Hutchinson, hon. C.
James, W.
Johnson, col.
Lennard, T. B.
Lambton, J. G.
Lloyd, J. M.
Lushington, S.
Lockhart, J. J.
Maberly, J.
Macdonald, J.
Martin, John
Monck, J. B.
Marjoribanks, S.
Neville, hon. R.
Newport, sir J.
Nugent, lord
Ord, W.
Ossulston, lord
Palmer, C. F.
Parnell, sir H.
Price, R.
Pym, Francis
Rice, T. S.
Ramsden, J. C.
Ramsay, sir A.
Ricardo, D.
Ridley, sir M. W.
Robarts, A.
Robinson, sir G.
Rowley, sir W.
Rumbold, C.
Russell, lord W.
Smith, John

he had not been guilty of any oppression. He believed there were no grounds for the allegations in the petition, and therefore he should oppose its being received.

Mr. Serjeant Onslow declared, that after what the House had heard from local magistrates with respect to the conduct and character of the gaoler, the statement of the petitioner must be deemed a foul and infamous calumny, which ought not to be circulated with the sanction of that House.

which this man was exposed. This man's | duct, it had been satisfactorily proved that letters were broken open from whomsoever they happened to come. Now he did not know under what authority so odious a practice as the opening of prisoners' letters was supported. It might be, perhaps, by the permission or approbation of a few justices; but such a principle it would be odious even in the legislature to entertain; and if the legislature, which, as he conceived, could alone assume such a power, had not deemed it proper ever to do so, he thought it certainly was not competent for a bench of justices to take upon themselves the authority. Neither was he aware of any grounds which could justify the harshness which the individual had been treated with, in the particulars set forth in his petition, excepting, indeed, the fact that these restraints had been imposed on prisoners by the same magistrates who had distinguished themselves at Manchester, after the bloody transactions of the 16th of August. The petition required the strictest investigation.

Sir R. Wilson observed, that testimonies equally high, had been borne in that House to the conduct and character of governor Aris, who had nevertheless been indisputably proved to be a confirmed knave and tyrant.

Mr. Hobhouse said, that he knew something of this Mr. Higgins, the gaoler; for some time ago, a petition was transmitted to him, to present to that House, from se. veral prisoners, who complained of his misconduct; but after he had received this petition, some of the parties wrote to him not to present it, because the county magistrates had rectified the matters complained of. From this circumstance it appeared, that this gaoler was not deserving of the unqualified panegyric which he had received.

Mr. Hornby, as one of the visiting magistrates, felt himself called upon to say a few words upon the subject of this petition. The rules complained of by the petitioner were sanctioned by two of the judges. He himself was one of those who disapproved of the rule excluding all Mr. Lockhart deprecated the doctrine newspapers from the prisoners; but he that that House, by receiving a comwas opposed by the majority of the ma-plaint of oppression from any petitioner, gistrates, whose decision was approved by that humane and constitutional judge, Mr. Justice Bailey. As to the petitioner's complaint about the rule with regard to work, reform being one of the main objects of imprisonment, it was better to employ prisoners in some branch of industry, than to allow them to spend their time in listless inactivity; and yet no prisoners were compelled to work in this prison but such as received the county allowance. The restrictions as to communication by letter he thought necessary for the pur-ceive such statements. pose of securing the safe custody of prisoners. With regard to the character of the gaoler of this prison, he could declare from personal knowledge that he was a most humane man, whose removal would be a serious grievance to the prisoners themselves.

The petition having been read, Lord Stanley said, that this was the third time the conduct of the gaoler had been a matter of complaint to this House; and after an investigation into his con

made itself a party to that complaint, or to the charges which it imputed. From the admission of such doctrine, another proposition would naturally follow-that if the House received the complaint, and instituted an inquiry upon the subject, the case would be referred to a partial tribunal. He was an advocate for the reception of any petition couched in decorous language. It was the undoubted right of the subject to state his grievances to that House, and the duty of that House to re

Mr. Wynn was quite astonished at the doctrine which had been held on this subject. There was a proper tribunal, before which all matters with respect to gaols might be brought, namely, the visiting magistrates. The House therefore ought not to interfere in the present case.

Mr. Bernal contended, that after an ineffectual appeal to the proper tribunal, it was competent to any subject to present a petition. The noble lord who opposed the motion, had not attempted to contra

Wilson, Sir R.
Wood, M.

dict the allegations in the petition, but had contented himself by stating what he had heard from others.

Mr. Lambton asked his noble friend, whether it was his private opinion that the petition should not be received ?

Lord Stanley replied, that it was certainly his intention to oppose the receiving of this petition.

Wyvill, M.

RIGHT OF JUDGES TO FINE A DEFENDANT DURING THE COURSE OF HIS DEFENCE THOMAS DAVISON.] Mr. Hobhouse rose to present a Petition which was signed by 1,500 of the inhabitants of London and Westminster. The petition, he observed, referred to a most important subject which had already been brought under the consideration of the House. The petitioners expressed their regret that the recent petition of Thomas Davison, complaining of the conduct of Mr. Justice Best in having fined him three times in the course of his defence, should have been thrown out without having been read, and they added that the fining of a defendant during the course of his defence, by a judge, was contrary to the spirit of our laws; and that the House was the place to which applications ought to be made when grievances were com plained of arising from what was conceiv

Mr. Lambton could not help regarding it as monstrous doctrine, that a statement of great oppresion from a prisoner should not be laid on the table of that House, because it referred to a gaoler of whose character two or three of its members entertained a favourable impression. If any gaoler were charged with inhumanity by a prisoner, the charge should, in his view, be investigated. He had a good opinion of the gaoler of the county of which he had the honour to be a representative; and yet if such charges as the present petition contained were preferred against him, he would certainly be an advocate for the investigation of that complaint. if a petition complaining of oppression, es-ed to be the mal-administration of justice pecially by a prisoner, were presented against the representative of the county, or the whole body of the magistrates, he would vote for its reception. In this case, the petition was from an unfortunate prisoner, whose character he did not know or care about. But he would say of him, as lord Chatham had said of Wilkes, that he neither cared about his private character or public principles, but considering him as an English subject, possessing rights which the law gave him, and the law alone could take away, he would resist any attempt to subject him to oppression.

