461]

wholly discredited, the petitioner was
obviously entitled to merciful considera-
tion.

Mr. Bathurst thought the only consi-
deration necessary to be attended to in
the case of such a determined libeller as
Mr. Lovell was, whether the time of his
imprisonment since that prescribed by the
sentence, was such as to be deemed suffi-
cient to countervail the quantum of
punishment intended by the fine. But
If he could not find
the fine was the least consideration in this
petitioner's case.
securities for his good behaviour, to remit
the fine was useless; and what must be
the character of a man in Mr. Lovell's
situation in life, who could not find two
persons to answer for his future conduct?

Court-Martial on Colonel Quentin. the fine inflicted upon him. He was certainly not living in affluence, he had nothing but articles of common necessity about him, and his circumstances, he was persuaded, were those of a distressed person, which was not surprising at the end of four years confinement. From the Conversation which he had had with Mr. Lovell, he was firmly of opinion that, were it in his (the petitioner's) power to raise the fine, he would readily lay it down to procure his liberation; and that being the case, he was of opinion that the sentence ought to be mitigated. He believed Mr. Lovell was not looked upon by those who knew him, as so dangerous a character as that he could not procure some sort of security for his good behaviour. Let his Majesty's government remit the fine, and content themselves with security to the extent of 2001., and it would, he had no doubt, be obtained. He had seen several letters in the possession of Mr. Lovell, in which the writers, highly to their honour, offered to raise the money requisite to pay his fine by subscription, on receiving an assurance that he would abstain from offences of a libel. lous nature in future. He was well assured that it was not in his power, except by a subscription of that sort, ever to regain his liberty. He should hope that this would induce his Majesty's government to mitigate the punishment by remitting the fine, when they considered too that he had already suffered an additional imprisonment of five or six months.

Mr. Ponsonby observed, that all judicial characters concurred in the doctrine of

the Bill of Rights, that excessive fines ought not to be inflicted. If reference were made to the court previous to the promulgation of its sentence, of the inability of the party to meet a pecuniary mulct, the court were bound to forego that part of the sentence. It was generally agreed, that the present petitioner was suffering under the infliction of an excessive fine, which he was wholly unable to pay; he had already suffered five or six months beyond the expiration of a long imprisonment inflicted by the court. With respect to the sureties, there was nothing in which a court should be more particuJarly careful. If it inflicted a demand beyond the capability of the party, it became guilty of a positive hardship; and in the present case, both the fine and sureties were of that description, as far as the statements went; and if those were not

Mr. Whitbread shortly replied. He believed Mr. Lovell could not pay the fine, and that if his imprisonment were conHe again extinued much longer, it would be likely to terminate in his death. In moving pressed an anxious hope that mercy would be extended to him. that the Petition should lie on the table, it was his hope that there it would continue to lie, and that its prayer would be attended to.

The Petition was ordered to lie on the table.

PRINCE REGENT'S MESSAGE respecting LORD WALSINGHAM.] The Chancellor of the Exchequer presented the following Message from the Prince Regent :

"GEORGE, P. R.

"The Prince Regent, acting in the name and on the behalf of his Majesty, having taken into his serious consideration the ability, integrity, impartiality, and indefatigable industry with which the lord Walsingham has discharged the weighty and important duties of chairman of the committees of the House of Lords, and of the private committees of the same, for these twenty years last past, and regretting the misfortune of his lordship's inability from infirmity any longer to execute the duties of that important office, recommends to the House of Commons to enable him to grant to the lord Walsingham an annuity of two thousand pounds.'

Ordered to be taken into consideration to-morrow.

COURT-MARTIAL ON COLONEL QUENTIN.] Mr. Tierney rose, and spoke as follows:-The House need not be informed,

of what was termed a libel. The laws on | the subject of libel were of such a nature that they were frequently more honoured in the breach than the observance." But, whatever might be the policy of the law, the imprisoment in this case had already continued beyond even the long term of the sentence; and the question now was, whether a period should not at last be put to the sufferings of this unfortunate man. He hoped that at some future period of the session, if a period were not put to his imprisonment, the subject would again be brought before the House, and that his hon. friend would not relax in his efforts.

addition of punishment, which was never contemplated, as gaolers sometimes thought it meritorious to add every severity in their power to the sentence of the law. He did not mean to say that this was the case in the instance of the present petitioner, but he knew of such cases of hardship. The hon. baronet mentioned the cases of Mr. Cobbett being at first put among the felons in Newgate, and that of Mr. Finnerty's treatment at the castle of Lincoln. This place, from its comparative extent and advantage of situation, was fixed on as one where the prisoner might naturally expect to enjoy as great comforts as were compatible with his imprisonment; but what was intended as mercy to the prisoner, was, through the rigour of the gaoler and the interference of tyrannical magistrates, converted into a punishment infinitely beyond what was in the contemplation of the Judge at the time when the sentence was passed. To this fact be could speak from his acquaintance with that part of the country. He had no difficulty in saying, that endeavours were but too often used to render the situation of persons suffering for libel as uncomfortable as possible; and that too often there was a rigour extended beyond the law. He thought that government would do well to apportion a part of the immense resources they had at their disposal, to the erection of a prison, to which persons confined for libel might be sent, instead of being mingled with the common herd of vile and wretched malefactors. With respect to the petition now presented by his hon. friend, he should not attempt to injure its merits by any observations of his own, but should be satisfied with earnestly recommending it to the consideration of ministers.

