tain that there is a broad and visible distinction in the cases of the two parliaments; the one incorporating, and the other surrendering its independence. I have no hesitation in saying, that I think parliament is not competent to surrender an independent legislature; and I now publicly avow my opinion, or hereafter it may be urged as a thing universally admitted, when the question may be the surrender of some of our own dearest and most valuable privileges. It may be brought as an argument hereafter, when such admissions may be of dangerous tendency. I, therefore, now, do not hesitate to say, that the parliament of Ireland have not and cannot have the right to surrender their independence. They cannot do it consistent with their duty to their constituents. It is not reconcilable to the trust upon which they hold their places. With respect to the precedent of Scotland, which has been urged as conclusive, it has a most distinguishing feature; they were summoned for the purpose expressly of considering and debating the specific question of union. I. however, will not give my assent to add a second bad precedent, because there is one already existing. But, sir, the question may be put in a stronger way, in which it will come more home to the bosoms and feelings of Englishmen. Suppose the question was, that we should be called upon to surrender our independence, and be united to another kingdom. What would be our feelings in that case? Suppose George, Prince of Denmark, had succeeded to that kingdom, or that Philip had succeeded to the crown of Spain during his connection with Mary-if at either of these times it had been a question at Madrid, or Copenhagen, to unite this kingdom with either of them, what would the people of this country have said? Unquestionably they would, without hesitation, have told their parliament that they had no right to surrender them and their independence. Sir, I shall add no more, but I thought it proper to say thus much, that my opinions might not be mistaken. One word more, sir, and I have done; I think all civil incapacitations on account of religious distinctions ought to be done away, and on some future day I shall submit that proposition to the house.

MAY 21.

COLD-BATH FIELDS PRISON.-COLONEL DESPARD.

Sir Francis Burdett moved, " That the report on the state of the Cold-bathfields prison be re-committed." Mr. Sheridan seconded the motion.—Mr. Wilberforce Bird, Sir William Young, Mr. Buxton, and Colonel Elford followed.

MR. SHERIDAN observed, that the hon. gentleman who spoke second in the debate, in the early part of his speech said, "if the house would look at the report, it would be seen immediately, that the resolutions it contained were so founded upon evidence, that it ought to be adopted in every one of the resolutions;" before he sat down he gave up the detail in that respect, and alleged what could not be admitted, that there were others more able than himself to execute the task. He had listened, he said, with great attention to three hon. gentlemen, all of whom were of the committee, whose report was now before the house; but he was bound to say, that what they advanced, instead of supporting the report, and satisfying the house that it ought to be adopted, they satisfied him that the report ought to be rejected by the house, and that a farther inquiry ought to be entered into.

It was a little awkward, he said, for those who complained of him for not always attending the house upon the discussion of public business, to conduct themselves as they did towards him. If it was a fault in him for being absent in general, some persons might think it was an amendment in him to attend; but nothing would satisfy these gentlemen with regard to him; they blamed him for absenting himself, and took care never to bid him welcome when he came. The hon. gentleman had said of him (Mr. Sheridan) that he came at no important period, or on a point of moment, to support his friend. He considered the question extremely important and highly interesting to the people of this country; and whenever he saw public principle abandoned, or humanity outraged, and especially when he saw iniquity protected by the names and authority of members of that house, and the house itself called upon to give its sanction to such conduct, he should think the state of things critical; and, whether he neglected his duty in some other particulars or not, he should not neglect it upon this, but would come forward, and he was proud to say, he would support his hon. and worthy friend, whose motion was now before the house.

The hon. gentleman went very little into the report, although he complained of the hon. baronet for passing it by; there was more excuse for the one than there was for the other. The hon. baronet wanted the report to be re-committed, taking it to be defective, and, therefore, passed it by without much notice; but the hon. gentleman who censured him for so doing, and who relied so much upon the report, had no such excuse. The one desired the house to enter into another inquiry, and, therefore, was not elaborate upon what was before the house; the other relied upon what was before the house, called upon them to adopt it, and yet took but little notice of it. Now he would assert, that, if the whole evidence was perfectly satisfactory to him that the house could not agree to the resolutions of the committee; but, first, he would say a word or two on the general principles of evidence stated by an hon. baronet who had spoken in this debate. He stated, not only from his own authority, which was of great weight, but from the authority of the philosophers of ancient and modern times, of Locke and other authors of justly-esteemed character, and also from Lord Chief Baron Gilbert, whose work he quoted, that in no case was a man to be examined as a witness here when he had signed his name to a petition—no, not so much as a turnpike committee would allow him to be examined in the case wherein he was a petitioner. By this rule of evidence a man was to be told, if he had petitioned against any cruelty, he could not possibly be examined as a witness; that the only regular course of examination that could possibly take place was that of asking those whom he accused of the cruelty, whether there was any truth in the allegation or not. This was the rule of philosophy by which we were to be guided. If Colonel Despard had stated in his petition that he had lost the use of any of his limbs, was deprived of his arm, or that his hand was taken off, the house, by this rule of evidence, was to say "O no; we will not hear Colonel Despard himself, for he is a petitioner-we must follow the rule of the turnpike committee-we will examine the surgeon and other persons who were concerned in the taking off his hand; the man himself is an incompetent witness; he must lie under some mistake." What was the result of this doctrine? Why, truly, this -if the whole of the body of those who were confined in this Bastile, as it was called by some, not that he knew that to be an