After some further conversation," the question being put, "That the Petition do lie on the table," the House divided Ayes, 33; Noes, 86.

in the courts: and they stated this the more confidently, as they understood that there was a standing committee of that House called the committee for superintending the administration of justice. They also said, that if the House neglected to superintend this administration of justice, they would lose what respect remained for them in the country. The prayer of the petition was, that the House would refer this important point, to the consideration of the committee of justice. He hoped that as this petition did not at all refer to the conduct of the judge, but merely to an abstract question, and as it was couched in most respectful language; that he should not hear complaints against it from hon. gentlemen opposite. The hon. member contended, that that House was the proper place to which applications ought to be made where parties were aggrieved by the conduct of judges. It might be said that, if the party was injured, he ought to apply to the courts of law. He would say, as Horne Tooke had said on this subject-" The courts of law were open to all so was the London Tavern;" or as Goldsmith had said of the sign at the public-house, which "Invites each passing stranger that can pay." Courts of law and their decisions were not always regarded with such reverence in that House; for when the great question as to the power of un

bailible committal, in the reign of Charles | because the defence in such cases must, the 1st, was discussed, and an opinion of from its very nature, be an aggravation of the Court of King's-bench cited in its the imputed offence. In the late defence favour, Mr. Pym said, the judges had of Mr. John Hunt, for instance, the editor mis-cited the authorities; and, upon his of "The Examiner," almost every sensuggestion, a sub-committee was appoint- tence might be called an aggravation ed to examine the grounds of the judges' of the original offence; and if he had been opinion. Upon the resolutions of that tried by a passionate or political judge, he committee was founded the immortal might have been fined at every step. The Petition of Right. The more he consider- offence imputed to Mr. Hunt was a libel ed the subject, the more he was convinced against the House of Commons; and he that a judge had no right to fine a defend endeavoured to prove that the greatest ant for words uttered in the course of his men in the country had said much worse defence. So far was the language used things of that House than he had venturby Davison from being of an unprecedented to do; yet the learned judge never ed character, that a number of instances thought of fining him for adopting this were to be found in which judges had line of defence. There was no difference been insulted in the grossest manner, and in this respect between cases of blasyet they had never thought of resorting phemy and political libel; blasphemy to this summary mode of punishment. was itself a species of political libel, inasThe cases of Prynne, Bastwick and Bur- much as it went to impugn the religious ton, and the recent ones of Williams, establishments, which were intimately Eaton and Carlile, were precisely in point. connected with the political institutions As to the argument, that it was extreme- of the country. But it was said, will you ly improbable that the judges would abuse venture to oppose the opinion of the chief this discretionary power, he could only re- justice on this point? Yes, he would ply, in the language of Mr. Burke, that oppose the opinion of chief justice Abbott, all discretionary power was subject to or ten thousand chief justices, if it tended abuse. Such was the frailty of human to subvert the principles of the constitu nature, that oppression was not merely tion, by supporting an arbitrary stretch the probable, but the necessary conse- of power. He had no great reverence for quence of vesting an arbitrary discretion the opinions of lawyers on constitutional in any tribunal. It was impossible to say questions; lawyers were bad legislators. where the consequences of permitting the It had been well observed by Harrington judges to exercise such an arbitrary power in his Oceana, that "Lawyers were might end. It might lead to the destruc- feathered and armed with interests dition of the trial by jury, as had happened rected point-blank against the interests in Sweden, through the corruption of the of the people." Lord Ellenborough had court and the apathy of the people, to- declared in 1804, that any thing was a wards the end of the seventh century. libel which had a tendency to hurt the He would state to the House an instance feelings of his majesty's ministers; an of the way in which this power of fining opinion which, considering the character for contempt was assumed, since the dis of the gentlemen opposite, and the aucussion on Davison's petition. On Wed- spices under which the government was nesday last, in the Traverse Court, in conducted, was calculated to produce a Horsemonger-Lane, Mr. McCreery, a plentiful crop of political libels. printer, well-known to the readers of chief justice of the Common Pleas had Mr. Roscoe's works, observed, that he had very recently expressed his disapprobadiscovered a practice, very like packing tion of some observations of lord Camden, a jury, which prevailed in that court; which, he thought, pressed too hard upfor that he had been told they would not on judge Alibone, who sat upon the admit him among them, lest he should in- same bench with Jeffries and Scroggs. sist upon their deliberating upon their Mr. Justice Best had also declared, verdict. Upon this the presiding judge that the writ of Habeas Corpus might said, "Sir, if you do not sit down, I'll be refused on the first application, and fine you for contempt; and ere long you was not to be granted as a matter of will render yourself unworthy to sit among course. In this opinion he (Mr. Hobthe jury." This arbitrary power of fin-house) happened to be personally intering for contempt would become a source ested, and therefore as soon as he got of oppression in cases of political libel; home-he would forbear entering into

The