capital, which might enable them to carry on the whole trade of the metropolis with out any restriction, which was the object of the charter applied for, would be attended with extreme danger; and he still thought that granting charters without restriction, for establishments of this kind more particularly, would be productive of the worst consequences. As to the present bill, he had not fully made up his mind, whether the restrictions contained in it so far removed the danger as to authorize its being passed. Mr. Biddulph said, that he was a subscriber to the proposed establishment, but no consideration should make him surrender his vote as a member of parliament; he would rather resign his money to any amount. He was convinced of the great utility of this establishment. Mr. Perceval strongly opposed the bill. He was more and more convinced that the measure was most impolitic, unwise, and unseasonable. Every measure of this nature ought to be proportioned to the pressure. The only necessity which could be urged on the present occasion, was the scarcity which had prevailed. However, it had always been usual, when the legislature had made a law on the spur of any occasion, to limit the duration of the act to the emergency which called for it. The present scarcity, there was every reason to hope, would vanish with the next harvest; so that the present bill would only begin to operate when the evil had ceased. The supporters of the bill said, that they did not mean to make any charge against the millers and bakers; but surely the effects of the measure must be to say, that the millers and bakers got great profits from the people. If this was not the case, it would seem as if they thought there was a deficiency of mills to grind the corn necessary for the consumption of the metropolis. But on this head, there had not been a single witness produced; on the contrary, it had been proved, that the mills around the metropolis would grind in seven months, a sufficiency to supply the metropolis for twelve months. Why then, pass a bill which was to establish facts that had no existence, and which in the end might be productive of the most fatal consequences? The only evidence which the supporters of the bill had adduced, were statements on paper, and related to two objects, the Birmingham Union mills, and the Albion mills. Neither of these proved any thing materially in favour of the bill. The present bill must be attended with the most fatal consequences if it was suffered to pass. The company were to be allowed to take to their share an eighth of the consump tion of the metropolis. In doing this, they went on a speculation very different from that of the millers, and which actu ally took away every idea of competition. If the company failed in any of their speculations, they could only suffer to the amount of their shares. If the millers failed in the same way, they might lose their all. He thought it wrong to trust any body of men with such a monopoly as would drive the present dealers out of the market, and throw the necessaries of life into the hands of a set of men, who would have it in their power to oppress the public, whenever they should think proper. Lord Hawkesbury said, that if an argument urged by Mr. Tierney against those persons voting on the present measure who might have an interest in the proposed establishment was of any weight, it would also preclude from voting landed gentlemen who purchased their land tax, and monied men who held any share of a loan; in a word, it would deprive most members of the right of voting on the most momentous questions. It was evident, that the authors of the bill were not induced to bring it forward by the urgency of any particular calamity, but from an extended view of what might hereafter tend to produce its recurrence. The noble lord then went into an enumeration of the causes which contributed to diminish the consumption of bread: in years of scarcity one-sixth less was consumed than in years of plenty, and many parts of the grain were brought into use, which in plentiful years were not introduced into the food of man. The object of the present mea sure was, to establish a company which would manufacture a mixed and inferior kind of bread; and from this establishment he was convinced the public would reap great advantage, by its keeping down the price of bread. By the system now proposed to be introduced, traders on different principles would be brought to rival each other, and this rivalship would prove a spur to competition. The advantages that must be derived from the experiment were many; it would correct the evils that were aggravated by artificial causes, increase the means of sustenance by introducing into bread many parts of the grain not commonly used for the food of man, | House in the case of the loyalty loan, prevent combination, and promote com- that where a bill was partly of a public petition. nature and partly of benefit to themselves, they might vote on the principle; but whenever the incidental point arose, in which their own interest lay, they could not, without indecorum, vote, nor would their voices, if questioned, be allowed. It was a delicate question; and he lamented that there was not a precedent by which the House, in this instance, could be guided. The inclination of his mind was, that this was a point which came within the rule. Mr. Sheridan said, that the bill would prove highly detrimental to the interests of the public. There was no connexion between the proposed remedy and the evil to be removed. The real evil was the interference of government. The