tion, whilst to the unbeneficed it would hold out objects of ambition. Having expatiated on this topic, the reverend prelate concluded by supporting the bill. * The earl of Westmoreland spoke shortly in the defence of it; pleaded the immemorial usage of parliament; he contended that the exclusion of the clergy had been distinctly and invariably recognised; and pointed out the inexpediency and the danger from the probability of destroying the independence of parliament, and augmenting the undue influence of the crown. Lord Holland combated these arguments, and all which had been alleged that night. On the doctrine of the indelibility of the clerical character, he professed his unwillingness to enter the lists with the learned prelate; but he owned he was much disappointed and surprised at the conclusion of his speech to maintain that there was no duty of a minister incompatible with the office of a legislator, and yet to exclude the clergy from a seat in the house, was an inconsistency which he should not have expected from so able an advocate of truth. Passing from this topic, his lordship directed his attention to the argument so much insisted upon, the immemorial usage of parliament. On what principle was it founded? Was it supposed to be since 1663, when the celebrated case of Craddock was decided? If this was meant to be affirmed, he begged leave to dissent, and to declare in the most direct terms, that no such usage had prevailed then; and that, on a fair examination of this decision, the exclusion would appear founded on the act of 1641, which had been framed for the purpose of abridging the privileges, not merely of the inferior clergy, but of the learned and reverend bench, whose title to a seat in the house was recognised in the fullest terms, and formed an essential part of the constitution. After this act was rescinded, however, the reason of the former exclusion ceased, and the clergy returned to the free enjoyment of all constitutional privileges. Since that period several clergymen had sat in the house of commons, and their right had been unchallenged. In the case of Rushworth, a committee of the house, regularly appointed, had declared the election regular and valid. No distinction (he argued) could be made betwixt the instance alluded to, and that of an individual regularly inducted into holy orders, since there was no distinction in law or practice between the case of a deacon and a priest under these circumstances his lordship denied the existence of any immemorial usage for the exclu sion of clergymen; and believing they had a constitutional claim to a seat, he could not consent to take away a great and valuable franchise. Admitting that it might be a means of increasing the influence of the crown (of which his majesty's ministers professed themselves to be extremely apprehensive), the amendment suggested by lord Moira would obviate every objection of the kind. The earl of Rosslyn, in a speech replete with constitutional detail, traced the usage of parliament from a very early period of our national history to the present period. He concluded with urging the inexpediency of allowing seats to the clergy, and stating, that their ineligibility had ever formed a uniform part of the common law. The earl of Carlisle opposed the bill, as unnecessary and unjust. Much ability and much learning had had been displayed in the debate; but every elucidation of the subject which he had that night heard had left no impression on his mind. He still continued to think that there was no cause for the exclusion of an able and very respectable description of men. But be that as it might, he thought that, on principles of candour, more time ought to be afforded their lordships to deliberate on the measure; he therefore recommended the further consideration of the bill to be postponed till the next session. For his own part, he was not ashamed to confess, that he had not, as vet, made himself master of the subject; and his intellectual faculties were bewildered in that blaze of learning and eloquence which he had just heard. He looked into the bill itself for that illustration which he thought wanting in the refinements of debate, and his understanding became so much enfeebled, that he really was not capable of discharging his duty as a British senator. Lord Grantley said that the amendment of lord Moira appeared necessary to remove all objection. Lord Carlton declared himself convinced by the arguments he had heard of the expediency of the measure; to which he gave his vote. It had Lord Hobart said, that in consequence of an observation which had been publicly made, he would trespass a few moments on the patience of the house. been asserted that this business had been taken up by ministers, because a person had been sent into the other house with opinions inimical to theirs: this he denied; but he must observe, that that person being in possession of a seat rendered it incumbent on ministers to decide the question one way or other. Of other men there might