Page images
PDF
EPUB

Ere that terrific hour may come
When Justice calls him to his doom.
Pale Grief with him her vigils keeps,
Who ever watches, ever weeps ;
And transient is the deep repose
That sheds oblivion o'er his woes.
For him no more the morning ray
Shall usher in another day;

And the bright sun that gilds his cell
Hath smil'd on him a last farewell.

With firm, yet humble hope, on High
Is fix'd his penitential eye;
And the shrill accents of despair
Are hush'd to breathe the dying prayer.
The bitterness of Death was past
When he had fondly look'd the last
On that dear form in anguish prest,
Half-dying to an Husband's breast;
And on his ear fell sad and slow,
The mournful plaint of Infant woe.
Death's awful knell is heard to toll
A Requiem to the parting soul.
His fellow-convicts throng around,

And catch with faltering breath the sound;
Then press in theirs the clay-cold hands
Of Him, who lost in sorrow stands;
While tears flow down each rugged cheek,
Which all the heart's mute anguish speak.

The Minister of Peace is come,

To call his wretched wanderers home:
For the last time the knee they bend
To Him, the Prisoner's hope and friend;
For the last time commend the soul
Bow'd with Religion's mild controul;
And raise to Heaven the fervent prayer
That Guilt may find forgiveness there.
With lifted eye, and solemu tread,
They read the Service of the Dead * ;
And call on Christ, who died to save
The Sinner from the darksome grave;
Whose voice had bade the Thief arise,
To dwell with him in Paradise.

That thought hath rais'd the dying head,
And o'er the soul sweet comfort shed.
Firm in this hope, he views the spot
Where penitence avails him not;
And where, the final struggle o'er,

His heart shall wake to woe no more.-
For the last time the victim prays
Forgiveness on his evil ways:
His dying words the silence break,
Confession of his guilt to make.

His eye surveys the earthly scene :-
"Till, rais'd by Faith, with look serene,
Hope trembles on his parting breath,
And smooths the rugged path to Death.
Though o'er his tomb no stone may tell
His guilty tale, or how he fell;

* Alluding to the introductory sen. tences in the Burial Service, 66 I am the resurrection and the life," &c. read by the Chaplain in the procession to the place of execution,

[blocks in formation]
[blocks in formation]

Non canor insultans hosti, non læta triPræcinuit vox: sed jam religione serenat Summa Ducis mentem pietas, quem læta [sus.

decorat

Ante alios, fortes mulcens dulcedine senPostera lux cædes, et vasta silentia belli Pandebat, veterique ibat jam lætior undâ Nilus-"Cæsareas venisti victor ad oras, Nobilior, miseris præbens solamina rebus! Omnis et Ægyptus celebret vexilla salutis, Omnis Arabs *.-Olim Italiæ spoliator ad oras,

Julius, et pavidis fidens Antonius armis, At non Marte suo: jam libertate labante Et patriâ amissâ, dominis parere superbis Sub juga misit opes assuetùm, (inhonesta merentum !) [Classi

At tibi, Dux Britonum, victricique ordine Gratulor! hæc norûnt olim penetralia ⚫ Masæ,

Quæque tuum vel adhuc sacrant modulamine nomen."

Hæc dedit antiquo se attollens gurgite Nilus

*White, p. 110. "Arabes plurimi venerunt ad littora," &c.

[blocks in formation]

mantes

[ocr errors]

[regum

Quid vel opes memorem ‡ Eoas, victricia Dona, aut gemmarum pretioso flore co[tis ? Artifices formas, partæ monumenta saluQuid memorem absenti sacrat queîs patria nomen [gratæ Accumulans donis?-patriæ te munera Præsentem majora manent facundia ocelli [grates! Eloquitur tacita-et solvit tibi lacryma Sed nec clara diu, positis felicibus armis, Languebat virtus, patriæve amplexibus hæsit: [lum Scilicet insidiis secretum accendere belTeutones §, et Boreæ linquentes frigora Incipiunt, pavidum et junxerunt fœdere gentes [martem. Non tulit hoc Britonum, quæ fulmina fœdera sancit, [cis Advolat ipsa suas ales Victoria Classes. Majestas malè læsa-at amantes otia pa(To be concluded in our next.)

