was made to say, that he did not wish the people to trouble and take up the time of the House, such a calumny was evidently framed with no other view than to operate upon the mind of the ignorant, and was below contempt. Upon the discussion relative to the conduct of judge Best, he did say, that the people ought to be admonished, that that House was not a court of appeal; and certainly there could not be a greater misfortune to individuals, than that they should be misled as to the course of remedy which it was right to adopt. The admonition was given by him in the true spirit of the constitution; and no fair man who heard him, could impute to him any desire of interfering with the general right of petitioning.

Lord A. Hamilton thought the best course would be to withdraw both motions. He must say, however, that it appeared to him, that an unfair interpretation was given to the paragraph in question; that there was no assertion whatever that the majority had voted for the admonition to the people; and it was unfair to argue that motives were imputed to them by implication.

Mr. Hutchinson did not mean to defend the paragraph in question, but rose in consequence of what had fallen from the noble lord opposite. The noble lord had said, that no fair man could possibly have misconceived his meaning. Now he apprehended that he had the character of being a fair man; yet he certainly understood the noble lord on that occasion to have read a lecture to petitioners approaching that House. The noble lord had indeed subsequently explained his expressions; and he was bound to give him credit for that explanation.

Mr. Monck said, he had heard the paragraph read, and certainly did not think that it deserved the censure of the House. It did not say that the House had sanctioned an admonition to the people, but threw the blame of such admonition on the noble lord. If it had said that the minority were against the motion of the noble lord for an admonition, it might be blameable; but surely no one could think that the House would vote on an admonition.

Lord Castlereagh observed, that if the hon. member was counsel for the editor of the paper, he was not a very judicious one; for if he meant to say that the attack was not on the House, but on an individual member of it, and because it was

upon that individual, it was therefore to be excused, he would drive the House to that notice of it which he should regret.

Mr. S. Wortley said, he had put it on the footing of a libel on the majority of that House; but still he was prepared to withdraw the motion, provided the libel was not defended. If, however, he found even one member defending it, he would take the sense of the House upon it.

Mr. J. P. Grant said, that the paragraph complained of did not, in fair construction, admit of the interpretation which had been ascribed to it. It was stated, that the minority voted against the admonition of the noble lord, not against any proposition made to the House, but against the principles and sentiments of the noble lord. He hoped both motions would be withdrawn.

Mr. Hobhouse said, he did not think that the House had the power to commit the printer.

The Speaker said, that the power was not to be questioned by any member, when a case of privilege was brought before them. The hon. member might submit the consideration by itself; but it was clearly disorderly to question the power on the present motion.

Mr. Hobhouse said, he would only observe, that the paragraph appeared to have been totally misapprehended. It was very possible that the minority might have voted under an impression which did not at all influence the votes of the majority. Nothing whatever was imputed to the majority. At the same time, he must say, that he did not think this was a fit subject for the deliberation of the House. It was quite clear, that this was nothing more than a political squib. Scarcely a day passed in which the worst motives were not imputed to public men; for his own part, he was constantly held up, by a certain portion of the press, as a man desirous of overturning the constitution. He thought the hon. member had better withdraw his motion, and unconditionally, for he really could see nothing wrong in the paragraph complained of,

Mr. S. Wortley said, that the question had now assumed such importance in his mind, that he could not consent to withdraw it.

Colonel Davies said, that if the printer should now be called to the bar, it would not be for any offence of his own, but because the hon. member would not withdraw his motion.

Mr. Barham said, that in point of fact what the printer had stated was strictly true, for the minority had voted against the admonition of the noble lord.

Mr. Bathurst contended, that there could be no other ground for withdrawing the motion than the admission required, of the passage being an unjustifiable attack on the majority of that House. The complaint could not be abandoned on the ground that it was unfounded. It was impossible not to consider the passage a breach of privilege, but it was not his desire to proceed farther, if the offence was not justified.

Sir R. Fergusson hoped the hon. member would withdraw his motion. He deprecated any libel upon that House; but he looked upon the paper in question with a different eye from the hon. member.

Mr. S. Wortley asked, whether he was to understand that the gentlemen opposite made a virtual acknowledgment that the passage was indefensible. [Cries of "no, no."]

Mr. Denman hoped that both motions would be withdrawn. He however, was not sorry that the question had been agitated, since it was an illustration of the mischief which must inevitably result from rejecting the petitions of aggrieved persons, without reading them.

The question being put, "That this House do now adjourn," the House divided: Ayes 34, Noes 155.

Barrett, S. M.

List of the Minority. Ossulston, lord Ord, Wm. Parnell, sir H. Palmer, C. F. Rice, T. S.