unfortunate war gave rise to this tampering of government with the article of corn; for, in order to distress the enemy, they had endeavoured to get the whole of the corn of Europe into their own hands; but a timely and economical importation was neglected. Upon the subject of scarcity, no good could arise from committees of inquiry. Indeed, it were to be wished that both the legislature and the government had their hands tied up upon this matter. The remedy now proposed would do no good. The real cause of the evil was the deficiency of grain; and this would be had in plenty, if the corn merchants were liberally dealt by, and a permanent law introduced to regulate importation, unchecked and uncontrolled by government. This was the only radical remedy. The question being put, That the said bill be now read the third time, the House divided: The bill was accordingly read a third time. A number of clauses were then brought up by way of riders, and several divisions took place upon them. Mr. Sheridan then called the attention of the House to a matter that materially concerned the purity of their proceedings. The question of the third reading had passed by a majority of four only; and it seemed though persons were interested in the bill, yet as it was of a mixed nature, partly public, partly private, they might be allowed to vote; but where the question was solely a matter of profit as this was, he must call on the Speaker to say, whether the voices of persons who were proprietors in the new charter could be allowed? It was understood there were several members in the House who stood in that predicament. The Speaker said, that he understood it to be the rule which had governed the Mr. Sheridan then moved, that the vote of William Devaynes, esq. be disallowed. Mr. Devaynes said, that he had paid no money towards this plan, but that he intended to subscribe. He was then directed to withdraw; and a long conversation took place on the nature of the cases that did and did not entitle members to vote where they had a personal interest. Mr. Rose, lord Hawkesbury, Mr. H. Browne and others, contended, that this was not a question which, even in decorum, obliged them to withhold their votes. The Speaker gave it clearly as his opinion, that it was a case which would govern his mind if he had to vote. Mr. Tierney said, the question was simply, whether a member was interested in a vote by which he was to give himself 10 per cent instead of 5, on a share which was transferable, and by which vote the share was to be increased in value, and might be sold the next day for more money? It was not here the minuteness of the interest, but the principle, which made the question. The question was, whether a number of members of parliament should grant to themselves, out of the course which the constitution had pointed out as the best means for securing the public against jobs, a charter which was to have an eventual benefit to themselves? On such a question, to say that their voting for 10 instead of 5 per cent was not the indecorum which the rule of the House had guarded against, was to compromise the character and the dignity of parliament. Mr. Perceval was of opinion that the bill was a private commercial matter, violating indeed all former commercial principles. The private interest was the first obvious view of the member when he voted for 10 per cent instead of 5, and therefore his vote ought to be disallowed. It was then resolved, that the vote of Mr. Devaynes be disallowed; as were also the votes of sir John Call, and Mr. Frere. Mr. Bid dulph said, that he had ceased to be a subscriber to a plan which he approved, to prevent any doubt respecting the validity of his vote. The next name objected to was that of sir Robert Preston, who had gone away as soon as this discussion of eligibility commenced. The Speaker said, that they could not decide on the question without hearing what he had to say. A long discussion took place on what course they should follow. Could they proceed to pass a bill upon which a person had voted who was disqualified by his interest in the case? It was finally got rid of by moving that he should attend in his place on Monday; which was negatived.-Lord Hawkesbury then moved, that the bill do pass. Dr. Laurence objected to the motion. It would be a most indecent and a most unparliamentary proceeding. Three voices were already disallowed. Another stood impeached. The question of the third reading had been carried only by four, and these gentlemen formed part of the division. He had very serious doubts in his own mind on the propriety of their voting on the principle: it was a private bill, not a public measure. The public benefit was professed indeed, but that was highly problematical. The whole conduct of the promoters of the bill was most extraordinary. He would therefore move, "That the debate be adjourned till Monday." The question being put, the House divided: the papers which had been laid before them contained such incontrovertible proofs that the grossest abuses had been committed, and as every one testified an eager desire to have the affair sifted to the bottom. From some conversation, however, which he had lately had, he had become less confident. He was told, that unless a very strong case of abuse was made out: unless it could be proved that the magistrates had shown backwardness to redress the grievances complained of to them, and that applications to the inferior courts would be ineffectual, it would be improper for the House to interfere. Even these gentlemen, however, he hoped to convince of the necessity of immediate