the noble lord the member for Yorkshire, who was well acquainted with him, as well as the venerable personage to whom he was related; and he might read one or two letters which would inform them what was the character of the petitioner. [The hon. and learned gentleman then read an extract from a letter which ran nearly thus-" I have taken some pains to inquire into Scholes's case, as I was at first prepossessed with an unfavourable opinion of him. But I am now thoroughly convinced that he has been most unfairly dealt with, and that he has had no more connexion with any illegal or seditious designs than Mr. Wilberforce or the most innocent man in the kingdom; and I have no doubt that this will most evidently appear, if a full and fair investigation can be had of his case."] The suspicions of the man's character which appeared to have been entertained, were the consequences of all such cases. The moment it was heard that a man had been apprehended on a charge of high treason, or of any thing seditious, he was instantly suspected of being a very bad character. The hon. member for Bramber would see that his name had only been introduced as the most striking person of the kind that was suggested to the writer. It was singular, that after all he had endured, the petitioner asked but for the property which had belonged to himself and others to be restored to him. He called for nothing to be done to those by whom he had suffered; he invoked no vengeance upon their heads; he demanded no justice; but he trusted that would not be held as any argument for their turning a deaf ear to what was laid before them; he hoped that they would no longer have evidence so repeatedly proffered, without allowing those who were supposed to possess it to adduce their proofs. cions of the man, and his answer was, that he threatened to lay an information against him before the magistrates. Then came Oliver's plans; for he being threatened with exposure, no sooner found himself in danger of an information which could be supported by good evidence, than, with his associates, he wrote circular letters to call a meeting at the house of the petitioner. Scholes denied that such a meeting had ever been held at his house. He thought that other circumstances might throw much light upon that fact. Indeed, he believed that an hon. friend of his had found means to obtain some information on that point; that he had discovered Oliver himself complaining to others of the slackness of Scholes, and of his refusing to allow meetings to be held in his house. The petitioner denied that he ever had been present at any such meeting in his life. Indeed, he stated, that he never had any knowledge of any, but one, for promoting the cause of constitutional reform, which had ended in a petition that had been presented and received by that House. Inquiries had been made, and the result of those inquiries had been in every way favourable to the petitioner's character. The first reason that he had for believing Scholes to be a person of good character was, that he had at different periods filled offices of considerable respectability. He had been employed as deputy-constable in the neighbourhood of Wakefield at a period of disturbance, and, principally by his exertions as deputy-constable, the peace had been so well preserved, that the provisions of the watch and ward act, then in force, were almost directly ceased to be applied. In consequence of the vigilance which he manifested, his services were received with unanimous approbation, and he believed with the thanks of the magistracy under whom he had acted. He had also received the thanks of the deputylieutenant. In addition to that, he might state, and to some persons in the House it might be a considerable improvement of his former character, that the petitioner had been upwards of three years a collector of assessed taxes. These things, he trusted would not be forgotten; for he had had means of communication with most respectable persons, and from them he was informed that Scholes had for many years fulfilled the duties imposed on him with the greatest propriety. He had had communications on the subject with The petition was then read. It purported to be the Petition of Benjamin Scholes, of Wakefield, and late a prisoner under the suspension of the Habeas Corpus act; and sat forth, "That on the 2d of July 1817, the Petitioner was taken from Wakefield by a king's messenger, and carried before the secretary of state for the home department, and others, by whom he was committed to Cambridge castle, where he remained in close confinement until the 1st of January 1818; that in consequence of the arrest and detention of the petitioner, his home has been broken up, his business trary, has any meeting of delegates for secret political purposes, been held there at that or at any other time since the petitioner has kept the said House; and that the petitioner never had any political connexion with any man living in any unlawful purposes, nor ever attended any political meeting but one, regularly called to consider of a petition for parliamentary reform, which petition was afterwards presented and accepted by the House; that the petitioner can refer with confidence to his past conduct as a full and satisfactory proof of the loyalty and uprightness of his principles; that the petitioner for three years, during which period the mischievous Ludding system was at its utmost height, held the situation of deputy constable of the populous townships of Stanley cum Wrenthorpe, near Wakefield, in which situation his exertions were such, that that district was altogether exempted from the provisions of the watch and ward act, though that act was put in force in all the neighbouring villages by the deputy lieutenants, whose thanks the petitioner re totally lost, and himself at the age of forty is thrown into the world to seek for a livelihood as if he had now to begin