HC Deb 03 June 1817 vol 36 cc882-4
Mr. Curwen

said, he rose to move for a paper, to the production of which he apprehended, there would be no objection. He had availed himself of the privilege which every member possessed of bringing forward a motion, without previous notice, because the importance of the subject was such, in his opinion, as justified that course. It related to what was of the most immediate interest to the people of England, being nothing less than the pure distribution of criminal justice. It was the duty of that House at all times to watch with jealousy the proceedings of the executive government, and particularly so at the present moment, when the constitution of the country was in abeyance, and the rights and liberties of every man in it at the disposal of ministers. By the law of treason, which had always been represented as one of great wisdom and justice, it was required that the lists of witnesses, who were to be summoned, should be delivered to the accused, ten days previously to their trial. But if it should appear, that not more than 41 witnesses were examined to find the bill against them, what would the House think, when lists of 240 witnesses were served upon the prisoners, as the number of those who were to be arrayed against them on their trial? Individuals who were indicted for high treason, had to contend not only against strong prejudices, but against the power of the Crown. That was enough to create jealousy in any mind, but still more so in his, who remembered the introduction of the traitorous correspondence bill in 1793, when it was proposed to substitute felony for treason. The question was then argued, and profoundly argued, by one of the greatest men that ever sat in that House, he meant the late Mr. Fox, who contended that the privilege of knowing the witnesses who were to be summoned, was of the utmost importance.

Lord Castlereagh

here rose to suggest to the hon. member, the expediency of abstaining from entering upon the discussion at that moment.

Mr. Curwen,

in continuation, said, he should undoubtedly be disposed to give way, if he did not feel it an imperative duty to bring the matter forward. On the occasion, to which he was alluding, he heard Mr. Pitt declare, that the privilege in

Mr. Curwen,

in continuation, said, he should undoubtedly be disposed to give way, if he did not feel it an imperative duty to bring the matter forward. On the occasion, to which he was alluding, he heard Mr. Pitt declare, that the privilege in question was, in fact, no privilege, because it might be abused. He (Mr. C.) had called the attention of the House to that declaration, and it received in consequence, the reprobation of the House. Was it, then, to be endured, that they should now act upon a principle, which was then condemned! There never was a time when that House was called upon to exercise a greater jealousy than at the present moment. With respect to treasonable practices, he had no doubt there might be some individuals who were culpable, but as to an organised conspiracy for overturning the constitution, he did not believe that any such existed. What must be the kind of treason, he would ask, that required 240 witnesses to establish it? The calling so many witnesses could be for no other purpose but to prevent the individuals from knowing precisely who were to be brought against them. If the thing had been done without the knowledge of the Crown, it was time a remedy should be applied, and the prisoners have the full benefit of knowing exactly all who were to be examined against them. He hoped no report would be made from the committee about to be appointed, till the individuals who were arraigned, were brought to trial, and their trial concluded. He then moved for "copies of the lists of witnesses served on the prisoners in the Tower, now under arraignment for High Treason."

The Attorney-General

[Sir Samuel Shepherd] began by distinctly disavowing any intention on the part of those concerned in the prosecution, to embarrass the prisoners by an unnecessary increase of the witnesses to be called. It was true there were a great number, and the number was great because the law had made it imperative to state the name and de- scription of every witness whom, in the course of the trial, it might by possibility be found expedient to call. The necessity for including in the list all persons who were likely to be examined, was obvious. It sometimes happened in the progress of a cause, that particular circumstances came out which it was necessary to confirm by positive evidence, but which, at the commencement, it never occurred to those concerned in it, it would be requisite to bring forward. When, therefore, the law-said that a list of every witness intended to be called should be furnished to the prisoners, the law also said (or at least that inference was fairly deducible), that no witness should be called whose name could not be found in the said list. Surety, therefore, if due credit were given for integrity of intention to those who had the conducting of the present prosecutions, it would be presumed that they put into the list of witnesses, not only those names which they supposed they would have to call, but those, likewise, which they considered there was the slightest possibility of being obliged to call. The parties concerned in the prosecution would disdain to augment unnecessarily the number of witnesses, for the purpose of perplexing the prisoners. It would be an unpardonable negligence not to provide themselves with a host of witnesses, if he might so call it, provided they previously acquainted those against whom that host was arrayed. He firmly believed there was not one witness in the list, to whom some knowledge of some fact was not ascribed, and which it might not be proper to elicit [Hear, hear!]. He Should therefore venture to oppose the motion of the hon. member, because at this time the agitation of such a question could not tend to the furtherance of justice; but, on the contrary, was calculated to prejudice its unbiassed administration.

Mr. Curwen

said, that after what he had heard, he did not wish to press the matter.

The motion was then withdrawn.

Lord Castlereagh presented a Message from the Prince Regent relative to certain seditious practices, similar to that presented this day to the Lords (see p. 859). It was ordered to be considered on Thursday.