the individual to whom he alluded was Richard Lee.* In his petition, speaking of an unfortunate man named Riley, who had died by his own hand in prison, he said, that to make the cell fit for his reception, he was under the necessity of removing away the clotted blood with his own hands. Upon the subject of this petition, he had received a letter which he would take the liberty of reading to the House. It was from Mr. Staveley, the keeper of York gaol. It would be recollected, that Lee's petition set out by stating that he was innocent of all the charges brought against him. The person whose letter he held in his hand, said, that he was truly sorry to find that he had been deceived in the character of Lee; that he had written to lord Sidmouth, praising him for his good and regular conduct, and stating that he felt sincere contrition for the guilt he had incurred; but that he now seemed disposed to fall back into his former evil practices. On the day he was discharged from prison, he came up, and in the presence of the rev. Mr. Dealtry, a magistrate, expressed himself satisfied with the treatment he had received while in confinement. His warrant was dated on the 22d of July, and he was in prison until December. He never had more than a single iron put upon him of 5 lb., being weighed in the presence of Mr. Dealtry. It was the custom of the place, for the better security of prisoners, to fix such an iron upon them. He had 10 lb. of bread a week, together with 6d. to purchase potatoes, besides which Lee and Riley were allowed 7s. a week each by lord Sidmouth. Such were some of the statements in the letter which he had received. Thy were in complete contradiction to the allegations of Lee's petition. The only part of it which appeared to be true was his being associated for some time with a felon who was afterwards executed. At first he was placed in the same room with other prisoners, but the letter went on to state, that he was afterwards removed into the same cell with Riley and Wm. King, who was charged with the murder of his wife; that King was sent there by the directions of the clergyman, that he might have an opportunity of hearing good books read. He was removed on the 25th of July, so that they were not more than five days *For a copy of Richard Lee's petition, see p. 590. together, and were only placed in the same room because it was more commedious. This statement seemed, if true, sufficient to do away that part of the petition which referred to his being associated with a felon. Riley was stated to have put an end to his own life in a fit of derangement, arising from close confinement. This language was, no doubt, thrown out with a view of inducing the public to believe that the rigour of his imprisonment was the occasion of his com mitting suicide. The letter, however, stated, that Riley was first confined at Huddersfield, where he attempted to put an end to his life by hanging himself. This showed that the disposition to suicide prevailed previous to confinement at York. From an affidavit sworn before the rev. Mr. Reid, by a person named Richard Carlton, who was confined at the same time with Lee and Riley, it appeared that previous to the suicide committed by the latter, they lived three weeks together; that when Lee found what had happened, he called out to one of the watchmen of the prison, and a surgeon was imme diately sent for; that Lee asked deponent to clean up the blood before the coroner should come, saying, that he would re compense him for his trouble; that deponent according cleaned up the blood himself, without any help from Lee, who was not required, and did not assist in it. Such were the facts conveyed to him in a letter from the keeper of the York gaol. He thought it his duty to lay them before the House, without meaning at all to throw any blame upon the hon. member who had presented Lee's petition to the House, The writer he knew to be a most respectable man in his situation, and for the space of twenty-six years, during which he had filled it, this was the first charge of severity that he ever knew to have been brought against him. Sir Francis Burdett observed, that he did not intend to enter into a detailed discussion at present on the Indemnity bill, particularly as it was his intention to deliver his opinion on it after it came out of the committee, on the third reading. He was anxious to offer an observation on the statement just made by the noble lord. He did not mean to imply, that the person of whom the noble lord spoke did not deserve the character, at the same time that he could not help adverting to the singular kind of phraseology with which he introduced the office of a gaoler; as if, always contend the House had no right to adopt. They were appointed to protect, not to suspend the constitution; to extend, and not to withdraw from the subject the benefits and protection of the law. He had already gone somewhat farther than he intended in the present state of the proceeding, and should reserve what he had farther to object, not only to the principle, but the provisions of the bill, till it should have gone into a committee, through which he conceived it to be impossible that it should pass in its present form. indeed, he was speaking of the vice-chan- | dable, would send to him the refutation of cellor of the University of Oxford. No- his principles, with which he had favoured thing could be more unsatisfactory to the the House, it would be allowed a place in country than the custom of producing in his publication. This reason, however, that House letters from gaolers to answer was perhaps as good as any other which grave charges of oppression, brought by had been assigned for so violent