life anew; that on the 3d of January, after his liberation, the petitioner was taken ill, so that he has never since been able to do any thing towards the procuring of a livelihood, and that his disorder has entirely been the consequence of his confinement, as a certificate of the surgeon will testify; that thus injured in health and ruined in business, the petitioner is destitute of the means of supporting himself in the same comfortable and honourable manner which he did previous to the time when he was taken from his home, and he trusts most undeservedly immured in prison; that the petitioner has been informed that his arrest and confinement have had their origin in the information of a person of the name of Oliver, and another of the name of Bradley, who had falsely informed the honourable the privy council, that the petitioner had taken part in several meetings of persons calling themselves delegates who harboured treasonable designs against the existing go-ceived for his active and useful exertions; vernment; but the petitioner can prove that a person of the name of Mitchell, who had been travelling through the country on a pretence of encouraging constitutional parliamentary reform, first introduced Oliver to the petitioner under the appellation of a delegate from the friends of parliamentary reform in London, and as the particular friend of sir Francis Burdett and lord Cochrane; that the said Oliver strongly solicited the petitioner to become an agent for the sale of the Black Dwarf and other similar publications, which the petitioner positively refused; that the said Oliver first talked to the petitioner of resorting to physical force to obtain reform, as petitioning had proved of no avail: but on hearing such language from him the petitioner threatened to lay an information against him before the magistrates, renounced his acquaintance, and desired that he might never see his face again; that the said Oliver and Mitchell, without any knowledge of the petitioner, did write circular letters to call a meeting of persons from different parts of the kingdom, to be held at the house of the petitioner; but as soon as he heard that a meeting was about to be held at his house for political purposes, the petitioner interfered and discharged them from assembling there; nor, notwithstanding the numerous statements professedly official to the con that during the time the petitioner held the above office all depredations were by him prevented through the precincts of those extensive and populous townships; that the petitioner also held for three years the situation of collector of assessed taxes throughout the same townships, during which period he was honoured with the warm commendation of the receiver-general for his diligence and punctuality in that office; the petitioner therefore humbly prays the House to take the above statements and the present situation of the petitioner into their kind consideration, and that the House will grant him such redress as in their mercy and clemency they may deem expedient and proper; and that the House will interpose their good offices with the right hon. secretary of state, that he may have the goodness to return to the petitioner the papers and old memorandum-book taken from him, which are the property of a poor widow, and furnish the only evidence she has of a debt of 17%., and her only security for its recovery." The petitions were ordered to lie on the table, and to be printed. MOTION RESPECTING THE PETITIONS COMPLAINING OF IMPRISONMENT UNDER THE HABEAS CORPUS SUSPENSION ACT.] Lord Folkestone moved, that the Petitions of Francis Ward, William Benbow, John Knight, Samuel Haynes, Joseph Thomas | The Habeas Corpus act had, within the Evans, William Ogden, John Stewart, and John Bagguley, who had been imprisoned under the act for the Suspension of the Habeas Corpus, praying the House to investigate the treatment which they had received, should be entered as read, which was done accordingly.-His lordship then proceeded to observe, that when he presented the petition of Francis Ward to the House, he had stated that he should afterwards move to have that and the other petitions, presented on the same subject, referred to a committee of the House, when they might take into their consideration all the circumstances detailed in those petitions. He was anxious, as early as possible, to bring this case before the House, because it had been intimated, by a noble lord, that a bill of indemnity to the servants of the Crown would be asked for as a matter of course; that the question was to be brought forward, not for the grave and serious discussion of the House, not as a measure that was to depend on its own merits, and to be rejected or approved as the conduct of his majesty's ministers should warrant; but as a measure which the ministers were entitled to demand of the House, and which the House, in its legislative capacity, could not refuse. It appeared to him, that a strange confusion prevailed in the minds of several persons with respect to that bill. They seemed to think, that it was really due to the ministers of the Crown, as the noble lord had stated, without any previous investigation; but if he knew any thing of the principles of our constitution, he would be bold to say, that it was the duty of the House, on this occasion, to take care, not so much of the ministers of the Crown, as of the liberties of the people. Before they suffered themselves to give any countenance to a bill of indemnity, they should see that the people had not been damnified: they should first appoint a committee to examine the grievances which the petitioners had stated, and to ascertain whether the ministers had not exceeded their powers. Nothing could be more hostile to the spirit of liberty, nothing more destructive of that generous system which our forefathers had delivered down to us, than the doctrine that a bill of this nature