inspected several of the lunatic asylums, and had ocular demonstration of the abusive practices which, in many of them, prevailed. It was high time that those neglected places should be visited by proper inspectors. In York, particularly, great abuse was apparent. The hon. member concluded by hoping, that no exemption from visitation, such as that claimed for Bethlem-hospital, should under any circumstances be allowed. Mr. Bennet, when he wished for delay, begged to express his assent to the principle of the Bill, and also to admit his sense of its necessity. Mr. Whitbread gave the fullest credit to the right hon. framer of the Bill, whose exertions and candour in uniting with others in the pursuit of this object did him great honour. He was however free to say that the Bill was not fit to pass in its present shape; at the same time a sweeping condemnation of it was wholly unnecessary. The hon. member proceeded to state, that he had visited a vast number of those asylums; he was glad when allusion had been made to an exemption claimed by one of the principal ones in the metropolis, (Bethlem) the name was mentioned, because it prevented the possibility of any imputation attaching to another great establishment (St. Luke's) of which he was a governor, and which he could assure the House was managed throughout all its departments in the best possible manner. It was but candid to add, that in many of the private houses for the reception of this unfortunate class of society, great humanity prevailed. It became therefore necessary to shield from inculpation those who did their duty in an exemplary manner, in contradistinction to those who had acted with unnecessary harshness. Many evils were already removed under the prospect of this Bill; and although in some cases an officious interference with the experience of an establishment might follow the adoption of the unrestricted right of visitation, its operation would yet be salutary; and he would recommend to the governors of St. Luke's, the best regulated establishment in the empire, to give no objection upon that point, lest the precedent should be drawn into an injurious operation. Mr. Shaw Lefevre was for postponing the Bill until next session: it already had done much good, and would still effect more; they could therefore safely await more ample information. Mr. W. Smith concurred in the praise which the right hon. mover of the Bill had so fairly earned. He agreed with his hon. friend upon the proper statement of the management of St. Luke's; there was yet some room for improvement, though no abuse certainly existed; the want of classification, the mode of confinement, &c. were open to amelioration. The Petition from Bethlem, to say the least of it, was injudicious. Great abuse and mismanagement certainly occurred in that and many other establishments, which ought not to remain unredressed. He alluded, in strong terms of reprobation, to the case of a man in Bedlam, who had attempted the life of his keepers twice, and who had been in consequence confined to his bed in irons, for 13 years, though he had long and frequent lucid intervals. In answer to a question from Mr. Alderman Smith, Mr. W. Smith said, that the man was confined with an iron ring round his neck, with another round his body, fastening him to his bed, and with the same round his wrists and legs. Sir W. Curtis spoke in favour of the measure, and thought that none of those places of confinement should be exempted from inspection. Mr. H. Sumner confirmed the statement of Mr. W. Smith respecting the case of Norris, and observed that though he had been thus confined for 13 years, yet, in consequence of the visit of himself and some other members of the House of Commons to Bedlam, the greater part of his irons were struck off, retaining nothing but a collar round the neck. He would ask, therefore, if that iron frame in which he was confined, was found to be unnecessary, immediately some enquiries were made about it, why it had been retained so long? He had also paid a visit to St. Luke's, the system of which he considered as greatly superior to that of Bediam, and seemed to him to approach perfection as nearly, perhaps, as any system of that kind could. The report was then ordered to be taken into further consideration on Monday next. HOUSE OF COMMONS. Wednesday, June 15. GAOL FEES' ABOLITION BILL.] Mr. Bennet moved for leave to bring in a Bill for the abolition of gaol and other fees, connected with the gaols in the United Kingdom. He adverted to the Acts passed T on this subject in the 23d of Charles 2, and the 32d of George 2. In a large number of gaols, and even of county gaols, no table of fees was kept. In others the greatest irregularity prevailed. In some these fees were very exorbitant, and it often happened that the prisoners were compelled to sell their clothes and bedding in order to pay their fees. The hon. member then described the state of our gaols in general, as requiring regulation and improvement. He mentioned two in particular, those of Rockingham, and Halifax, in Yorkshire; the former was totally out of repair, and spirituous liquors were publicly bung up for sale in the face of two Acts of parliament; in both, the prisoners were without fire, and almost without food and clothing. Sir James Shaw thought it would be proper to fix the quantum of clothing, food, &c. to be provided in these cases. He was apprehensive, that from the improvements about to be introduced by parliament into the city of London prisons, they might be over-crowded and inconvenienced, if similar improvements were not adopted with respect to the gaols in the vicinity of the metropolis. Sir