a breach men who suffered, against them. To such of the constitution. His majesty's minisstatements, or even to the depositions of ters well knew that there had been no prisoners who were under their control treason in the country, and that the only or courted their favour, he could pay no conspiracy was a conspiracy to prevent attention. What he had himself witnessed reform. It was, indeed, going too far to during the investigation at Cold-bath- plead these miserable subterfuges in justifields had convinced him that no depen-fication of a proceeding, which he should dence whatever should be placed on these partial representations. The House should not entertain them. If they wished to inquire into the truth or falsehood, they should have the question fully before them in a regular parliamentary shape. Having said thus much on the noble lord's statement, he could not sit down without expressing his surprise at the reason given by an hon. member near him (Mr. Grenfell) for his assent to the present bill. That hon. gentleman was induced, he said, to vote for the Suspension of the Habeas Corpus act on the authority of the late Mr. Ponsonby. Now the fact was, that Sir S. Romilly thought the subject beMr. Ponsonby had voted against the Sus- fore the House one which required their pension act, and the hon. gentleman was most serious consideration. It ought not, therefore deprived of his authority. He therefore, to be hurried through in such thought the other reason of the hon. gen- a manner as not to allow members to tleman equally extraordinary; for it form decided opinions upon it. He did amounted to this-that because the people not then mean to enter into the subject, had been oppressed by want, they ought as he understood the bill was to be referto forfeit their liberties. One hon. gen-red to a committee to-morrow. But when tleman (colonel Stanhope) had indeed the question should be put for the contended, that it was Mr. Cobbett's writings which had created the necessity of suspending the Habeas Corpus. He certainly thought Mr. Cobbett a powerful writer, but he had never imagined that he possessed the degree of influence now attributed to him. It was singular to hear it represented that the government, with the means of bribing and corrupting almost the whole press of the country, in addition to the exertion of their own wit, intellect, and literary talents, should attach so much importance to what was sometimes called twopenny trash, and always described as maintaining doctrines equally false and absurd. Here was an instance, likewise, of a writer making use of no disguise, but publishing his opinions always under his own name, seeking no indirect advantage, like Junius, but fully exposed to the hostility of his opponents. He had no doubt if the hon. member who had represented Mr. Cobbett as so formi- Althorp, visc. Speaker's leaving the chair for the purpose of going into the committee, he should oppose it, in order to have an opportunity of making known his opinion on the principle of the bill. Lord Folkestone asked the noble lord whether he wished to enter into the contest formerly mentioned relative to the precedents as to bills of indemnity? If so, he was prepared to prove, that none of the precedents quoted justified the bill now called for. Lord Castlereagh said, he was not prepared to say how far the precedents quoted might apply. His opinions on the subject of precedents were, however, unchanged. The question being put, "That the bill be now read a second time, the House divided: Ayes, 89; Noes, 24. List of the Minority. Barnett, James DESTRUCTION OF PROPERTY TAX RETURNS.] The debate on the adjourn ed motion of the 4th instant being resumed, Lord Castlereagh said, that his right hon. friend had no objection to the motion generally, but to the mode in which it was framed. The operations of a committee on the subject would be very slow and laborious. If a motion for the production of the account, for the inquiry into which the committee was to be appointed, did not elicit sufficient information, farther measures might be resorted to. He would move, therefore, as an amendment, "That there be laid before the House a state ment of the measures taken for destroying such books and papers relative to the property tax as were no longer necessary for the public service." After some conversation between the chancellor of the exchequer and Mr. Brougham, the following motion was agreed to:-"That there be laid before the House a statement of the measures taken for destroying such Books and Papers relative to the Property Tax, under schedule D, as are no longer necessary for the collection of arrears, or the hearing of appeals or other proceedings pending." HOUSE OF COMMONS. Wednesday, March 11. PETITION OF JAMES SELLERS COMPLAINING OF THE OPERATION OF THE HABEAS CORPUS SUSPENSION ACT.] Sir F. Burdett presented a Petition from James Sellers, late a state prisoner in Reading gaol; setting forth, "That the Petitioner has followed the business of a cutler in Manchester on his own account for twelve years last past; that for nine years he occupied a place in Church-street, Manchester, where he was at work on the 28th of March, 1817, (VOL. XXXVII.) when a Mr. Withington, then high constable, entered the petitioner's shop, attended by a posse of constables; Withington seized the petitioner by the breast, dragged him about, presented a double-barrelled pistol at him, with a bayonet affixed to the end, swearing if the petitioner stirred, he would blow his brains out; at the same time the petitioner had made or offered no resistance; the petitioner asked the liberty to put on his coat, which was refused, having had it off when at work; on his