should be passed as a matter of course. *For copies of the said Petitions, see p. 104, 192, and 412. last hundred and twenty-four years, been frequently suspended-no fewer than nine, ten, or twelve times; but these suspensions had been followed by a bill of indemnity only on one occasion, and it was curious that that bill of indemnity was asked by the same gentleman who now asked for one; for though they did not occupy the same situations which they now occupied, it was the same individuals who applied then that applied now. So that the only instance of a bill of indemnity was a precedent of their own: they acted wrong in the first instance, and now they thought to benefit by their own wrong: they were calling upon the House to screen them from the consequences of their late violations of the law, merely, as they stated, because they had been protected from such consequences before! But he wished to observe to the House, that bills of indemnity, in cases of suspension of the Habeas Corpus act, were altogether of modern date-he had taken some pains to look into the proceedings of parliament, and he could find no precedent earlier than the 40th of the present king. It was always to be borne in mind, that the House had yet had no satisfactory proof of the necessity for vesting ministers with the extraordinary powers which the suspension of the Habeas Corpus had conferred on them. When they` applied to the legislature for the bill by which this was effected, they asserted, that sedition and treason prevailed in se veral counties, and that the ordinary powers of the law were not sufficient to repress them. This was the ground upon which they desired to be intrusted with extraordinary powers. But what had been the result? The only instance which could at all be adduced of any outrage having arisen from the evil spirit which was said to prevail was, the frame-breaking at Derby and Nottingham, followed by the trials for high treason at Derby, where three individuals suffered the punishment of the law. No gentleman had shown that any other case of treason had been found to exist. It was evident, therefore, that the dangers of the country had been exaggerated beyond their proper dimensions; and that they might have been removed, had government taken a different course from that which they had pursued. But as to the manner in which ministers had exercised their powers, the very fact of their asking a bill of indemnity was an admission of their having abused them. From the beginning to the end of the business, it seemed to him that they had violated the law in every respect; and he was at a loss to know how gentlemen would justify themselves in the eyes of their constituents-in what manner they could reconcile it to their own consciences-to grant an indemnity under such circumstances. case. the power to issue warrants to apprehend persons on a charge of high treason, he ought not to do this without attending to certain forms. He did not find any statute or any other guide to determine the form to be gone through, before the secretary of state could issue such warrant; but he could not doubt that the same forms ought to be observed in cases of high treason, which were used in the case of all inferior crimes; and he knew that the forms of proceeding, in the case of inferior crimes, were pointed out and directed by law. A justice of peace, before committing, in the case of inferior crimes, must take the examination of the party, and the oath of the accuser, and transmit them to the proper court where the person so committed would have to be tried. Was the law to take all these precautions in the case of inferior crimes, and to be blind in the case of higher offences? and was the secretary of state to be absolved from the necessity of taking the precautions which every magistrate was bound to take? But in cases of treason itself, justices of peace, in ordering commitments, were bound by act of parliament to proceed in the same way as in the case of inferior crimes. A justice of peace could only commit for treason as felony and breach of the peace, and proceed in the same manner as in cases of felony, or breach of the peace. It was admitted on all hands, that ministers had received, by the Suspension act, no new powers of apprehension and release-they had only received the additional power of retaining persons arrested, without bringing them to trial, beyond the term fixed by law for that purpose. They had no new power of taking up persons without warrant issued in the usual manner. There was a regular form and process in which only men could be arrested; they ought to know the accusation against them, and to be themselves examined. This was the case with respect to every inferior crime-the subject was regulated by law-books and by acts of parliament. Not one of the regular forms had been complied with in the present He would not at present dispute the power of the secretary of state to issue warrants to apprehend persons on a charge of high treason; but he must observe, that this power, said to be vested in the secretary of state, was undoubtedly an anomaly. It was a usurpation, and not above a hundred and fifty years old. It had been disputed at the time of the Revolution, and it was only by a decision in the time of king William that it was confirmed. One of the judges declared on that occasion (as appeared by sir Benjamin Shower's Reports), that he conceived the secretary of state had power to administer an oath, because he had power to commit. It would have been a much more legitimate conclusion, to have in-peared indeed to have been irregular from ferred that he could not commit, because he could not administer an oath. Lord Camden said, he founded his opinion entirely on that decision. But, as he had already said, he did not now mean to dispute the power of the secretary of state to commit. It was a right, however, of modern practice, which some of the greatest lawyers had pronounced to be a usurpation, and a perfect anomaly-and if that power was continued, they ought to put an end to the anomaly by giving a power to the secretary of state to administer an oath. But if the secretary of state had # Now none of these forms had been observed with respect to any of the persons whose petitions lay on the table. With respect to the individual whose petition he had first presented, Francis Ward, the proceedings against him had originated not with the secretary of state, but with the magistrates of Nottingham.