Bernal, Ralph

Curwen, J. C.

Crespigny, sir W. Denman, Thos.

Denison, W. J. Ellice, Ed.

Fergusson, sir R.

Glenorchy, lord Hobhouse, J. C. Harbord, hon. E. Honywood, W. P. Hutchinson,hon.C.H. Hume, Jos.

James, Wm.

Lambton, J. G. Lushington, Dr. Monck, J. B. Martin, John

Robarts, Ab.
Robarts, G.
Ricardo, D.

Sefton, Earl
Taylor, M. A.
Whitbread, Sam.
Wyvill, M.
Wilson, sir R.
Western, C. C.
Wood, M.

TELLERS. Bennet, hon. H. G. Creevey, Thos.

Mr. Lambton then moved the previous question upon Mr. Wortley's motion; VOL. IV.

ILCHESTER GAOL PETITION OF CHARLES HILL.] Mr. Alderman Wood presented a petition from Charles Hill, a person 74 years of age, who had been confined in Ilchester gaol for 15 years. Having been appointed a collector and assessor of taxes in 1796, he went on in that capacity until 1804. In 1806, he was charged with a deficiency of 719/. He then sold property of his own to the amount of 4671., and afterwards collected taxes that were due to the amount of 217.;-there was then a balance against him of 341., and, for that sum, he had been imprisoned for 15 years. He had, in vain, petitioned the judges, the Treasury, and the House of Commons, for relief. After his petition to the House had been presented, his boxes were opened, his papers taken away and never returned, and he himself had been put on what was called the county side of the gaol and kept there ever since. He begged the House to contrast the case of this unfortunate individual with that of defaulters of 100, 200, perhaps 300,000l., who nevertheless continued to receive the patronage of government. He would not then go into any statement with respect to Ilchester gaol itself, except to state one or two facts. One was, that the prisoners were locked up at five in the evening, and not let out till seven in the morn-' ing. Among the debtors was a female quaker, imprisoned for a debt incurred by giving security for her brother. Mr. Hunt also was one of the inmates of that prison. It was his intention, in a few days, to move for a committee to inquire into the state of Ilchester gaol.

Mr. Creevey requested that gentlemen would attend to this fact, that Charles Hill, 74 years old, had been confined 15 years for owing 341. to the Crown, while Mr. George Villiers, a debtor to the state to the extent of 100,000l., was allowed to ride and walk about just like other people. There certainly ought not to be one law for the poor and another for the rich.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer said, " that the Treasury had nothing to do with the case; the Crown had merely instituted the process for the benefit of the parish that had been defrauded. It was for the parish therefore, and not the Treasury," to show mercy.

4 F

Mr. Dickinson said, he had often heard that Hill might have been liberated, if he would give up certain property. He had driven the trade of an attorney in the gaol, and had made considerable profits by his practice. There were two visiting magistrates to the gaol, and before every quarter session a number of gentry surveyed the prison; and if any man had a complaint to make, it was heard by them. He had heard that it was once a part of the worthy alderman's duty to go down to Ilchester gaol to examine it, but that, instead of going into the prison, he had made his report to the city of London from a printed book put

into his hands.

Sir T. Lethbridge was satisfied that if the state of the gaol were inquired into, it would be found to be conducted in a most perfect manner.

Dr. Lushington said, that as one of the members for Ilchester, he had investigated the case, and found, that though many of the facts stated in the petition were true, they assumed a different colour when accompanied by the explanation. It was true that this unhappy man had been confined ever since 1806, for only 341.; and that if he had executed certain deeds, he would have been discharged long ago. Four years had, however, elapsed since he had consented to execute those deeds. If he had been originally to blame, surely he had expiated his offence. The prison being below the bed of the river, was necessarily damp and unwholesome. The greatest pains were nevertheless taken to obviate these evils. The gaoler had been highly successful in introducing a variety of beneficial reforms. Sir I. Coffin, knowing perfectly well the character of the gaoler, bore testimony to his humanity and good conduct. Mr. Alderman Wood said, that with another magistrate of London, the town clerk, and a surveyor, he had visited the prison, and had remained in it for some hours. At the time that the petitioner was treated in the way described, a person charged with fraud, Mr. Kinnear, was living in the house of the gaoler.

stopt at the principal inn, and, like a true city deputation, they had an excellent dinner; but, unfortunately, they remained so long at dinner, that, being in a great hurry to go away, they actually left the town without visiting the gaol. This did not, however, prevent them from making a report, describing the internal state of the building, the situation of the pump, &c., all of which, unluckily for their statement, had been altered about a year before, and it was thus that a discovery was made of the manner in which they had exercised their inquisitorial functions. [Hear! and a laugh.]