wife offering him his coat, Withington ordered her to stand back, or he would run her through; in that state, without coat, the petitioner was brought out of his shop, together with three strange men who were in the shop bringing or taking away work; and the petitioner's handkerchief was stripped from his neck, and with it his hands tied to one of the three strange men; in that state, under an escort of dragoons, the petitioner, together with others, were triumphantly marched to prison; on arriving there, the petitioner was put into a cold cell or weaving shop, where he remained from five o'clock in the evening until eleven the same night, a cold season of the year, no fire, without coat, and in a bad state of health, which almost starved him to death; at eleven o'clock at night where he remained until Sunday morning the petitioner was removed to a cell, the 30th of March, when he was brought out to have irons put on, which done, he was with others the same morning sent off to London; the weight of the irons, added to the surfeit caught in prison, and a severe blow he received with a large stick from deputy Nadin of Manchester when in irons, very much injured the petitioner's health, the effects of which are at this time felt; on the 31st of March the petitioner arrived in London, and on the 1st of April underwent an examination before lord Sidmouth, when his lordship committed him to the House of Correction, Cold-Bath-fields; on the 9th of April he was a second time examined before his lordship, when his lordship committed him to Reading gaol, there to remain until delivered by due course of law; on the 10th of April he arrived at Reading, about nine in the evening, and on the following morning he, along with John Knight from Manchester, and Nathaniel Hulton from New-mills, Derbyshire, were put into a felon's ward, having nothing but a straw bed to lie upon, nei(3 Q) ther table, chair, or other necessary in the place; a turnkey named Tucker brought each prisoner a loaf, which should weigh one and one half pound, and informed them that was the county allowance, and which was to serve them until the next day, upon which the petitioner and the other two sufferers asked if they could have necessary subsistence for money, and were informed they might; they then ordered tea or coffee, which shortly after was brought, and also butter; on offering payment, they were informed that the governor would not charge any thing for what they had then had; on the 12th the prisoners were visited by the magistrates; on complaining of their treatment, the governor informed the magistrates, that he had received no orders respecting the treatment of the prisoners, but said, he had wrote to lord Sidmouth for instructions, and until he received an answer he would allow them something better than county allowance; in the course of a few days the petitioner and the other two sufferers were again visited by the visiting magistrates, at which time the governor stated to the prisoners that he had received orders from lord Sidmouth, stating that the petitioner and the other two sufferers were each to be allowed one guinea per week, to dispose of for their subsistence as they saw proper, or he the governor offered to provide them every necessary for the guinea per week each; the petitioner and the other two sufferers concluded to apply their own money, wishing to spare some trifle for the relief of their suffering families at home; the governor sent in a shop-keeper to take their orders; in a few days after, the governor informed the prisoners that he was going to London for farther information respecting their treatment, and would settle with them on his return, the prisoners having then received no money; before the governor's return the shopkeeper was pressing for his money, which the prisoners were obliged to pay out of their own pockets; on the governor's return, the prisoners sent several notes, pressing him for a settlement to enable them to discharge the shop-keeper's second demand, but the petitioner and the two other sufferers got no answer to such application until the 26th of April, having then been in the felons' ward sixteen days without money; on the 26th the deputy-governor informed the prisoners that they were that day to be removed to separate apartments; on the petitioner and the other two sufferers strongly objecting to such separation before having got a settlement with the governor, calculating from the shop-keeper's demand then unpaid, and the bill they had before discharged, there would be due to each about twenty-five shillings from the promised guinea per week, the deputy governor then informed the prisoners that he was instructed by the governor to say, that he the governor had orders to supply them from his own table for the government allowance of one guinea per week each; finding they could get no money, they were reluctantly obliged to send the shop-keeper's bill to the governor, to be by him discharged; and the same night the petitioner was removed into what they called a state-room, three and a half yards long by two and a quarter yards wide, furnished with a bed, one table, two chairs, and one coal-box, a smokey chimney, and the window fastened down, which precluded the admission of fresh air; in that state-room the petitioner remained shut up from the 26th of April to the 26th of July, excepting the liberty of walking in the yard one hour each day; from the confined state of the room, want of exercise, added to the severities before stated, the petitioner's legs were much swelled, and reduced in health to that degree that it was with difficulty that he could walk about; the petitioner and the other sufferer Hulton (Knight having