HOUSE OF COMMONS. Thursday, February 15. CASE OF THE BOWDITCHES.] Mr. Warre rose, in pursuance of notice, to make a motion, which was in fact for information only, in the manner in which he meant to put the case. It was true that he meant to ground upon this information an ulterior measure, in the hope of obtaining some compensation for parties who had suffered such unmerited punishment. The circumstances to which he was about to call the attention of the house had been already familiar to the public-he meant the case of a family of the name of Bowditch and others, who were tried nearly three years ago at the assizes at Taunton, for the forcible abduction of Miss Glenn. Upon the evidence of that young lady, the parties were convicted; but at a subsequent period the statement given by Miss Glenn was found so inconsistent with truth, that she was prosecuted, and convicted of perjury in the evidence she gave which led to the conviction of the Bowditches. In consequence of that conviction, immediate steps were taken to obtain the mitigation of the unexpired part of their sentence; Mr. Harmer, a professional gentleman, was employed to prepare a memorial to the Home department, setting forth the new situation in which the Bowditches were placed, by the verdict against their prosecutrix. Notwithstanding the presentation of that memorial to lord Sidmouth, the Bowditches were detained in custody until the full expiration of their sentence. It was the circumstance of their detention between the period of Miss Glenn's conviction and the termination of the full sentence, that he complained of, and after the fullest consideration of the whole case, he felt it necessary to call for an inquiry into the particulars of the full imprisonment of the family to which he alluded. The mother of the Bowditches, although sixty-eight years of age, was suffered to remain in prison for the space of twenty months; her son, who also endured his full imprisonment, and who was a farmer, would have been ruined had it not been for the kind assistance of his friends, who looked after his affairs while in prison. Taking into view the whole of this case, he had hardly heard of one more entitled to compensation for the parties who had suffered, owing to the unfortunate credit which was given by the jury to Miss Glenn's evidence. So powerful had the influence of that testimony been, although it was afterwards clearly proved to have been false, that the judges refused the application of the defendants for a new trial, and stated that they saw no reason to touch the conclusion to which the jury came upon the trial. What in his judgment peculiarly required explanation was, why the Bowditches should have been detained in prison after the verdict of perjury found against their prosecutrix. He concluded by moving, for "a copy of the petition to the Home Department in behalf of the Bowditches." Mr. Clive highly applauded the motives of the hon. gentleman, and was willing to afford him every information in his power; from which he believed he would find that the petition had not been neglected by government. In the subsequent trial alluded to by the hon. gentleman, the case of perjury against the prosecutors of the Bowditches was so clearly made out, that the lord chief justice, who presided at the trial, drew up a memorial to the Home department on the subject. This memorial was presented in October last, the original trial and sentence of the Bowditches having taken place in 1819. In consequence of the representation of the lord chief justice, Mrs. Mulraine was released from prison, upon the royal pardon being extended to her. One of the Bowditches had already suffered his term, and the sentence of the other two then in gaol did not appear to be at all affected by what transpired at the subsequent trial in question. It did not therefore appear necessary or proper to interfere with their punishment. The evidence was still strong against them as having forcibly carried away Miss Glenn. Mr. Warre said, that had he known a distinction had been taken between the defendants upon a subsequent review of the case, he should not have made his motion. His only desire was to obtain an explanation, and that being given he had no desire to press it farther. Lord Castlereagh said, the question at issue appeared to be with respect to the three remaining prisoners. One woman had been released at the instance of the lord chief justice; but he did not see that because he had made application in behalf of that one, it at all affected the other pri soners. turgy took place, after the death of the late king, an Order in Council, precisely similar to that issued in England, was sent down to the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland. It was forgotten by the parties who had sent it, that the religion established in Scotland was wholly independent of the Crown, wholly independent of the Privy Council, and indeed wholly independent of any control, except that of the General Assembly of Scotland. Now, this order in council purported to be one to which obedience was lawfully due. It was issued on the same day with the English order in counMr. Bennet said, that the explanation cil by virtue of which the Queen's name given did not satisfy him; for if Miss was omitted in the Liturgy: it was drawn Glenn, upon whose testimony the Bow-up in exactly the same terms, and signed ditches were convicted, had perjured her- by the same names, the archbishop of self, then he was entitled to say, that the Canterbury, &c. &c. It had, however, crime had not been committed which she received a different fate from that issued swore to at first; and it followed that the in England. And