remain a doubt whether they had obtained ordination, but of the honourable gentleman in dispute there was none. Every one knew him to be a clergyman. Whoever read the bill would do ministers the justice to say that they had taken all care to avoid any personal insult to the honourable gentleman. The bill was read a second time without a division, and afterwards passed into a law. 1 CHAP. V. New Instances of Oppression urged against the Managers of Cold-Bath- SUBJECT which had been Burdett rose to call the attention occasions, in the house of commons, was this session renewed by the indefatigable member who first brought it under consideration. On the 9th of February, sir Francis come to his knowledge, and which he said he should feel himself criminal in omitting to mention. The atrocity of the circumstances demanded the immediate interference of H of the house. An instant and effectual remedy could alone vindicate the character of the country where so flagrant an act of cruelty. had been committed. It had hapened in Cold-Bath-Fields' prison; that notorious scene of persecution, where the most inhuman practices had been too long suffered to prevail, and where, while the committee appointed to inquire into the state of that prison were supposed to be exercising their duty, the same barbarous treatcontinued and in ment was creased. The incident to which he now requested the attention of the house had happened on Sunday last, when one of the prisoners, Joseph Hudson, was attacked in one of the yards of the jail by one, of the governor's abominable emissaries, employed to seek pretences for the infliction, of tortures, and was commanded to surrender a public paper he had in his possession. Hudson refused: the jailor's hireling insisted; and, to compel it, gave Hudson a kick in the belly; and, attempting to use a broomstick near him, a scuffle ensued, which soon ended: but at noon the governor's son entered the yard, ordered all the prisoners to be locked up, and laid hold of Hudson, whom he and another dragged about the yard till the man was provoked to resist, which was all that the jailor's son wanted: he took a large bludgeon, and so unmercifully beat the poor man, as to give him contusions which produced a burning fever, in which state he was now confined in a dungeon, loaded with bolts, refused medical aid, and with no other relief than cold water. He conceived this case sufficiently afflicting to interest every member in the house, as it must excite uni versal indignation abroad. He should make no specific motion; but thought the best step, might be to move an address to his majesty for the removal of the governor of that prison, and to ap-. point another till an inquiry into the affair should be made. He concluded by saying that he should leave the house to act as they should think right, for thẹ maintenance of their character. On the 12th of February sir William Elford rose to state to the house the result of an inquiry he had made into the subject of ColdBath-Fields' prison. [Here was a cry of order; and the speaker said it would be irregular to proceed, unless he chose to make a motion.] Sir William Elford then said that he would make a motion, as it was important for the public to be undeceived. The speaker thought this improper; and that it were better to wait, and bring the subject forward in some other shape. Sir William Elford then commented on what an honourable baronet (sir F. B. Jones) had stated on a former evening, relative to the supposed cruelty to one Hudson confined in the prison of ColdBath-Fields. In consequence of what the honourable baronet had stated, he went himself on the next day to the prison, to make a minute inquiry into the particulars. He had examined the governor, the two persons mentioned as his assistants, Hudson himself, and the surgeon who attended him. Hud son son admitted him to be a kind man; therefore he particularly attended to his statement, which was, that Hudson's illness proceeded merely from a cold, attended with some fever, but by no means from the wound in his head, which he (sir W. Elford) examined, and found to be very slight.-The scuffle, which was said to have occurred on Sunday last, had happened above a fortnight ago; and Hudson had, for several days afterwards, continued to eat his allowance regularly; and, when he complained of some slight illness, the keeper proposed to bring him the surgeon, which he refused, saying that he had no occasion for him. He found also that the blow given to Hudson by the governor was provoked by some cruel treatment which he, with others, had given to two of his fellow prisoners; which when the governor perceived, he ordered him to be locked up. Hudson resisted the order, and thence the scuffie en sued. From these facts he drew a conclusion directly opposite to the honourable baronet's, contending that Hudson alone was to blame, and that the governor exercised only a necessary severity. He did not suspect the honourable baronet of any wilful misrepresentation, but only