been removed) were then allowed to be together two or three hours each day; and in a little time longer were permitted to be together all day until the petitioner was discharged, which was on the 4th of December 1817, on entering into recognizance to appear in London at the court of King's-bench on the 23d of January 1818, to answer to a charge of high treason that he was charged with; being conscious that he had committed no unconstitutional act, he did not shrink from meeting any charge that might be brought against him, but could not possibly appear, being without the means; on his arriving in Manchester on the 6th of December, he did not possess more than four shillings and sixpence, and found that his landlord had, without any process or colour of law, the same week the petitioner was sent to London, forcibly took possession of his shop, tools, &c., giving the petitioner's wife a very few necessary articles of furniture, which have been disposed of by the petitioner for subsistence since his return, not being able to get any employ, and having no tools to work with at his own business; his landlord on taking forcible possession placed another cutler in his shop, who continues to use the tools and possesses the business of the petitioner, who is now in a most wretched state, the little he and his wife procure to subsist upon being from the nearly exhausted bounty of a few friends; having suffered in the most severe manner in consequence of the suspension of the Habeas Corpus act both in person and property, as well as the loss of his tools and business, through the most unjustifiable and unconstitutional proceedings of administration, the petitioner is most reluctantly obliged to throw himself on the protection of the House, for such redress as they in their wisdom may judge necessary, relying on the justice and liberality of the House." Ordered to lie on the table, and to be printed. INDEMNITY BILL.] The Attorney-general having moved the order of the day for going into a Committee on the Indemnity Bill, Sir Samuel Romilly rose. He said that as the objections which he had to the bill, were objections to the principle of it, or rather to the different principles upon which the different parts of it proceeded, he ought properly to have stated them upon the second reading, and it was his intention to have done so. It was through deference to the opinion of others, and not from his own judgment; that he had, thin as the attendance was, when the bill was read a second time, deferred his object to the present stage of it. He should, how. ever, now resist the bill proceeding any farther. Whether considered by itself, or as a precedent which would be acted on in future times, it appeared to him to be a measure most objectionable and most dangerous. It was improperly called a mere bill of Indemnity. The object of Indemnity was only to protect individuals from public prosecutions to which they might have exposed themselves, but without interfering with the rights of private individuals; but the object of this bill was to annihilate such rights. Its true des cription was a bill to take away all legal remedies, from those who had suffered from an illegal and arbitrary exercise of authority, and to punish those who pre sumed to have recourse to such remedies by subjecting them to the payment of ouble costs. Upon the importance of such a proceeding, it would not be necessary for him to enlarge. If in nothing else, yet in this, even the supporters of the bill, he presumed, would agree with him, yet nothing but unjust necessity, nothing but a clear demonstration that the safety of the people, which was the supreme law, required it, could justify parliament withholding the protection of the law, and closing the tribunals against those who were demanding justice: and the only question would be, whether the public safety really called for such a measure? The rendering justice to the injured was the first object of all governments. It was peculiarly that of the British constitution. Ours was pre-eminently a government of law and justice. In the Great Charter of our liberties, one of its most sacred provisions was, that justice should be denied to no man. When any sovereigns enter on the discharge of those sacred duties to which they are cal. led, the solemn oath they take is, to administer law and justice with mercy in all their judgments; and it had hitherto been the proud boast of this country, that there was no man so poor and abject as to be below the protection, nor so ipowerful as to be above the reach of the law. When, therefore, parliament was about to declare, in violation of principles hitherto so religiously adhered to, that for a certain class of British subjects there should be no law and no justice, it behoved it at least to proceed with great caution and deliberation. The duty the House was about to discharge was no less solemn than a judicial duty. It was, in truth, sitting in judgment, not upon one, but upon a great number of individual cases, and with this strange disadvantage, that it was deciding in total ignorance of all the circumstances of the cases upon which it decided. It was declaring, that the injured should have no redress, without knowing the number, the nature, or the extent of the wrongs of which they complained. Upon a proceeding so extraordinary and so hazardous, it was impossible to enter with too much care and anxiety. There were only three objects which the bill had in view; first, to protect the ministers in the acts of authority they had exercised: secondly, to indemnify magistrates in the acts they had done for suppressing insurrections, or guarding against imminent danger to the state: and, thirdly, to |