interference. The existence of numerous and flagrant abuses was clearly demonstrated by the papers on the table, as was likewise the misconduct of the magistrates. It was stated, in the report of the grand jury, that the prisoners had not bedding enough for the summer son; what, then, must be the wretchedness of their situation in winter, shut up in a damp cell, without even a fire-place? To this abode of misery were many sent before they were convicted, and even some not charged with a crime. The case of Mary Rich was too shocking to be described. From the unparalleled barbarity of her keepers, she had even become incapable of the purpose for which she was confined, and was unable to give evidence against the man who had attempted to ravish her. The manner in which these proceedings were justified, added to their enormity. She lay naked, because her only rug had been taken to cover a woman in labour she was stated to be a worthless girl, and to have said to a nurse, that she never would have complained if the gentleman had given her the money he had promised. But was this nurse to be believed, who was one of the double-allowance prisoners, whom the governor used well, that he might maltreat the rest with impunity? Even if the poor child was really unprincipled, was this any excuse for the barbarities she had experienced? “She was poor, and her parents in extreme indigence." So, poverty was a reason for inflicting cruelty upon the person it weighed down. The justices concluded their report by saying, that upon the whole, Mary Rich appeared to them to have been properly treated during her confinement. Did not this circumstance afford a damning proof of the negligence and insensibility of the magistrates? | packed jury was sworn to return their Such was the profligacy, such the want of verdict to the coroner, before whom no feeling, and the sycophancy of the gaol other evidence was called than that of the committee, that shocking. to relate, twelve surgeon and his mate. Davis, one of the magistrates had been found venal enough prisoners, had been asked, whether if he to return a verdict, that Mary Rich, a were brought before the jury, he could say prosecutrix as she was, and not a criminal, any thing as to the cause of the man's had been duly and properly treated. A death? and upon his replying, that he scene of iniquity hardly to be paralleled knew he had been starved, the governor was declared by twelve magistrates to be had him rejected. Since the verdict had innocent, and not to attach the smallest been given, application had been made to = blame to its author! They had exa- the coroner who took the inquest, in ormined Mr. Aris; but was he the proper der that there might be a second inquiry. person to examine concerning his own What the consequence of that application atrocities, or the felony committed by his had been, he did not know; he believed son? Why did they not examine the per a decisive answer was to be given in the son from whom the silk handkerchief was course of this day. Surely, after what he stolen by the latter, and those who were had stated, no one would say there were eager to give evidence of similar abuses? not just grounds of suspicion. He had However, since they were of opinion, that no hesitation in saying, that the committee there was nothing wrong in the case of of magistrates had most scandalously misMary Rich, it was probable they would conducted themselves, and that the whole declare the conduct of the governor and of their proceedings called for the interhis son to be immaculate. There certainly ference of the House. The courts below attached the highest degree of culpability were pointed out as the proper places to to the conduct of the gaol committee. be applied to. But how could a man Nay, to such a degree did their neg-whose last shilling had been extorted from ligence extend, that they disregarded him, who smarted beneath cruel oppreseven the explicit charges of the body of magistrates in general, who had expressly pointed out certain articles of grievance, which the committee afterwards thought proper to scout. He regretted that the second report of the traverse jury had not been laid before the House, as it contained several facts of the greatest importance; and he regretted this the more as he now found that it might have been called for, the greatest regard being had to regularity and form. He could prove that it had been sent in a regular manner, directed to William Mainwaring esqr. chairman of the quarter sessions for the county of Middlesex. The first report was extremely defective, as many of the prisoners who were in the most deplorable condition had been kept out of view. He would state a few circumstances to show to what an extent the jury had been deceived, and what a loud call there was for the interference of that House. A man of the name of George Hart died upon the Srd of June; and, though he must have been in the prison when the jury visited it, he never was produced to them. Another unfortunate man, named Cheneau, died on the 14th of July, and proof was repeatedly offered that he had been starved to death, and as often rejected. Luke Earley expired on the 15th, and a [VOL. XXXV.] sion, and who trembled for oppression still more cruel, who was perfectly unknown (for one might easily be murdered there without the world being acquainted with the foul crime), and who had no way of informing his friends of his sufferings, apply to a court of justice for redress? These poor wretches were so completely in the power of the gaoler, that they dared not to complain. Nay, various