realms. Your petitioner sailed in the first expedition against him; he served in the escort and protection of the King and Royal Family of Naples, to and in Sicily;—he fought at the battle of Maida, the first gained over the Emperor's army in the late war;—he fought in driving his armies out of Portugal and Spain, in which service he was made a prisoner of war; and this afforded him an opportunity to obtain intelligence which gained him the confidence of the Chiefs of the Royal Alliance, whence he derived the important information he has just had the honour of communicating to this vestry. Your petitioner was offered the protection and favour of the Emperor of all the Russias; but he thought proper to reserve his humble services for the use of his own Sovereign and country; and your petitioner was then appointed to accompany his Excellency Count Orloff to England, in bearing those important

985
despatches which filled this great empire with all sorts of rejoicings, prayers, and offerings, in 1814, for the overthrow of that enemy who had so seriously threatened the destruction of the laws and institutions of this once happy country. But though your petitioner entered the service as a volunteer, and was strongly recommended to the Duke of York, yet, as he took proper measures for stopping the gross abuses that he witnessed whilst in the service, he was not found worthy of any reward, but was robbed of his arrears of pay, by those against whom he had complained, and, after receiving injustice, was finally left unprotected, unrewarded, and quite destitute on quitting the service. Your petitioner then acquired an excellent knowledge of the profession of schoolmaster, and had diligently and honourably raised himself to a respectable rank in society, and was in the year 1822 an inhabitant householder, with full means, according to all human probability, of always paying rent and taxes to the probable amount of 100 l. sterling a-year; but he is forced to state that the laws are directly opposed to his following honestly and to advantage his profession, for a party entered his house, took off the fruits of his eight years toil, forced him to abandon all his laudable plans of procuring a respectable livelihood; and he has, through this monstrous injustice; sanctioned too in part by the chief magistrate of Bow-street, been forced to endure from 1822 to this date, a life of grief, privations, and trials in our stale of civil society, no less trying than that he experienced while daring the elements of nature and the destructive implements of war; and, at an age when his powers of faculty and manhood are in perfect capability of procuring him every means of rational happiness, he is doomed by the inconsistency of the laws to procure his existence in the most abject way possible. But it is by submitting prudently to his mortifying condition that your petitioner is perfectly enabled to substantiate the statements of this petition in a just and reasonable tribunal, where he will also perfectly prove the great inconsistency of our precepts of religion and justice, and the inhumanity of punishment for crime and misfortune; whilst our system of laws is so framed and acted upon as to render it almost impossible to obtain the common comforts of civilized life by honest actions and just dealing; whilst every facility is afforded for the commission of crime and injustice! This is a brief but incontrovertible account of your petitioner, one of those thirty candidates. To what cause the others can attribute the necessitous reason for answering to your advertisement he knows not, but there is not any doubt on his mind but hundreds of thousands of intelligent, active, and industriously-inclined men and women of this oppressed kingdom could convince the real friends to humanity that the injustice of the laws are alone the true caue of their misery, wickedness, and depravity, if an advertisement were inserted in the daily papers to that effect.
986
Therefore, under all the statements of this petition, and the other matters too numerous to be here inserted* your petitioner is justifiable in inferring that there are the strongest grounds for fearing that the Holy Alliance has, and is causing and using such influence with our Government as had prevented it from observing and preventing the monstrous progress of evils which have at length reduced the nation to a state capable of being very easily thrown into one of domestic confusion or civil war; which (as your petitioner could show from experience) might cause the most horrible consequences, whilst it afforded a pretext, as in the other countries of Europe, for tyranny to raise its sanguinary standard on the ruins of all that is noble, wise, and good. Your petitioner, therefore, prays that the whole of this petition shall be taken into your consideration, and that you adopt immediate measures to urge a remedy upon his Majesty's Government, and, as in duty bound, your petitioner will ever pray.
WILLIAM CLIFFORD,
One of the approved Candidates for the
situation of Assistant Overseer,
May 7, 1830."
To the Rev. J. E. Tyler, Chairman of
the Vestry held May 12, 1830.
*See his other works corrected, viz. his printed Petition to the King, presented through the Lord Mayor and Mr. Secretary Peel, in the year 1823; and his Book of Facts, &c. addressed to the Administration, &c. in the year 1824, both on this vital subject.