rose to move, that the Secret Papers respecting the internal state of the country, which he had brought down from the Prince Regent, be referred to a committee. It would be premature, in making this motion, for him to go into a general discussion of the state of the country. Whatever views gentlemen might have as to the late transactions, they would come to the discussion much better able to enter into it when the substance of the information contained in the papers was presented them by a committee. He should only make a few remarks on the course of the proceeding, leather than on any thing which might arise out of it. He had been asked by an hon. and learned gentleman, whether it was intended to propose any inquiry of a peculiar and special nature? and his answer had led to the expectation that a different committee would be appointed from that which had been appointed on former occasions of the same nature. This he had disclaimed, as he should conform himself precisely to former precedents. He had been asked, whether he had any objection to a motion to empower the committee to send for persons, papers, and records. He had been misled by his desire to conform to precedents, as he imagined no such power had previously been granted. He now found he was mistaken: and he was ready in this, as in other respects, to follow precedents of proceedings in pari materiâ. It was supposed that the committee was appointed, not to convey to the House an account of the state of the country, but to lay the foundation of some particular measure. This was not the case. He should frankly state, that he thought a Bill of Indemnity necessary; but not as growing out of the report of the secret committee. He was ready to put the necessity of an indemnity act to the House, as necessarily and naturally connected with the former law. Much of the information on which the government had acted was necessarily such as could not be disclosed, consistently with the safety of individuals, and with good faith to them. Magistrates had often been called on to act, for the sake of the public peace, on information which they could not justify on the letter of the law. He should distinctly avow, that a bill of indemnity was necessary', after such powers had been entrusted to a government; and this claim 163 might be strengthened by, though not founded on, the report of a committee. That committee would also show the public what the state of the country was; for, though the prosperity of our commerce and the vigilance of the magistracy had put an end to the great mass of danger, it would be a false view of the state of the country to suppose that the danger was at an end. There were still a great number of dangerous persons working towards the same end with great activity, though the state of the country prevented their exertions from being so effectual as they formerly had been. The noble lord then moved, "That the Secret Papers presented to the House by command of the Prince Regent, on the 3rd instant, be referred to a Committee."
§ Mr. Tierney
said, that there could be no objection to refer the papers presented to the House from the Crown to a committee, but he conceived that this was an unheard-of proceeding under all the circumstances of the case, that papers should be sent down to the House by the Crown, without any accompanying message explaining why they were sent, or what they were. Papers had indeed, it was said, been sent down formerly without a message, but this was when proceedings had taken place in a previous part of the session, and papers had been sent down which had reference to those transactions. But the papers had now been sent down at the beginning of a new session, when they had heard no intimation of this proceeding in the speech from the throne—when, from all they knew as individuals, the country was at perfect peace; and from all they heard from men in office, it was in a state of great and increasing prosperity. In all cases in which sealed papers had been presented to the House on former occasions, the assistance of the House was required in some manner—some new measure was proposed to them in their legislative capacities which the prerogative could not reach." But now," said Mr. T. "there comes down without any message, simply a bag. I see that in the votes it is called, 'a bag relating to the internal state of 'the country,' but there is nothing on the outside of it to show this; and I am sure the gentlemen at the table, notwithstanding their acuteness, have not any good reason to call it so, except from something that happened to drop from the noble lord. But as it relates to the in- 164 ternal state of the country, the best way would be to refer it to the committee OR the poor laws. We have that committee already sitting, and it would be natural to refer to that, and no other, this bag. But I suppose there is something in it, or it would not be sealed up; and though the object has not been opened, many will not be at a loss to know why there was no message. I view with a proper jealousy every thing that comes from the throne, and especially when it comes in this mysterious manner, and accompanied by a more mysterious speech from the noble secretary of state; and I think I have reason to suspect there is something at the bottom of it which has not been owned. The truth of the matter is this:—The ministers know, that by their proceedings in the last year, they have, for the last months, been making out a primâ facie case against themselves in the mind of every man in the country; and now they want to have a case made out for them, and that under the sanction of a committee of secrecy. The noble lord, with the candour of which he gives such frequent examples, says he should have no objection to a bill of indemnity. No one will doubt, without this candour, that he wishes for a bill of indemnity if he can get it; and to this end he proposes a committee, chosen by ballot, to sit on the papers in this bag. Why, this was one of the coarsest juggles which had been ever played oft* upon mankind. He did not say, that in no case should a bill of indemnity be granted, when, in the feeling of the country and the House, the secretary of state had acted with caution and mercy. But how had the secretary of state used his discretionary power? When he spoke of the secretary of state, he only mentioned him as the representative of the administration. How had the secretary of state acted? He had not taken up a few persons, who, by their influence, or by the ramification of extensive connexions might be dangerous; but he had gone as it were with a drag net through particular counties, taking up whole