Sir Gilbert Heathcote said, the hon. gentleman opposite would do well to take this case under consideration, and recommend a compliance with the prayer of the petition. It was not usual for the House to interfere with the sentences of judicial tribunals, but it was authorised in doing so when there was an appearance of unnecessary rigour or injustice. This interference was not at present craved-a petition for mercy, on the plea of long and extraordinary suffering, was what called for attention, as no other means for the attainment of relief had proved effectual; and all that the House had to do was merely to give expression to their wishes, and these he thought should be in favour of the petitioner. Mr. Lovell's case was confessed to be a hard one; he might deserve the name of a turbulent man, but that was matter of opinion. He himself, he suspected, was considered by the gentlemen opposite rather a turbulent person; and so perhaps might all the gentlemen on his side of the House; but that was only matter of opinion with the other side. There was, however, too great a disposition with these gentlemen to consider all who differed in opinion with them of a turbulent cast; but the exercise of autho-hon. rity in suppression of political sentiments, or relating to any thing connected with the preservation of the rights of men, was not to be silently regarded. He could not but deprecate the way in which those who were held to be guilty of libels were punished. There were some species of punishments awarded to persons pronounced offenders in this particular, which certainly were worse than death. For in many cases, these persons, who were generally men of education, were treated as the worst of felons, and made companions of the most dissolute and reprobate criminals; nay, they were often made to suffer an

Mr. Alderman Atkins observed, that the baronet had made a mistake when he stated Mr. Cobbett to have been classed among the felons in Newgate. Mr. Cobbett had carried on the publication of his paper during the whole period of his confinement, and had shared in all the indulgences which were ever allowed to other persons in his situation. In the course of his duty as a magistrate, he had visited the room in which Mr. Lovell was confined; and he believed, from other particulars which had come within his knowledge, he could speak to the petitioner's situation. From all that he perceived or could learn regarding Mr. Lovell's affairs, he was convinced he was unable to pay

of what was termed a libel. The laws on | the subject of libel were of such a nature that they were frequently more honoured in the breach than the observance." But, whatever might be the policy of the law, the imprisoment in this case had already continued beyond even the long term of the sentence; and the question now was, whether a period should not at last be put to the sufferings of this unfortunate man. He hoped that at some future period of the session, if a period were not put to his imprisonment, the subject would again be brought before the House, and that his hon. friend would not relax in his efforts.

addition of punishment, which was never contemplated, as gaolers sometimes thought it meritorious to add every severity in their power to the sentence of the law. He did not mean to say that this was the case in the instance of the present petitioner, but he knew of such cases of hardship. The hon. baronet mentioned the cases of Mr. Cobbett being at first put among the felons in Newgate, and that of Mr. Finnerty's treatment at the castle of Lincoln. This place, from its comparative extent and advantage of situation, was fixed on as one where the prisoner might naturally expect to enjoy as great comforts as were compatible with his imprisonment; but what was intended as mercy to the prisoner, was, through the rigour of the gaoler and the interference of tyrannical magistrates, converted into a punishment infinitely beyond what was in the contemplation of the Judge at the time when the sentence was passed. To this fact be could speak from his acquaintance with that part of the country. He had no difficulty in saying, that endeavours were but too often used to render the situation of persons suffering for libel as uncomfortable as possible; and that too often there was a rigour extended beyond the law. He thought that government would do well to apportion a part of the immense resources they had at their disposal, to the erection of a prison, to which persons confined for libel might be sent, instead of being mingled with the common herd of vile and wretched malefactors. With respect to the petition now presented by his hon. friend, he should not attempt to injure its merits by any observations of his own, but should be satisfied with earnestly recommending it to the consideration of ministers.

Sir Gilbert Heathcote said, the hon. gentleman opposite would do well to take this case under consideration, and recommend a compliance with the prayer of the petition. It was not usual for the House to interfere with the sentences of judicial tribunals, but it was authorised in doing so when there was an appearance of unnecessary rigour or injustice. This interference was not at present craved-a petition for mercy, on the plea of long and extraordinary suffering, was what called for attention, as no other means for the attainment of relief had proved effectual; and all that the House had to do was merely to give expression to their wishes, and these he thought should be in favour of the petitioner. Mr. Lovell's case was confessed to be a hard one; he might deserve the name of a turbulent man, but that was matter of opinion. He himself, he suspected, was considered by the gentlemen opposite rather a turbulent person; and so perhaps might all the gentlemen on his side of the House; but that was only matter of opinion with the other side. There was, however, too great a disposition with these gentlemen to consider all who differed in opinion with them of a Mr. Alderman Atkins observed, that the turbulent cast; but the exercise of autho-hon. baronet had made a mistake when be rity in suppression of political sentiments, stated Mr. Cobbett to have been classed or relating to any thing connected with among the felons in Newgate. Mr. Cobthe preservation of the rights of men, was bett had carried on the publication of his not to be silently regarded. He could paper during the whole period of his connot but deprecate the way in which those finement, and had shared in all the indulwho were held to be guilty of libels were gences which were ever allowed to other punished. There were some species of pu- persons in his situation. In the course of nishments awarded to persons pronounced his duty as a magistrate, he had visited offenders in this particular, which certainly the room in which Mr. Lovell was conwere worse than death. For in many fined; and he believed, from other particases, these persons, who were generally culars which had come within his knowmen of education, were treated as the ledge, he could speak to the petitioner's worst of felons, and made companions of situation. From all that he perceived or the most dissolute and reprobate criminals; could learn regarding Mr. Lovell's affairs, nay, they were often made to suffer an he was convinced he was unable to pay