thought that his humanity had overpowered his judgment, and that he had too easily believed the factious and interested assertions of Hudson. Wishing that the public might be thoroughly satisfied of the truth or falsehood of what had been stated concerning the prison, he moved that the governor of the ColdBath-Fields' prison be called before the house. Mr. W. Dundas was rising to second the motion, when lord Hawkesbury complained that no notice had been given, and insisted upon a compliance with the usage of parliament. The speaker addressed the house on this topic, saying, that though it was usual to give notice, it was, not necessary; and that, if the motion were seconded, he must proceed to put it from the chair. Sir F. Burdett seconded the motion. Upon the propriety of it he agreed with the mover; but what had been said did not contradict the case he had laid before the house. Who were his autho rities? Could truth be expectedfrom them? He himself had since. seen the prisoner whom the honourable baronet had examined, who said, that the parliament man, staid only a few minutes, and that he had not told him near as much as he knew. Sir Francis com-. plained of having been libelled for his conduct in this business, and declared that he would persevere, in what he considered as his duty. The most dreadful scenes of cruelty and oppression were acted in that prison; and he was determined to use every effort to bring the delinquent to justice. It was now proposed to withdraw the motion, and sir William Elford consented; but sir Francis Burdett, who e consent was also necessary, insisted on the motion being put. Mr. Ryder moved the previous question. Mr. Hobhouse defended sir Francis Burdett. Sir Francis Burdett said, he had so long ineffectually struggled to bring governor Aris's conduct be fore the house, that, if the motion were not irregular, he should be happy in its adoption. His own motion concerning that goaler would would have been, that the serjeant at arms should take him into custody; and that the house should resolve itself into a committee, to investigate his conduct. Sir W. Geary disapproved the original motion, and resolved to support the previous question. Mr. Martin said he was surprised, that though the ill conduct of this gaoler was universally admitted, and many facts were proved against him, he had still been suffered to retain his situation. He did not hesitate to pronounce it a scandal to the government of the country, and disrespectful to the public, that such a man had not been dismissed from the office. Mr. Percival said, that the motion of the honourable colonel was not likely to promote the object of its supporters. He would ask, whether, if governor Aris were at the bar for examination, they would rely on any answer concerning his own misconduct? Could any man be expected to criminate himself? He concluded by resolving to vote for the previous ques tion. Mr. Hobhouse denied the absolute necessity of giving previous notice of any motion. He thought that his honourable friend, sir F. B. Jones, had been rather unfairly treated. The honourable member who brought forward the motion averred, that it was done only to answer a speech of his honourable friend's on a former day; and when the honourable baronet's speech was finished, a noble lord (Hawkesbury) rose to say, that the motion was irregular without a previous notice; and that the gentleman who seconded it, influenced by the noble lord's sentiments, revoked the support of the motion, which now was attempted to be superseded by the previous question. He said there was more of ingenuity than candour in such contrivance. Lord Hawkesbury defended himself against the charge of unfairness. He had opposed the motion, because he thought that the house ought not to be taken by surprise on subjects of deep importance, which was done by bringing for ward motions without the usual notice. The precedent would be improper. Mr. W. Dundas pleaded guilty to the charge, that he was induced by the noble lord's arguments to withdraw the support of his họnourable friend's motion: he was influenced by the poble lord's superior knowledge of the rules and forms of the house. It was complained that his friend had attempted to make a speech when no question was before the house; but this was not urged when the honourable baronet occupied the house with an account devoid of any mark of authenticity, Mr. Pierrepoint concluded the conversation by execrating the conduct of governor Aris. It had been said to be exceptionableIt was infamous, scandalous, and shocking. The motion had his hearty support. The house then divided.-For the original motion 21.-Against it 40.-Majority 19. We cannot but lament that on any occasion the suspension of the act of habeas-corpus should ever have appeared necessary. We lament that the whig parliament, after the glorious revolution, were influenced so far by terror as to make a temporary breachin the constitution, and to establish a precedent, upon which a bad minister in bad times |