HC Deb 11 June 1817 vol 36 cc938-44
Lord Folkestone

, adverting to his motion on Thursday last, for an instruction to the secret committee, that they should obtain information with respect to the number of persons confined in consequence of the suspension of the Habeas Corpus, observed, that the motion which he was about to submit to the House was similar in substance, but did not contain every thing comprehended in his former motion. It appeared to him to be most important to obtain the information to which he alluded before any proceeding took place, such as it was apprehended might be proposed, for the renewal of the suspension. On the former occasion the noble lord objected to give the instruction to the committee, on the ground, first, that it would be putting the secretary of state on his trial; and, secondly, that it would tend to divulge circumstances which ought not it present to be made public. He conceived that the adoption of that proposition would not have occasioned any inconvenience to the secretary of state, or any danger to the country. However, the Home thought proper to reject it. He should now confine his motion to a return of he persons in confinement, without any inquiry into the cause of their apprehension. His motion, however, would compise several objects; and first, the numler of such persons. It was most desirabe to know how many persons had been confined under the suspension. Whether that number, however, should turn out to be large or small, he should equally mainain that the suspension was reprehensible. If small, he contended that the suspension ought not to have taken place or such slight grounds; if large, he reprobaed confiding powers so important to those who used them so extensively. Next, he wished to know the circumstances and occupations in life of any persons who were confined, before they were found out to be traitors. Never, in any former case, he the Habeas Corpus been suspended unless when persons of some opulence and consequence were implicated in seditious proceedings. In the present instance it was notorious that directly the contrary was the fact.— He had gone yesterday to leading gaol, but found that, by an order from the secretary of state he was prevented from seeing the prisoners confined there. He had, however, made some inquires with respect to them. He learnt that ne—a man of the name of Knight—was circumstances so extremely needy as to be hardly able to procure the necessaries of life. This person was represented as being most troublesome, because he had written some letters stating the misery of his situation. He (lord F.) believed, that if he was not actually a lunatic, he was in a fair way of being made so. Among other applications, he had, it seemed, transmitted a petition to an hon. and learned friend of his in that House, but being found too weighty for the post, it had been returned to him, and he could not afford to pay the postage. As to the other prisoners, they were described by the gaoler to be the most harmless, quiet, inoffensive creatures he had ever met with in his life. One was a journeyman cutler, another was a journeyman tailor, who could neither read nor write. Were these the formidable people, the apprehension of whom was about to cause the renewed suspension of the liberties of a whole nation? If so, it was of great importance that it should be known to parliament before the discussion should take place on that proposition. The last subject on which be desired to obtain information was, the place in which those persons were arrested, and the place in which they were confined. It was evident, that the severity of the punishment which these individuals endured, must be greatly aggravated by their removal to a distance from their homes. He understood that the persons who were lodged in Reading gaol, were brought from Manchester. Why was this? He repeated, that it must be a great aggravation of their distress, to be removed 200 miles from their friends, and to be deprived of the opportunity of receiving a supply of food, clothes, wine, or any thing necessary for their support and comfort. Under this impression, he would move, "That an humble Address be presented to his royal highness the Prince Regent, that he will be graciously pleased to give directions that there be laid before this House, a list of all persons now in confinement in Great Britain, by warrant of either of the secretaries of state, or of six privy-councillors, detained under the provisions of an act, passed in this present session of parliament, 'for enabling his majesty to secure and detain such persons as his majesty shall suspect are conspiring against his person and government;' specifying the names of the persons so confined, their trades, professions or occupations, their ages, the places of their confinement, the places where arrested, and the dates of their arrest and commitment; and also the name or names that the only persons who had broken the of the persons who signed the commitment."

Mr. Addington

, in the absence of the noble secretary of state, said, he had no objection to agree to a motion for the numbers, ages, and places of confinement of the parties who had been committed; but he submitted, whether any object would be attained, and whether it would not be detrimental to the parties themselves, to give their names as required. As to the letters written by Knight, in Reading gaol, the letter which had been sent to his wife containing a petition, but of which she was unable to pay the postage, had been forwarded to the home-office, and thence to the individual for whom it was intended. The noble lord ought to consider the great burthen thrown on ministers in the execution of the purposes of the act, and that, if they failed to commit a suspicious person, they were quite as responsible as if they committed an innocent individual.

Sir F. Burdett

observed, that seeing that the allegations on which the bills for Suspending the liberties of the country had been proved to be false; seeing, that under those bills, several persons had experienced a very cruel punishment; seeing that these practices were illegal, unconstitutional, and unknown until the unfortunate period of 1794; seeing that they augmented as the apparent necessity diminished, and that now, when there was no pretence for them, they existed to a greater extent than at the time when some pretence might be assigned, he hoped his noble friend would not alter his motion, which asked as little as could be asked from any administration holding the power which had been confided to the present. He was at a loss to conjecture why his noble friend's motion was resisted. In 1797 he (sir F. Burdett), in similar circumstances, made a similar motion, which was assented to without any hesitation. At least the country was entitled to know the names and every thing tending to give as much security to the persons who were confined as was compatible with the deprivation of their freedom. This would appear to be the more necessary when it was recollected that, on a former occasion, the individuals who were confined under a suspension of the Habeas Corpus, were never brought to trial. A bill of indemnity was passed in favour of those by whose authority they had been apprehended; and it was proved that the only persons who had broken the laws were the ministers themselves. It should be remembered that the persons in question were cut off from all intercourse with their families, on the pretext that the conspiracies in which they had engaged might get abroad. There was no ground for believing this. There was not the slightest reason for imagining from the trials which were at present in progress, that there was any justifiable cause for depriving these persons of all intercourse with the rest of the world. The facts with which the persons now trying were charged, were well known before. Nothing new was discovered. To keep them, therefore, in close custody, was as abhorrent to humanity as it was a gross violation of the confidence which parliament had thought proper to repose in ministers. At any rate the House, surely had a right to know whom they had taken up. The right hon. gentleman had told them that his noble friend (lord Castlereagh) was absent, in consequence of official business. These gentlemen thought much of the sufferings of office, but never of the sufferings of their victims. For his part, he believed that the noble lord was just then taking a ride in the park. His absence was not very respectful to the House, or very consonant to the duties which he owed to the country. He trusted his noble friend would press his entire motion, as he could not imagine a shadow of reason for withholding the names of the persons confined under the suspension, and who he had no doubt would hereafter be found to be unjustly confined; and he hoped the House would not be easily persuaded to reject the motion. Did the House consider what solitary confinement was? Did they recollect that insanity was its frequent consequence? The power assumed by the executive government, with respect to the treatment of their prisoners, was most arbitrary and unjustifiable. He hoped the House would prevent it from continuing that treatment; he hoped they would agree to his noble friend's motion; and above all, he hoped, that when the time came for its discussion, they would refuse to renew that detestable act, by which the liberties of Englishmen were thus sacrificed.