appropriate appellation to it, although appellations were not always, perhaps not very often, given without reason; if these prisoners should be thus treated, and they should happen to have presented a petition upon the state of their case, they must not be heard to substantiate their complaint; there would be an end of any prisoner's exhibiting a complaint, or, if he did not exhibit, he could never support his complaint. This was a thing too monstrous to be maintained for a single moment; and the hon. baronet had confounded two things that were essentially distinct; they were, criminal complaint, and the pursuit of a civil benefit. In the pursuit of a civil advantage, the rule was not to hear any man in evidence in support of his own allegations, but it never had yet been heard of as a rule of law adopted any where, as justice or equity, or common sense, that a man's own evidence should not be taken whenever he preferred a criminal complaint against another. Upon the subject of the new crimes that have made their appearance of late, the worthy baronet had used a great deal of declamation. He had said much in favour of the present constitution, and that it was owing to the present times that many novel remedies must be provided; the case, he said, must be so, because the evils were

new.

Now he desired gentlemen who were fond of this doctrine, to take the whole of the ground, and not endeavour to torture the rules of law for particular purposes under the pretence of trea

Let them avow the whole of the ground, and confess at once the times were such, that the ordinary rules of law would not do for them, and that new rules must be adopted. Let them, however, be aware of the effect of such a doctrine; it leads directly, and would lead inevitably, to torture, and the train of horrors that accompanied such cruelties. We had been made acquainted, in some degree, with the fruits of such a system, by what had taken place in the sister kingdom, and he thought we had seen enough upon that subject. He had heard it said, that the noble duke (Portland), whose name appeared at the head of these proceedings, and who committed persons on suspicion of high treason, was too humane to assent to many of the cruelties of which some of the prisoners complained: he believed that of the noble duke; but, although the Duke of Portland was unacquainted with many of these cruelties, he did not believe all his

Majesty's ministers to be so. He might not know that when a man was examined, and committed for farther examination, he might be kept twelve hours without food or anything to comfort him, and that also, for twenty-four hours after commitment to this prison, he has no food or anything to comfort him; that there was an instance of one person who was convicted and executed, being forty-eight hours without any food. All this

might be said to be just, if men were guilty of the high crime of treason; but it was felt by those who were suspected, as well as by those who were guilty. Persons thus fasting and famishing for forty-eight hours, might, perhaps, have their spirits broken; and, although they might have been surly at first, they might at last give some information to government which might be supposed to be useful for the public welfare. This was the very thing he complained of; for if the practice was recognized, and a place like this kept up, there never would be wanting ministers who would have an apology for using this power; the plea would always be that it was for the general good that such things should be allowed. He thought so much otherwise, that he believed it would have been better for society, if no such plan as that of Mr. Howard's had ever been heard of; not that he thought that Mr. Howard ever intended, on the contrary, it was evident he did no such thing as intend, the use that was made of his plan, and he would have shuddered with horror, had he known that any such use was made of it. This was evident from his letter of resignation to the king.

With regard to the opinion which the court of King's Bench was supposed to have given on this prison being a proper one for persons accused of treason; he had all the respect for that court that was due to it, but he must beg leave to say that the commons was not bound to adopt the opinion of judges any more than of jailors, upon the question before the house; they had it in their power to go into a grand committee upon courts of justice altogether, and had powers as well as duties to exercise in that particular; and, therefore, upon such a case the authority of a judge would go but a little way with him.

With regard to what had been said upon the dryness of the cells, and the wholesomeness of them, he had to observe, that those who choose to have light in rainy weather, must be wet in these cells, for there was no such thing as having light and