instances. had occurred, in which the rigour of confinement had driven them to suicide. It was true, that the prison possessed an infirmary; but the institution was perverted from its proper aim and object, and was accessible only to such as could afford to pay for it. He instanced a variety of cases, to show that much venality, plunder and extortion had obtained a footing in the economy of the gaol. "At Hick'sHall, the Monday before last, when Mr. Dickie, the foreman of the traverse jury, and Mr. Beale, one of his colleagues, were present, one James Williams, who had been discharged from the prison the night before, came in, and told the justices, that the man who died the day before had, to his certain knowledge been starved to death, and that many pining for want were concealed in the remote cells. As he was going away, the gaoler's clerk ran behind him, put his hands into his pockets [2 H] and tried to rifle him of his papers. He was carried back, and then Aris, and the clerk actually robbed him of these documents. The jury represented to the court that it was their duty to protect him; but their worships paid little attention. Upon the representation, however, of Mr. Agar, a barrister, they returned him all the papers, except one, which was a letter of great consequence: that was retained by Mr. Robinson, one of the justices. Was there ever a more nefarious proceeding? Did not this prove that applications to the magistrates would be perfectly ineffectual, and that it was im possible for the wretched prisoners to convey their complaints to a higher tribunal? But, even if they had the means of applying, the inferior courts were inadequate to correct the abuses complained of; they could redress the grievances of a single individual, but they could not redress those of the public. An enormous public grievance existed, and it could only be removed by the interference of that House. He had only given a few out of many instances of abuse which he could have mentioned; these he would prove at the bar, if an opportunity were afforded him. Several magistrates, it would appear, had complained, though the prison committee turned a deaf ear to their complaints. The House stood in a delicate predicament: - one of the arguments for smothering all inquiry was, that it would be a libel upon the House, if, after what had happened, the governor should be found guilty. He did not demand redress for individuals, but he demanded a vindication of the rights of the community. He hoped the House would show that, whatever differences might exist on political subjects, all were resolved to protect the injured, to rescue the wretched from oppression, and to show that cruelty was not to be inflicted with impunity, even on the lowest and most profligate. Sir Francis concluded by moving," That this House will tomorrow resolve itself into a committee of the whole House, to inquire into the State and Management of the Prison in Cold Bath-fields.' The Attorney General said, that how ever be might disapprove of the motion, he hoped that considerable good would be produced by this discussion. He could, however, by no means approve of the House interfering in what was pro. perly the province of the executive government. The particular instances of improper conduct adduced could not fail to be lamented by every gentleman. But there was a remedy provided by the law. If a man died in prison, the coroner had power to sit upon his body, that the cause of his death might be ascertained. In the case of Hart, a coroner's jury was held upon the body, and it appeared to this jury that the man had been ill ever since he came into the prison; that he was of a scrophulous habit; that he had been on a milk diet; that he had indulged in lying almost constantly in bed, which had increased his disorder; and that these things were the true causes of his death. The hon. baronet had stated some of fences of the highest nature to have been committed by the keeper of this prison. But if such offences had been committed; if any prisoner had been starved to death, (as alleged), the proper way of proceeding against them was to indict them for mur. der. The foreman of the traverse jury had adopted a very injudicious line of conduct. Instead of making representations to the committee of magistrates, he ought to have laid the facts before the grand jury, as grounds of criminal indictment. If the conduct of the magistrates had been culpable, then it was in the power of the executive government to direct the law officers of the Crown to prosecute them in the court of King's bench; and if the charges against them were proved, that court would punish them, either by striking them off the list of magistrates, or in some other legal way. If then, the law had provided other means of redress for the grievances complained of, if they could be discussed with more calmness in another place, and if it was foreign to the peculiar business of the House to interfere in such cases, he hoped the motion would be rejected. Mr. Sheridan said, that the worthy ba ronet had made out a clear and insurmountable case in support of his motion. The learned gentleman had said, that these grievances could be, with more propriety, discussed elsewhere-by his majesty's ministers, who seemed hitherto not to have discussed them at all. The report of the committee of the House which inquired into this subject last year, allowed that none of the regulations had been strictly adhered to; but it concluded, at the same time, with high encomiums on the prison in general, as to its utility and advantages. But I think it would be |