he meant to state, and parties ought not to have been continued without using a sarcasm, that due and in custody. proper obedience had been paid to the order sent to Scotland, by not obeying it at all. It was very singular that any authority should take upon itself to issue an order to a power which neither could be asked to obey it, nor which would obey it. Such an order could not be thought of without derision. There were, so far as he could learn, two grounds upon which obedience was required to this order in council. The order itself recited two acts of parliament, the 10th of Anne, and the 32nd of Geo. 3rd, but omitted that which they ought also to have stated Mr. Bankes assured the hon. member, that from private information, which he unfortunately possessed respecting the whole transaction, the view taken of the matter at the Home-office was the just one. The motion was then withdrawn. THE QUEEN CHURCH OF SCOTLAND.] Lord Archibald Hamilton said, that in rising to make the motion of which he had given notice, for a copy of the order in council, directed to the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland, relative to the erasure of the Queen's name from the Liturgy, and also for the copy of a letter relating to the arrest of a clergyman in Scotland, he was sorry to find that there was every probability that a motion which he originally thought would be conceded was now to be opposed. This anticipation he formed from the extraordinary declaration of the noble lord opposite that this motion must be considered as a disgrace to the order-book of that House. He was anxious to give the noble lord an opportunity of disclaiming that expression, or of stating the grounds upon which he had used it. Knowing the influence of the noble lord upon the majority of that House, he was most anxious, before that influence was put into complete activity, to state the grounds which he deemed justificatory for submitting this question to the consideration of the House. It was a matter of general notoriety, that when the alteration in the form of the LiVOL. IV. : the chapters of the acts to which they referred. He had, however, by his own investigation, aided by that of some friends, at length discovered the chapters, or rather believed he had discovered them-for he could only at present upon that point speak conjecturally, the order omitting all reference to the particular parts of the acts which were relied upon. He must say, at the outset, that he believed the orders in council were issued upon acts which conferred no authority at all in the case. He should have thought that in the case of Scotland, the moment the subject was reconsidered, the parties issuing the order would have come forward and recalled it, with an acknowledgment that it had gone forth through inadvertence. He expected they would have either done that, or acknowledged that, although sent, they had no intention it should have been obeyed. In his opinion, the order was either impotent 2 Y or illegal ;-impotent, if they knew it | the Queen." For that offence the clerwould not be obeyed-illegal, if it were gyman was on the same day (Sunday) to be obeyed without any proper autho- put under arrest. [Hear, hear.] He rity. If it intended any thing, then he begged to be understood as not meaning must pronounce it illegal; and if it could that he was put under actual personal lead to nothing, he must call it impotent. restraint; but merely that he was desired So that, in either case, he must beg leave to consider himself as arrested, and the to say, that such an order reflected far arrest was continued for some time. greater disgrace upon the book of the Would the noble lord opposite contend Privy Council which issued it, than his that such an act as this was not matter motion could possibly do upon the order- worthy of the consideration of that book of that House, according to the House? For his own part he should opinion of the noble lord opposite. The only say, that nothing should induce him first case in Scotland to which he meant to suffer such an attack upon the freedom to call the attention of the House, as of the church of Scotland to pass unnofollowing the arrival of the order in coun- ticed; no political bias should operate to cil in that part of the empire, was that deter him from bringing the matter before of the county sheriff acting at the sessions the House. He made this declaration of Kirkcudbright: and here he particu- with perfect temper, yet in a firm tone, larly begged their attention to the parties although he should not suffer himself to who were called upon to give efficacy to press the matter with warmth, notwiththe order. At the sessions to which he standing the unprovoked observation of alluded, there met, the sheriff, his son, a the noble lord opposite respecting his nocolonel of the yeomanry, and the clergy- tice. It might perhaps be said, that man. At that meeting, the sheriff, his there were precedents for the course purson, and the colonel, agreed, that in sued in Scotland. To this he should compliance with the order in council, reply, that the precedents, if invariably they should prevent the Queen from be- wrong, ought to have little influence ing prayed for in the Liturgy. The cler- upon the judgment of that House. And gyman, however, dissented from their he must say, that if ever a precedent ocopinion, and refused to omit the prayer curred which ought to have been closely for her majesty's name. The matter was scrutinized, it was this, which obviously then referred to the Presbytery, who ap- tended to augment discontent at a moproved of the conduct of the clergyman, ment of very general irritation and excitedisapproved