John Newport ridiculed the idea which seemed to be entertained by some gentlemen, of persons seeking an asylum in these places for the comforts to be found in them. Mr. Thompson lamented the state in which many of our prisons were at present known to be kept. Leave was given to bring in this Bill. FEES OF OFFICE.] Sir John Newport expressed his dissatisfaction that no return of the Fees of Office had been made by any but the deputy registrar of the Court of Chancery; and declared his determination to move, that a general order should be made for all the persons whose duty it was to make out the returns for the different courts, to appear at the bar of the House to-morrow. Lord Castlereagh excused the delay which had taken place, on account of the difficulty in ascertaining the amount of fees for so long a period as the last twenty years, many of the persons having died in the interval. He hoped, however, the right hon. gentleman would not persist in his motion to bring the clerks of court to the bar of the House, as he believed they were hard at work in executing the business he had provided for them. Sir John Newport stated the object of his motion to have been, not to ascertain the amount of fees received, but the amount of the augmentation. He should not, however, persist in the motion of which he had just given notice. SLAVE TRADE.] Mr. Wilberforce ex pressed his intention of bringing forward a motion on the article in the late Treaty with France, relative to the Slave Trade, on Monday next. Lord Castlereagh observed, that as Monday was one of the days which had been appropriated to amusement in another place, he was afraid it would not be pos. sible to go into the details of the subject, or to come to a satisfactory conclusion on that day, without interfering with arrangements out of the House. Thursday or Friday in the next week, as far as he was aware, were not liable to any such objection. Mr. Wilberforce objected to fixing his motion for the latter end of the week, on account of the probable thin attendance of members. Perhaps his noble friend would consent to postpone the general consideration of the Treaty to Tuesday or Wednesday se'nnight, and to have the particular clause relating to the African Slave Trade brought forward on Monday se'nnight. Lord Castlereagh said, it was painful to him to put off the general question of the Treaty any longer than Monday se'nnight. Mr. Wilberforce then fixed his motion for the same day, stating, that he should ́ frame it in such a manner as not to render any opposition likely. HOUSE OF LORDS. IRISH JUDGES' SALARIES BILL.] On the motion for the second reading of the Irish Judges Salary Bill, lord Redesdale moved, that it be rejected, because it contained an inaccuracy which it was necessary to rectify. Earl Stanhope approved of the motion. Let, said he, the salaries of the Irish judges and of the English judges also, be advanced, provided no fees be allowed. Nay, let those salaries be even more than those. fees could by any means produce, in order to guard against an opinion which had gone forth, that the existence of those fees had served to prevent or impede the improvement of the law. Such an opinion ought not to prevail, and the best way to remove it was, in his judgment, to set aside all fees, and to grant an ample allowance to those who held an office which, when its duties were adequately discharged, entitled them to most liberal compensation. The Bill was rejected. sented a petition was not answerable for the allegations, yet he should be sorry to present one of which the allegations were unfounded, as the petition, when received, was entered on the Journals for ever, and the individual might be injured. But two of the allegations here were made out to his satisfaction. The petition was then presented and read. It was signed by John Perryn, and stated, that the petitioner became bail for a person who was indicted for an assault; who, having gone abroad, was detained as a prisoner of war, and the petitioner forfeited his recognizance, and being sued for the amount, he was committed to prison for the debt. He was confined in a solitary cell, without pen, ink, or paper, during the day; and in the night was thrust among those who were imprisoned for felonies and criminal offences; that he and the rest of the prisoners were refused knives and forks; and thus man, the image of his Maker, was forced to eat his meat like the brutes of the field. They were not allowed to speak to their friends, but in the presence of a turnkey, and then only for a short period, through a square hole. That their wives and children were treated in the same manner, and were deterred from going to see them, as they were used so roughly by the turnkeys and officers of the prison. Their letters were opened, and they had not the liberty of stating their grievances; they had nothing allowed to drink but water, and even a Roman Catholic clergyman had been refused admission to persons of that persuasion. The petitioner concluded by praying their lordships to take the grievances of himself and his fellow-prisoners into their serious consideration. GLOUCESTER GAOL.] Earl Stanhope said, that he felt great pain, and he said so without affectation, at being obliged to present any petition complaining of gross oppression. The only alleviation of that regret arose from the hope that much good might be done by investigation. He had now a petition to present complaining of oppression in the gaoler of Gloucester from a prisoner for debt of the name of Perryn. The petition alledged that the gaoler had denied access to his legal adviser. He had informed the gaoler that he wished to