the House divided, and it would be too much to charge upon a majority every word used by any member of that majority. If such a principle were established, there would be an end of all freedom of debate. There was another publication within a few days in the same paper, with respect to the members who voted upon the motion of the hon. member for Abingdon, in which a false colouring was given to the views of the majority. Upon this publication, however, he did not mean to call for any animadversion. But if the practice were to go on, of publishing the names of gentlemen as they voted in that House (and by the way he could not account for the manner in which such lists were furnished, as strangers were excluded upon a division), he must say, that accuracy should be attended to, and that no false description should be sent forth as to the motives of either the majority or the minority. He felt it necessary to assert the privileges of the House, and should move, "That J. Lambert, the printer and publisher of the Morning Chronicle, do attend this House on Monday."

Mr. Bennet said, that as to the passage complained of, he was led to believe that every word of it was true. Since he had heard of the intention to bring forward the complaint under consideration, he had taken the trouble of inquiring with respect to the practice of publishing lists of the names of members who voted in majorities and minorities of that House, and he had found, that it had prevailed for above a century. The first instance was that of a division in the House of Lords in 1703; next, that of a division in 1714, upon the expulsion of sir R. Steele. Then followed the lists upon the proposition of the Excise laws, and upon the employment of foreign troops in 1742. From that period down to the present this practice had prevailed; and now, for the first time, a complaint was preferred against it, and that too, upon very untenable grounds; for, although the House did not distinctly come to a vote upon the extraordinary admonition of the noble secretary for foreign affairs, from all that he had heard the paragraph complained of contained a correct description. Whether any gentlemen were ashamed of what they did, or how they voted generally in that House, he should not pretend to say. But he should not be at all surprised, to find some gentlemen unwilling to have it

known to the world that they had voted against the reception of the petition of a fellow-subject, without even allowing it to be read, although it came from a poor man pining in gaol. The hon. mover was not among those who voted against the reception of that petition, and therefore it was found convenient to put him forward upon this occasion. But, as to the motion, he considered it peculiarly indiscreet, and in order to get rid of it, he would move, "That this House do now adjourn."

Sir Charles Long said, that the ground of his hon. friend's complaint was not against the practice alluded to, but against a particular paragraph, imputing improper motives to a majority of the House upon a certain occasion. By this paragraph that majority was charged with supporting an admonition to the people not to trouble that House any more with their petitions; which charge was contrary to the fact. His noble friend had been accused of admonishing members of that House not to present the petitions of the people. But what was the fact? Why, that some gentlemen, declaring that they felt it their duty to present any petition, couched in decorous and respectful language, his noble friend had observed, that it was the duty of every member, not merely to examine the style or expressions, but the matter or object of any petition which he was called upon to present.

Sir R. Wilson expressed a hope, that, as the publication alluded to did not contain any direct censure upon the House, or upon the majority alluded to, the hon. gentleman would have the liberality to withdraw his motion.

Mr. Creevey said, that the first part of the statement in the paragraph complained of was literally true, while the second was, according to his impression, substantially correct. The noble lord, after he gave the admonition referred to, certainly attempted several explanations; but still his conception of the noble lord's original meaning remained unchanged. Upon such a declaration then from any minister, or any member of that House, with respect to the right of petitioning, it was the duty of the public press to animadvert. If gentlemen thought the printer had been betrayed into indiscretion, he trusted to the liberality of the House that such indiscretion would not be made the subject of punishment. The printer might have been indiscreet; but

what was his indiscretion compared to that of lord Castlereagh, in the declaration which gave rise to the paragraph under consideration? It would not become their dignity or discretion to found any proceedings upon such a publication, especially after the course adopted with respect to the address from the Presbytery of Langholme.

Mr. Wallace observed, that the question was not whether his noble friend had made an indiscreet declaration, but whether a gross libel had been published upon the conduct of a majority of that House? For himself, he was anxious that his acts and votes in that House should be fully made known; but as to the declaration imputed to his noble friend, he denied that he had uttered any such words as those imputed to him.

Sir J. Newport said, that the noble lord had used words with respect to the presentation of petitions, which at first struck him as bearing the construction put upon them, but the noble lord had afterwards qualified them. As well as he could recollect the words of the noble lord, they were these " I would really request gentlemen to admonish those who bring them petitions, not to burthen the House with them in the manner they do." As to what had been contended that this House was not the proper tribunal for hearing complaints relative to the administration of justice, he declared, that if a petition were offered to him to-morrow, complaining of the conduct of a court of justice, he should feel it his duty to present it: for to what purpose was a committee of justice appointed, but to enable the people to bring before that House such grievances as they might suffer from malversation in the administration of justice?

Sir M. W. Ridley conceived, that if the noble lord had used words to the effect stated, he had afterwards, by his explanation, done away the impression which they had made. After all, as the first indiscretion had been on the part of the noble lord, and then an indiscretion on the part of some other hon. member who put the title to the minority, he thought it would be advisable to let the matter rest.

Mr. Huskisson said, he was one of those who did not object to the publication of lists; but he must object to the introduction of such lists, with misstatements of the nature of the vote. The insinuation here was against the majority; for the minority was described

as having voted against a particular principle, and it was to be inferred that the majority were in favour of it. Now, with respect to the words used by the noble lord, he had understood them in this sense-that persons presenting petitions ought to be admonished that it was in the power of the House to refuse those petitions, if the subject referred to was one which ought not to be brought before them. If the words of the noble lord were misunderstood at first, he had afterwards sufficiently explained their meaning. As to the principle involved in the present motion, he contended, that if the House refused to assert its privileges on such occasions, they would be opening a door for great abuses.

Mr. Stuart Wortley said, it had not been his intention to persist in his motion, for bringing the printer to the bar of that House, for he believed he was not the person who was most to blame; but, after the hon. gentlemen opposite had thought proper to defend the act of which he complained, he would put it to the House, whether it would be consistent with their dignity to pass it over without animadversion. Still, however, as far as he was personally concerned, he was perfectly ready to withdraw it, provided gentlemen on the other side would admit that it was an unjustifiable proceeding to impute motives to members in the way in which they had been imputed in the paper complained of. If they persisted in defending such conduct, he thought the House could not do less, in vindication of its own dignity, than call the printer to the bar, that he might at least receive some admonition.

Lord Castlereagh said, that certainly a more detestable and wicked libel had never been published. If he had himself called the attention of the House to this subject, it was perhaps no more than he ought to have done; and he could only justify himself for having abstained from taking that course, by that self-indulgence which might be allowed to a minister. Now, however, that it was brought before the House, he must say, that to impute to him a desire to prevent the people from exercising the right of petition, was not only wicked, but absurd. He certainly had admonished the people not to present petitions, complaining of grievances, in which that House could afford them no relief; and such an admonition, he apprehended, was an act of great kindness to the people of England. But, when he

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. Bennet said, he was not at all inclined to persist in his motion for adjournment, if the hon. gentleman would also 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.

List of the Minority.

but, after some further conversation, both motions were, with the leave of the House, withdrawn.

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 7191. He then sold property of his own to the amount of 467., 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 morning. 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 347. 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 İlchester, 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 344.; 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.