[blocks in formation]

HISTORICAL CHRONICLE.

PROCEEDINGS IN PARLIAMENT.

HOUSE OF COMMONS, Feb. 12.

A petition from Sheffield, for new regulations as to cast-iron and steel manufactures; a petition from Coventry, for new regulations as to apprentices in the ribbon trade; and one from certain proprietors of coal-mines near Bristol, for exemption from particular duties in the Severn, were referred to Committees.

On the report of the Committee of Supply being brought up, Mr. Curwen called the attention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the circumstance, that a profit of 1 per cent. was made by persons who collected bank tokens in the country to be sent up to London for the purchase of gold, which was sent out of the country.

Feb. 13.

Mr. Bennet presented Petitions from Joseph Mitchel, of Liverpool, Thomas Evans, of Newcastle-street, and William Ogden, complaining of their sufferings under the Habeas Corpus Suspension Act, and praying that the House would pass no Bill of Indemnity.

Sir F. Burdett also presented a petition from John Stewart, weaver, Glasgow, on the same subject.

Sir F. Burdett then presented a petition from some of the inhabitants of St. George's, Hanover-square, in favour of Parliamentary Reform, stating that the House of Commons did not, in any intelligible or constitutional sense, represent the people; that they were the instruments of a weak Administration, who had suspended the Constitution of the Country, and punished the people at their pleasure. It then proceeded in these terms: "If the House would not listen to their complaints, or grant the required reform, they would most certainly resist paying taxes."

Lord Castlereagh moved that the petition be rejected.

Sir F. Burdett contended that if the Petitioners were called upon to pay taxes which their Representatives had not imposed, the Constitution and Laws of the Country should protect them from the payment of those taxes.

Lord Castlereagh again moved that the petition should be rejected; which was agreed to.

Sir F. Burdett then presented petitions from Bath, praying for Universal Suffrage and Annual Parliaments.

On bringing up the Report of the Committee of Supply, Mr. Tierney and Mr.

[ocr errors]

Grenfell put several questions to Mr. Vansittart as to his intentions with regard to the repayment of the 6,000.000 loan from the Bank; to which he replied, that the re-payment would commence on the 5th of April in money, and be continued in such proportions as would in no respect interfere with the question of the resumption of cash payments.

Lord A. Hamilton entered at considerable length into the existing abuses in the Scotch Burghs as to the election of the Magistrates, and the assessment of local taxes on persons who had no controul over their expenditure. He adverted to the case of Montrose, which had its constitution arbitrarily altered by the Crown; and moved for a copy of the Act and Warrant of his Majesty in Council, dated September, 1817, relative to that Burgh.

Lord Castlereagh objected to the motion, as leading to the general question of Parliamentary Reform. The administrative powers of the Magistrates might be controuled in a Court of Law. What bad been done as to Montrose was with a view to benefit, and not to injure the Burgesses. The Lord Advocate resisted the motion on the same grounds.

Mr. Abercromby, Sir J. Mackintosh, Mr. J. P. Grant, and Sir R. Ferguson, supported the motion, which was negatived without a division.

[blocks in formation]

Feb. 17.

Mr. M. A. Taylor dwelt at great length on the inconveniences experienced in the four Northern Counties from the Assizes being held only once a year. He also adverted to the severe pressure upon the twelve Judges, from the accumulation of business in the Courts of Westminster Hall, and the lengthened Sessions at the Old Bailey. As a remedy for the latter grievance, he suggested the appointment of two more Justices to attend the Old Bailey and the Assizes. As to the Northern Counties, he understood the Crown had already the power of issuing a commission for the holding Assizes there twice a year; and he should therefore conclude with moving au Address to the Prince Regent for issuing such a commission.