consult a solicitor about the wording of a petition which he intended to have presented to their lordships' House. The gaoler refused to allow the solicitor access to the prisoner. This was so strange an allegation that he had doubts at first whether it was correct. He enquired from the person who brought the petition, who was the legal adviser; but the person was very unwilling to state this, on account of what was called the system of terror in the gaol. But he had contrived to get the proper information: he found that it was a respectable attorney at Gloucester, and wrote to him, desiring him to call again at the prison, and request to be admitted to see the debtor. The attorney wrote in reply, that he had called, and had, as had often happened before, been refused admission. By what authority did the gaoler refuse? It was impossible to say, even as the law now stood, that such conduct was legal. The petition stated another fact, that the whole of the most private correspondence of the prisoners, debtors as well as others, was examined by the gaoler, who took upon him to open all their letters. This was another circumstance so strange, that one could not but have some doubts about the correctness of this allegation. But he had it under the hand of one of the magistrates, writing about another petition, that such was the common custom of the gaol, al- Earl Stanhope quoted a letter which he though it had been dispensed with in one had received from one of the most reinstance, when a prisoner wrote to him as spectable magistrates at Gloucester, cona member of their lordships' House, and veying an opposite impression to that dared the gaoler to open it. This was stated by the learned lord. This magisclearly illegal, Though one who pre-trate, indeed, in vain advised the gaoler to The Lord Chancellor said, that it might be fitting, considering the impression which such a statement was calculated to make, to say that he understood the magistrates of Gloucester deserved great credit for the condition of their gaol, and that the gaoler was one of the best officers in his situation in Great Britain. There might be a regulation of the magistrates about letters which might possibly be wrong, but the blame could not at any rate attach to the gaoler. let the petitioner's letter to him be sent without examination r interruption. It was also to be observed, that there was no rule or authority from the magistrates relative to the opening or interception of letters to or from prisoners. In fact, no such rule could be legal. Therefore the gaoler did that which was contrary to law, and which the magistrates never sanctioned. The Petition was ordered to lie on the table, HOUSE OF COMMONS. Thursday, June 16. POOR SETTLEMENT BILL.] Sir Egerton Brydges moved the order of the day for taking the report of the Poor Settlement Bill into further consideration. Mr. Leigh Keck wished the hon. baronet to postpone the farther consideration of the Bill till next session. It went to alter the whole law of settlement, and yet it was only this morning that it was put into the hands of members. A more imperfect Bill he had never seen. It went materially to affect the agricultural labourer, and was fraught with inhumanity to the poorer classes in general. There were two or three good clauses in the Bill, but these, though without the direct sanction of the legisla ture, were already carried into effect by the county magistrates. He wished the Bill to be circulated for their inspection and approbation. Time was absolutely necessary for a further consideration of its provisions. He should, therefore move that it be taken into farther consideration this day three months. Mr. Thompson approved of going into the discussion of the Bill. He thought if the last speaker had had more time to examine its contents, he would have entertained a better opinion of it. Mr. Atkins Wright objected to several of the provisions of the Bill. Mr. Davenport was for the postpone ment. Mr. John Smith did not think it necessary to let the Bill stand over till next session, but he thought some farther time for consideration would be advantageous. Mr. Shaw Le Fevre was for postponing the consideration of the Bill altogether till next session. In two or three weeks most of the country gentlemen, who generally took the onus of such questions upon them, would be out of town. He thought the hon. baronet's Bill had met with great lenity from the House, it had been so often altered as to be scarcely known for the same Bill, and in its present state it had not been twelve hours in the possession of the House. Sir S. Romilly thought the term lenity had been exceeding ill applied to the treatment of the hon. baronet's Bill. He was well entitled to the gratitude of the House. Though all the clauses in it might not be equally beneficial, yet the good so far preponderated over that which was doubtful, as to induce him to vote for it in its present state. There were two clauses in the Bill of which he entirely approved, that which prevented the removal of paupers as soon as they became chargeable to the parish, and also the provision for affording medical assistance. The clause which raised the rate of settlement from 10 to 201. appeared to him the most objectionable, as well as contrary to the general spirit of the Bill, every thing in which tended to facilitate the settlement of the poor. Mr. Stuart Wortley objected to the double clause relating to settlement, which he thought would lead to much litigation. He agreed in what had fallen from the last speaker respecting the increased rate of settlement. Lord Milton agreed with the hon. and learned gentleman (sir