of the order in council, or- ment. The haste with which both the dered the minute of the sheriff's approval English and Scotch orders were issued to be erased, and the parties to appear was very evident: nothing could show before them for reprimand, and the whole the promptitude, haste, and inadvertency decision to be read in the church. Surely of the proceeding, more than that when this was throwing great obloquy upon the ministers were called upon to explain order in council, and which, if that order their conduct, they were unable, at the were legal, must be attended with some moment, to point out the precise parts penalty. The second case to which he of the acts of parliament upon which wished to call the attention of the House they were prepared to justify their act. was that of another sheriff of a Scotch He would now read the document, which county, who was also a colonel of yeo- was really of a most remarkable characmanry. The colonel (Gordon) asked ter: he could hardly assert positively the clergyman of his district whether he that this was a copy of the order in counwas a party to any agreement not to omit cil, but it had been published in a Scotch the prayer for the Queen in the church paper as such, accompanied by the folservice. The clergyman replied very lowing letter, signed "James Buller." properly that he would act in obedience" You will herewith receive a copy of an to the law of the land. The same clergyman, at the end of a sermon which he preached-one which was, as the learned lord opposite must admit, remarkable for nothing but the propriety of its language and sentiments-at the end of that sermon the clergyman, after praying for the king, said " and bless likewise order in council for making the requisite alterations in the prayers for the royal family, as far as regards the Church of Scotland, and you will be pleased to see due obedience paid to it." Here, let it be observed, that alterations were ordered to be made in the prayers of a church which had no prayers to alter. Then followed the order itself, addressed to the moderator of the General Assembly, over which the privy council had no more authority than they had over the city of Constantinople. The noble lord here read the order, and observed, that the injunction" to pray in express words for his majesty George 4th, and all the royal family,' was marked by inverted commas. There was only one thing wanting to make this order the most complete piece of absurdity that he had ever met with, and that was, a charge to the bishops to carry the order into execution, there being no such personages in the church of Scotland as bishops. The order, the House would have perceived, referred to the 10th of Anne, which enjoined the clergy of Scotland to pray for her majesty and the princess Sophia; but it ought to be borne in mind, that there was in queen Anne's time some reason for passing such an act, the pretender being then prayed for by name in many of the churches. That personage was in point of fact often prayed for under the name of the king. The frequency of the practice had given rise to the well known distich "Who the pretender is and who the king, God bless us all, is quite another thing." It was on this account that an act then passed to pray for queen Anne and the princess Sophia, in direct terms. If that act was now in force at all, it required the Scotch clergy to pray for queen Anne and the princess Sophia, and for nobody else, as, unlike the English act of parliament, it gave no power to alter the names from time to time. The other act recited in the order was the 32nd of George 3rd, and it was absolutely ridiculous to see it quoted, for no part of it had any more application to the present order than a chapter in the Koran. The 32d of George 3rd, related solely to the Episcopalians of Scotland, and it was therefore preposterous to quote it in support of such an order as this, which was directed to the established clergy of that country. It might perhaps, be shown that orders in council had formerly been addressed to the clergy of Scotland; but of this he was sure that whenever such an order had produced any effect on the church, it had only been through the recommendation of the general assembly, and not from any force in the edict itself; and this in fact, had been the case on the marriage of the present king. All he wished to learn was, on what ground the learned lord defended the proceedings which had taken place in consequence of this order. The two cases he had stated were those of the Kirk session and the arrest: the sheriff was at the bottom of both proceedings, and apparently all was done under official sanction. The case of arrest was one which particularly called for the sympathy of the House; for the clergyman on whom that outrage had been committed was an individual of the utmost respectability of character who, so far from allowing his zeal in political matters to carry him too far, was one of the most moderate and temperate members in all the church. But, was a clergyman to be put under arrest, because he refused to pray, as he expressed it himself, " by word of command?" Let the House only reflect on the situation in which the church of Scotland was placed by this order—a situation which left the clergy no alternative, but either to disregard an order of the king in council, or to forfeit the respect of a great portion of their parishioners.