A conversation of some length occurred, in the course of which the Attorney-General and Lord Castlereagh expressed their reluctance to come at once to the conclusion proposed by Mr. Taylor, but were not indisposed to an inquiry upon the subject. He consequently withdrew his motion, giving notice that he should to-morrow move for the suggested inquiry.

Petitions were presented from James Leach and Benjamin Scholes, complaining of the hardship of their imprisonment under the Habeas Corpus Suspension Bill.

Lord Folkestone moved that the different petitions from the sufferers under the Ha. beas Corpus Suspension Act should be entered as read; which being done, he proceeded to shew that it was the duty of the House to institute an inquiry into the conduct of Ministers, under the powers entrusted to them by that Act. During the last 120 years the Habeas Corpus had been suspended nine or ten times, but there was only one instance of an Act of Indemnity; and that was a precedent formed by the very same men who were now about to propose such a measure as a matter of course. They had grossly exaggerated the dangers of the country; and had done what even the Suspension Act did not warrant, by violating all the forms of Law as to the apprehension, confinement, and discharge of numerous individuals. The Noble Lord adverted to the case of Francis Ward and others, and observed, that Ministers had selected no victim whose fate and sufferings could excite the attention or call forth the indignation of the country; that his Majesty's Ministers were all aware of the security they derived from the low rank of their prisoners. They seized upon them because they wanted victims of some kind to justify their measures, and it was not safe to lay hold of others who would not have submitted so quietly to their fate, or have accepted of their discharge on such conditions, who could neither have been imprisoned nor turned out of prison

without creating some noise. His Lordship concluded with moving, " that a Committee be appointed to inquire into the truth of the allegations in the petition of Francis Ward, and report thereon to the House."

Lord Castlereagh said, that if the preceding Speaker had in the course of his speech confined himself, as he did in his motion, to the case of Francis Ward, he should not have objected to it; but the Noble Lord had departed from the grounds of his motion, and urged the necessity of a general investigation. He would contend that there was no instance in our history of the Habeas Corpus having been suspended without its being followed by an act of indemnity. He denied that his Noble Friend, the Secretary for the Home Department, had been guilty either of cruelty or injustice: he denied that he had given his warrant for commitment without the evidence of credible witnesses, taken on oath: he denied that he had committed one individual on the testimony of the person (Oliver) so much alluded to by the other side of the House: he denied that a single arrest took place without not only having the depositions of credible witnesses, but the authority of the Lawofficers of the Crown. But it was altogether a false view of the bill in contemplation, to consider it as a bill for the protection of the Ministers of the Crown: it was for the protection of individuals who had come forward to give information of the utmost importance to the security of the country, and without such protection no information could be had, as none would venture to offer it at the risk of his own safety. With respect to the hardships of imprisonment, of which so much had been said, this was no question to be entertained by the House without great irregularity: for those individuals who thought themselves aggrieved, had always their remedy at hand; the ordinary Courts of Law were open to them, and there was no. thing to preclude them from bringing their action. The suspension of the Habeas Corpus only prevented trial during the operation of that measure. The Noble Lord then entered into the particulars of Ward's petition, and contended that they were a series of falsehoods and misrepresentations; and as to his pretensions to a religious and moral character, he was prepared to shew that this petitioner had been engaged in the most atrocious crimes. In 1816, two persons were convicted and executed at Leicester and Nottingham, who made a full confession of their crimes a short time previous to their execution. Their confessions were taken by the Magistrate, and forwarded by Mr. Munday to his Majesty's Ministers. The confessions he would now read, suppressing all