S. Romilly) in his objections to the clause altering the rate of settlement. He approved of the Bill, which he thought would materially diminish the poors' rates of the country. Mr. Whitbread rose for the purpose of expressing his general approbation of the Bill. He was surprised at the terms in which it had been spoken of by an hon. member. He suggested the propriety of bringing forward the different provisions of the Bill, point by point, as there were several, he was confident, which would meet the unanimous concurrence of the House. One in particular was that relating to medical aid. If, however, the hon. baronet pressed the general question to a division, he should certainly divide with him. Mr. W. Smith did not see why those parts of the Bill which seemed to be universally approved of, should not now pass into a law. Sir Egerton Brydges confessed that he should have felt overwhelmed by the many objections which were at first made to his Bill, if he had not been cheered by the encouragement and approbation of other gentlemen, who had spoken later in the debate, and for whose opinions he felt the highest deference. He was by their concurrence convinced that his Bill was not quite so stupid or absurd as it had been represented, and that he was not guilty of the precipitation, or of something worse than precipitation, of which he had been accused, in bringing it forward. He was, indeed, induced to hope, that he might be indulged in going into the Committee on the Bill. If there were objectionable parts in it, they might there be thrown out. There were two features in it, which he thought highly important 1. The clause which ordered temporary relief without removal; and 2. That which made the real parish of the pauper responsible for the reimbursement of the expences incurred by that, in which he immediately resided. These two clauses alone would prevent a great deal of suffering to the poor, and a great deal of expence to the parishes in litigation and removals, and he could not consent to defer the benefits which he promised himself in these respects for nine or ten months longer. The frequent alterations in the Bill, of which an hon. member had complained rather harshly, did not go to affect any one of its objects or principles, but were merely technical. After the struggle he had made, after the time and pains which he had bestowed upon the subject, which had occupied his mind night and day, he trusted he should not be thought guilty of stupid pertinacity in adhering to his original motion, or even if he failed in that to-night, he should never lose sight of his object as long as he had the honour of a seat in that House. After a few words from Mr. Shaw Le Fevre, in the way of explanation, disclaiming any intentional severity in what he had said, sir E. Brydges consented to withdraw all those clauses from the Bill to which any objection had been made. Mr. Leigh Keck, upon the understanding that the objectionable clauses were to be omitted, withdrew his amendment. The original question was then put and carried in the affirmative, upon which, Sir J. Newport moved that the Bill should be re-committed. Lord Milton thought that before they went into the committee, the House should be informed what clauses it was intended to retain and what to dispense with. It would be better, he apprehended, to leave out every clause to which any objection (VOL. XXVIII. ) had been made. The last clause, being entirely foreign to the Bill, would of course be omitted. Sir E. Brydges said that he certainly meant to withdraw all the clauses which had been deemed exceptionable, but reserving to himself the right to press the omitted clauses, at any future period, upon the attention of parliament. The House then resolved itself into a Committee, when the several objectionable clauses were withdrawn, and various amendments suggested with respect to the remaining ones, some of which were adopted. The Report was forthwith received, the further consideration of it fixed for Friday se'nnight, and the Bill ordered to be printed. PRINCESS OF WALES.] Mr. Arbuthnot, seeing in his place an hon. gentleman who had given notice of a motion for tomorrow relative to her royal highness the Princess of Wales, begged leave, in the name of a noble friend of his, to say that his noble friend, understanding that it was not intended, under the present circumstances, to press any business of importance, had communicated that intention to many hon. members of the House, and he, therefore, begged leave to request the hon. gentleman to postpone his motion. Mr. Methuen declared that he should be most happy if the requested delay were of an auspicious nature. He was sure, indeed, that any delay must be favourable to the object which he had in view, because the more the subject was considered, the more evident would the necessity appear for doing something to ameliorate the situation of her royal highness, by affording her an allowance more adequate to her rank, and placing her in other respects in a condition different from that in which she now found herself. He had no objection whatever to postpone his motion to Monday. Mr. Whitbread reminded the hon. gentleman that Monday was a day fixed for a motion by an hon. gentleman on the aboli-. tion of the slave trade. Although he need not say that he partook of the hon. gentleman's sentiments as to the hope that any delay might prove auspicious, yet he must observe, that it was a subject which would not admit of much delay. It would be highly improper to delay the motion until after the next drawing-room. He did not see why the hon. member might not take possession of Monday, that if the (H) |