-The other motion which he was about to submit was for the production of the letter addressed by lord Sidmouth to colonel Gordon, on the subject of this clergyman's arrest. He had omitted to mention that, in consequence of that arrest, a correspondence had been commenced with lord Sidmouth, which had afterwards been transferred to the lord Advocate of Scotland; and as his object was, to go to the fountain head, he had preferred calling for the letter of the former. That letter must either justify or it must condemn the arrest. If it justified it, it did great injustice to the clergyman; and if it condemned the proceeding, it necessarily implied the condemnation of the order in council, in vindication of which the arrest had been made. There were several other points connected with the subject which he had not mentioned, because he was reluctant to trespass on the time of the House; but he appealed to the House whether he had not said enough to show, that his motion was not a disgrace to the order-book. Such a charge was unjust in itself, and was rendered still more so by being made at a time when it was not in his power to repel it. The noble lord concluded by moving, "that there be laid before this House, A copy of the order in council, of 12th February, 1820, as transmitted to the moderator of the General Assembly of the church of Scotland. 2. A copy of any letter or letters which may have been written by lord Sidmouth to colonel Gordon, of Kirkcudbright Yeomanry Cavalry, or to the lord lieutenant of the county, during the year 1820, relative to placing the Rev. William Gillespie, officiating chaplain of said corps under military arrest, by the said colonel Gordon." Lord Glenorchy considered the order in council to be a breach of the fundamental principle of the church of Scotland, which admitted of the intervention of no superior authority with regard either to its discipline, the internal regulation of its affairs, or the topics to be alluded to in its public worship. This principle, as the history of Scotland showed, was long contended for both by word and act, and it had been established and ratified by the blood of persons who had thought it an object worthy to be fought for. It had been secured to Scotland at the union of the two Crowns, by several acts of parliament, and it was so fully acknowledged, that he was surprised this order in council had ever been issued. The act of queen Anne was passed under particular circumstances; and, as it was intended for the security of the succession, those who were interested in the privileges of the church of Scotland thought it unnecessary to interfere. It was not, however, on that account to be regarded as a precedent to be acted upon on future occasions. Although this order might not be dangerous in itself, yet as its object embraced subjects of religion, and a matter which had excited the attention of the whole country, it assumed an importance which it would not otherwise have possessed. The people in Scotland had ever been considered a highly religious people, and were well qualified by their education to weigh the motives of human action. He was convinced that they had well weighed the motives from which this order had emanated, and he feared they had been unable to find any good motive in which it could have originated. Was it sent down to promote the happiness of the country?-to promote the dignity and honour of the Crown? -to promote purity of religion and sanctity of morals? He had endeavoured to weigh it by these considerations, but had been unable to perceive how it could possibly have a tendency to promote any of these objects. He could find no other motive for it than a desire to gratify an uncharitable and vindictive feeling towards an injured individual. The Lord Advocate was almost persuaded that, notwithstanding what had been said by the noble mover, it would not be necessary for him to trespass long on the attention of the House. The noble lord professed to have made this motion for the purpose of raising the question on what grounds this order was justified, and that question he was perfectly pre pared to meet. He thought the motion did the noble lord no discredit: it was perfectly consistent with the uniformly praiseworthy conduct of the noble lord, in watching over the interests of Scotland, and bringing under the notice of the House every subject connected with that country which might require investi❤ gation. He was sure, therefore, that the noble mover must have misunderstood the remarks in which he supposed his noble friend to have called the present motion a disgrace to the order-book. He had been lately in the habit of paying pretty close attention to the discussions in that House, and he certainly was not aware that any such statement had been made by the noble lord near him. Before he proceeded to answer the question involved in the present motion, he begged to assure both the noble lords opposite that he was by no means disposed to undervalue the rights and independence of the church of Scotland. might perhaps be enough for him to say that ministers, in advising this order in council, had acted on the uniform practice of upwards of a hundred years. But he did not mean to rest the justification of the measure on usage: he would meet the argument fairly, and would say, that the issuing of this order was a legal exercise of power-that the king in council had in this case exercised a right founded on the law of the land. He was glad that it was not necessary for him to enter into the general question of the propriety of omitting the Queen's name in the prayers of the church; and he should accordingly confine himself to the proper question before the House; namely.-whether the Privy Council had a right to issue this order to the General' Assembly of Scotland. That the right existed he contended, aud he founded it on the act of the 10th of Anne, chap. 7, sect. 10. By this enactment he con It' |