the

the names alluded to in them, except the name of Francis Ward. The first was the confession of Josiah Mitchell, who was executed at Leicester for a felony committed at Loughborough. In his confession he stated: "B. shot A.-C. B. told me that Francis Ward had mentioned the thing to him on Saturday evening, and said there would be a deal of money in it; the workmen had, offered to give one hundred pounds for the machinery. Several of us met at the Navigation Inn, and formed our plans. I received from 3 to 4/. from Ward, for acts I performed. Ward gave me 107. for the part I took in destroying the works at Woodpeck-lane, in Nottingham. Our committee met in the Duke of York in Nottingham, Francis Ward was the treasurer. Ward belonged also to the Loughborough committee. Ward employed me to shoot a man who had refused to turn out, and offered 47. as my reward." The Noble Lord requested that the House would not consider this as incredible; assassination was 'a crime bargained for, and set at a regular price, like a piece of stockings, or any other work. More than one Jury had convicted on evidence which shewed that 41. was often the price for shooting a man. The confession went on, " Ward offered 107. for shooting some of Kendal's men. He offered 10/. for shooting another master manufacturer; and 51. for shooting one of his men for working. He offered a large sum for murdering the Judge at the last Assize.

We

met at the Jolly Bacchus, and when none agreed to do this, F. Ward took out a golden guinea, and said he was determined it must be done." The second confession was that of T. Savage, who was executed a few weeks after Mitchell. It corroborated the former confession. The Noble Lord trusted the House would now see the course of proceeding they were called upon to adopt; he trusted they must now be aware of the true character of petitions of this sort, and that they would not, on ex-parte statements, go into the proposed inquiry; for the consequence of such an inquiry would be, either that Ministers must submit to all the charges brought against them, or abandon those who had given evidence on the faith of concealment to the vindictive attacks of those whom they had detected.

Mr. J. Smith, of Nottingham, bore testimony to the correctness of what Lord C. had stated as to Ward's conduct; but could not on that account refuse inquiry into the cases of the other petitioners.

Sir F. Burdett said, the moral character of Ward had nothing to do with the present question, which was, whether he had been justly charged with treason, whether he had been legally committed, and legal ly treated under that commitment. The

question was, who broke the law? The prisoners answered, the Noble Lord and his friends; but assertion would not satisfy the country, and the gaoler of Gloucester himself solicited investigation: the offenders, if such they were, were anxious for trial, even at the risk of their lives. But, said the Noble Lord, it is a great mistake to suppose that Ministers want an indemnity; what they wish is, to cover their friends, Oliver, his fellow spies, and accomplice informers; in short, the Bill of Indemnity was admitted on the other side to be for the protection of those secret and infamous sources of private accusation, whose purpose was to destroy the happiness and reputation of every honest man. Was it possible that at this time of day such an avowal should be made-that in England it should be professed that innocent men should be solitarily confined, cruelly tortured, and unjustly accused, and should never have an opportunity of discovering to whom they were indebted for all these deprivations and sufferings?

Mr. Wilberforce thought the character of Ward had much to do with the merits of the motion; and it appeared that several of the other petitions contained palpable falsehoods. All the antient free Constitutions had the means of providing against imminent danger, by lodging, for a time, extraordinary power somewhere; and surely some alteration in the ordinary mode of proceeding was required, when the people of England had resorted to assassination as a trade, as was the case with the Luddites, and when the life even of a Judge, venerable for his age, and admirable for his learning, had been threatened, if not attempted, while the perpetrators were to be rewarded by money raised in subscriptions of 5s. each.

Sir Samuel Romilly contended, in refutation of Lord Castlereagh's allegation, that," if an Act of Indemnity were passed, the petitioners would, as by that of 1801, be left without any remedy at law for all their unjust sufferings. There were in all eleven petitions. If two or three might be incorrect in their statements, were the rest to be passed by unheeded? Even the character of Ward, however bad, did not justify the severity of treatment he had met with under arbitrary confinement. What, too, could be a greater mockery and insult than the parading these men from town to town in open day-light, and loaded with chains; and what possible objects could be answered by such a wretched triumph, except to convince some miserable minds that some extraordinary plot existed against the State? As to the dictatorships of the antient Republicks, did they not, he would ask his Hon. Friend Mr. Wilberforce, end in a perpetual Dictatorshipin a tyranny never to be shaken off?

And

« PreviousContinue »