Mr. Dickinson said, he had received a statement of particulars confirming what had just fallen from the hon. gentleman.

Mr. Wilmot asked the hon. alderman, whether he had in fact visited the interior of the prison?

Mr. Bernal objected to this mode of interrogation.

Mr. F. Buxton observed, that the information he had received from the gaoler was that he had been sent for by the hon. alderman and his colleague, who made inquiries of him relative to the state and system of the prison. As far as his own experience went, he had never seen any place of confinement under such excellent regulation. The gaoler had introduced a system of labour, by which the prison discipline was aided and enforced to a degree which did honour to the country.

Mr. Alderman Wood said, that the hon. member (Mr. Baring) should not have harshly contradicted a member of that House who stated that he had been in the gaol for two hours. One hon. member had said, that the gaoler had been sent for to the inn; he denied it. He had been appointed, with others, to inspect the different gaols in the kingdom, under the authority of lord Sidmouth. The inspectors did not feel that they were bound to find fault: their principal object was to state the size of the rooms, the conduct of the prisoners, the hours of locking up the gaol, &c.

Ordered to lie on the table.

Mr. Creevey said, he felt it his duty to oppose the motion. They had hitherto

voted nothing more than the annual malt duties; but they were now on the point of proceeding to vote specific sums upon estimate. He thought it right, therefore, that they should bear in mind what their situation was; during the seven weeks that they had been sitting, there was scarcely a day on which petitions had not been presented, setting forth distresses and grievances of every kind. In no one instance had it happened that those complaints were not borne out by statements of hon. members. The government had, however, taken no steps to afford redress, had held out no hope that the causes of complaint would be lessened or withdrawn. Two attempts had been made, one by the hon. member for Abingdon, who had proposed the removal of 2,000,000l. of taxes, and another by the hon. member for Cumberland, both of which had met with the same fate. In other words, two applications to reconsider the present system, and to alleviate the public burdens, had already been made and rejected. Having thus turned their backs upon the country, they were now preparing to vote away the public money with as much apathy, as if, instead of being on the verge of bankruptcy, we were in a most flourish. ing situation. What, then, was the course which under such circumstances it was incumbent on the House to pursue? It was impossible for him to participate in that insensibility towards the distresses of the nation, which the House was too much in the habit of showing. He was far from wishing to give offence to individuals; but he must say that there were vices and defects in the constitution of that assembly, which prevented a due regard being paid to the rights and interests of the people. In the first place, it appeared by one of their reports, that seventy members of that House held offices or pensions, the emoluments of which amounted to 150,000l. per annum. The public had evidently no chance of fair play, whilst these annuitants were sitting in that House and deciding every question. This, then, was the first national grievance which ought to be redressed before the House resolved itself into a committee of supply. Another referred to the offices of receivers of the land tax and distributors of stamps. These he also looked upon as the property of members of that House; and if any hon. gentleman entertained a doubt of it, he had only to move that these receivers and distributors should be

called to the bar, and then asked as to the value of their offices, and from whom they received them. There were seventy receivers of the land tax, and as many distributors of stamps in England and Wales, to say nothing of Ireland, all of them great sinecure offices, and all given away by hon. members to their families, dependents, or supporters. When he alluded to these sources of influence, let not the noble lord, however, suppose that he shut his eyes to the other streams which took their course also through that House, to India, to the Customs, to the Colonies, to the subject of the forthcoming estimates themselves. What an array might there be found of comptrollers, of cashiers, of accountants, and the Lord knew what! All were but parts of the same system, and were kept together at the same allowances as when money was but half its present value. By this state of things the House had become too strong for the people. With these impressions he should propose, as an amendment, "That this House will take into its immediate consideration the subject of members of this House holding offices of profit or pensions under the Crown, together with the expediency of diminishing the number thereof, it appearing to this House, from the third report of a committee of finance, made in the year 1808, there were then upwards of seventy members of this House who held offices of emolument or pensions under the Crown, amounting together to the annual sum of 150,000l. and upwards; and it further appearing to this House, that, in the present state of universal and unparalleled distress in which the nation is involved, no substantial relief can be expected by the people, except from an independent and disinterested House of Commons."

Lord Palmerston said, that if he really could think the hon. gentleman serious in pressing his motion in the shape in which he had put it, he should be disposed to enter more fully into reply than he was now about to do; but, as he rather thought the motion was intended to record upon the Journals the opinions which he held, he did not mean to enter at length into the merits of the questions which the motion involved. If the hon. gentleman was serious in meaning to stop the whole supplies for the service of the country, until all the great questions to which he had referred were satisfactorily adjusted, then, indeed, the motion was a plain indi