-The officers began searching his house without showing any warrant or authority whatever. The proceedings in that case ap the very beginning. Next, with respect to the treatment of those persons in prison, he knew he should be told that on this subject there was great exaggerationand it might be so. He himself had happened to see the directions sent down by the secretary of state to one of the prisons where several of these persons were confined. It was a particular order that irons should not be used unless necessary. But though the secretary of state gave such directions, he took care that the magistrates should not be allowed to see whether these orders were attended to or not-whether or not the persons were subject to ill treatment- and therefore, notwithstanding the order, he would say, that the secretary of state was responsible for every instance of ill treatment contrary to his own directions. But supposing even that their ill treatment was exaggerated supposing even that the evils which they endured might be described too emphatically-it was by no means wonderful, that men taken as the petitioners were from their families, and detained so long in confinement, should be very impatient under their imprisonment; and express that impatience in terms of strong resentment. But there was one part of their treatment which was not exaggerated-their solitary confinement -a thing unknown to our old law-and in the opinion of many persons so grievous a punishment, that it was not inferior to death itself. He begged leave to read an entry from the Journals, to show the idea which was formerly entertained of solitary confinement. It was in 1689, and it referred to the case of lord Castlemaine, who was confined in the Tower under a warrant of the secretary of state, on a charge of high treason. In a petition to the House, of which he was a member, he desired that he might have the liberty of the Tower, and that he might not be kept in close confinement; and the House being informed that he was not allowed to see his friends or servants, an order was made that they should be admitted to him, that a bill should be brought in to regulate the imprisonment of the subject, and that Mr. Attorney General should prosecute the keeper of Newgate; such were the resolutions of the Commons at that time; and he hoped that the House would follow the example, and appoint a committee to examine into the truth of the matters alleged in these petitions, and take measures for giving redress. But he contended also, that the manner in which the petitioners was discharged was as contrary to the practice of the law, as the manner in which they had been committed to prison. He would ask the attorney-general how persons could get out of gaol who were committed to be delivered in due course of law, without pardon or acquittal? They could only come out by due course of law, except * See New Parliamentary History, Vol. 5, p. 406. (VOL. XXXVII.) by pardon. Letting them out on their own recognizances, was only letting them out on an inferior sort of bail. Now, he would contend, that the manner in which the petitioners were allowed to come out was as illegal on the part of the officers of the Crown, as it was unjust towards the petitioners themselves. It was illegal because it was contrary to all the statutes from Edward the first; and unjust, because it left the parties with a stigma on their characters, which, if they had been tried, would most probably not have attached to them. The first statute on this subject was that of the 3rd of Edward 1st, commonly called the statute of Westminster. This act went to replevins, the only sort of bail known at that time; and from this it was argued in favour of the power of a secretary of state to commit, that the power which the king formerly possessed had been transferred to the secretary of state. A magistrate could not bail in a case where he could not commit. By a subsequent statute of Philip and Mary, it was enacted, that all the offences were not bailable which had been enumerated in the statute of Westminster; and that a magistrate could not discharge a prisoner upon his recognizance, if committed on a charge of high treason. that if it was true that these persons were committed for high treason, they could not be let out on bail, much less on their recognizances and their discharge was contrary to law. If it was said, that had this been illegal, the court of King's-bench would have objected to the proceedinghe could only answer, that the court had only then to consider of the recognizances, so that the question of the legality of their discharge was non coram judice; and as to any argument deduced from the voluntary appearance of the prisoners in the court to have their recognizances discharged, and the acknowledgment of the legality of the preceding thereby implied, the answer was, that no subsequent act of the prisoners could have any retrospective effect, so as to render legal what was not previously decided to be according to law. But even admitting that magistrates had the power of bailing for high treason, they did not possess that power as lately exercised; for in the case of the prisoners, one magistrate had taken their recognizances in some instances, whereas by the act of Philip and Mary, in all bailable offences it was necessary that the bail should be (2 H) So |