Mr. Canning

remarked, that the greater part of the hon. baronet's speech was addressed, not to the motion, but to a subject which had long before been discussed in that House—the confidence which the House had been pleased to repose in the executive government, or rather the burthen which it had imposed on them in the responsible exercise of the extraordinary powers called for by the extraordinary circumstances of the times. The hon. baronet had not attempted to show on fair parliamentary grounds that this power had been abused; but he had endeavoured to persuade the House to lament its decision, and to express an unfounded distrust, which would give disaffection new spirit and courage at a moment the most critical that could be imagined. Did any man pretend to believe that the mischief had abated? Was it not notorious that on that very day intelligence had been received of fresh plans of disturbance? Instead, however, of contributing to assist in the suppression of these evils, the noble lord (if he persevered in his motion) and the hon. baronet endeavoured to induce the House to concur with them in declaring, that the power originally given to government for that purpose was monstrous, that it had been monstrously abused, and that it ought to be recalled. He had no objection to give the number, the ages, and the places of confinement of the persons who had been imprisoned; but to give their names, while their machinations were still operating, would be to afford useful intelligence to the disaffected throughout the country, and to make parliament the medium of the communication. He would therefore move, to leave out all the words from the word "House" to the end of the question, in order to add the words, "an account of the number of persons now in confinement in Great Britain, by warrant of either of the secretaries of state, or of six privy-councillors, detained under the provisions of an act passed in this present session of parliament 'for enabling his majesty to secure and detain such persons as his majesty shall suspect are conspiring against his person and government,' with their ages, and the places of their confinement."

Mr. Ponsonby

was a good deal surprised, that the right hon. gentleman should agree to such an amendment and oppose the original motion. Did not the disaffected know at this moment who were taken up? It was impossible to prevent the friends and neighbours of any man so apprehended from knowing the fact as soon as it happened. What secret, then, could be communicated to them by exposing the names? To his understand- ing, it was impossible any danger could arise from it.

Mr. Bathurst

attributed the motive of the noble mover to be, to accuse government of improper treatment of individuals [No, no!]. Then, why object to the amendment, which withheld the names? In various parts of the country there might be a connexion amongst the disaffected, but not such a connexion as might cause persons to know who had been taken up at hundreds of miles distance. The giving of the numbers and ages would prevent the knowledge by their partisans of what particular persons had been apprehended; but the names could be of no other purport than to form a ground of imputation against ministers, which must have the effect of weakening the hands of government, whose measures had already obtained the confidence of the House.

Sir W. Burroughs

was surprised at ministers refusing what must shortly be fully known in the ordinary course of things. The calendar at the next assises must disclose the names that were now withheld. It was of the utmost importance for the House to be in possession of the names and description of the parties confined; for if it appeared that no man of property or connexion had been committed, that no foreign correspondence had been detected, or any agitation in a higher sphere of society, those considerations must weigh very seriously with the House, when they came to consider the question of the farther suspension of the liberty of the subject.

Lord Folkestone

shortly replied, after which, the question being put, That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the question,

The House divided:

Ayes 53
Noes 104

List of the Minority.
Burroughs, sir W. Dundas, Chas.
Barnett, James Fazakerley, N.
Bennet, hon. H. G. Fergusson, sir R. C.
Byng, Geo. Finlay, Kirkman
Brand, hon. Thos. Fitzroy, lord John
Baring, Alex. Grenfell, Pascoe
Birch, Jos. Gurney, Hudson
Calcraft, John Guise, sir Wm.
Calvert, C. Hughes, W. L.
Curwen, J. C. Heron, sir R.
Cavendish, lord G. Hornby, Ed.
Duncannon, visc. Lloyd, J. Martin
Lemon, sir Wm. Ridley, sir M. W.
Langton, W. Gore Ramsden, J. C.
Mackintosh, sir J. Romilly, sir S.
Moore, Peter Smith, Robt.
Mathew, hon. gen. Sebright, sir John
Methuen, Paul Spencer, lord R.
Neville, hon. R. Taylor, M. A.
Newport, sir John Webb, Ed.
Nugent, lord Wood, rt. hon. M.,
North, D. Lord Mayor
Ord, Wm. Williams, Owen
Ossulston, lord Williams, sir Robt.
Osborne, lord F. Wharton, John
Ponsonby, rt. hon G. TELLERS.
Peirse, Henry Folkestone, lord
Pelham, hon. G. A. Burdett, sir F.
Parnell, sir Henry