classes of men. He believed the secretary of state had acted hastily, and in a manner which he would not have done, if it had not been a cabinet system to take measures of vigour. Alarm had been the daily bread of the administration, and nothing was to be done but to keep alive the idea that danger was imminent, and that insurrections hung over our heads, but for measures which 165 had been extorted from the parliament. Hence they had heard nothing last session but the burning of barracks, the smoking of soldiers, and the destruction of manufactories. They had now better information than they had last session. They had not now to proceed on hints in the dark, or on the impression which might be produced on any respectable gentleman in. the committee, but on the result of long judicial proceedings. He solemnly declared, upon his honour, that after all the events and trials that took place during the recess—and he had considered and examined all of them with every attention in his power—yet, after the most careful and impartial examination, he would solemnly declare, without any party bias, that not one case occurred which in his mind showed the suspension to be necessary. The trials, and even the convictions that took place only confirmed this persuasion. He had read every word of the Derby trials with the greatest care, and his labour was indeed amply rewarded by the great and splendid abilities of one of the counsel for the prisoners, his learned friend Mr. Denman. There was not a tittle of evidence that any danger existed that could not have been met by the ordinary operation of Jaw, Nay, the mischief was, that ministers had sheltered themselves under the suspension of the Habeas Corpus, and let the mischief go on till it acquired a footing. Yet in other places the ministers had acted with an unmerciful degree of rigour.—A right hon. gentleman had on a former occasion given them an idea why a committee was to be required. He undertook to prove that the Habeas Corpus Suspension act had not continued one hour beyond the time when it was necessary. Now, unless this point was made out—if one man was detained one hour beyond the time which the safety of the country required, the ministers were guilty of an abuse of power. The right hon. gentlemen had to justify the ministers on another point—the employment of spies. If there was one thing more disgusting than another to every honest man in the country, it was the publicity with which the ministers had justified the acts of these infernal scoundrels, who had been employed for the purpose of procuring information. That if persons involved in a transaction of conspiracy offered information, government ought to receive it was a proposition which he was quite ready to admit; but 166 that government should employ persons not at all connected with a conspiracy, to insinuate themselves among the conspirators, to profess a concurrence with their views in order to betray the confidence of those conspirators, and even to violate the obligation of an oath with a view to drag the unhappy victims of their delusion to the scaffold, formed a mass of atrocious guilt, such as perhaps had never been paralleled in the history of the country. A right hon. gentleman had promised to satisfy them that no agent of government had done such acts. God grant that the right hon. gentleman might succeed, for the credit of the age; but he could not whitewash spies, or detach them from everlasting infamy! This was a task be-yond the reach of his splendid oratory.—But if ministers were themselves satisfied that they could establish their innocence by conclusive evidence, why propose such a partial mode of inquiry? Why select a committee of their own friends? Why bring forward a set of names in that form, which had long been the subject of joke? For it was notorious that the names of a committee of this nature were always sent from the treasury, and their appointment supported by treasury influence. He did not mean to blame any particular administration, but to speak of the usual practice; and could any rational being believe that such a mode of proceeding would be satisfactory to the country? Was it possible that the noble lord could suppose that such a proceeding would be satisfactory, either with a view to the vindication of the conduct of ministers, or the maintenance of the character of that House? Yet, if not in order to vindicate the conduct of ministers, which of course would require some investigation, for what purpose was the proposed committee to be appointed? If the committee were only required to report the contents of the green bag, any one member might do that; but he presumed it was desired that this committee should express some opinion upon the conduct of ministers; and there could be little doubt that such a committee as the noble lord had in view, would declare, with a right hon. gentleman over the way, that they were the most wise and merciful ministers this or any other country had ever known, in the administration of such extraordinary authority as that with which parliament had invested them. The noble lord's committee would also 167 most probably recommend an act of indemnity. This committee would first praise the ministers for their wisdom and humanity, and next propose an act to shelter them from any legal responsibility—thus asserting at once that ministers were right, and that they ought to be sheltered from the consequences of being wrong. But if ministers themselves were conscious of having been right, nay, if they were not conscious of being guilty, why proceed as they had done? They had, in fact, filed a bill of indictment against themselves, probably with a view to prevent others from preferring an indictment against them; and then they came forward in a tone of defiance, exclaiming, "This is our green bag—who dare touch our green bag? "But notwithstanding this tone, they appeared to resolve that their green bag should not be touched by any but particular friends—that it should not be subject to the examination of any but partial judges. Could, they, however, flatter themselves that the mind of the country would be satisfied by such a proceeding, or did it become them to call upon that House to sanction a measure so peculiarly calculated to betray partial management, and to excite universal distrust?—Mr. Tierney said, he would proceed no farther: he had said enough to satisfy the House and the whole country, that there never was a measure brought before parliament that exceeded so much the bounds of fairness and common decency.
§ Mr. Bathurst
observed, that the right hon. gentleman appeared to think the course proposed on this occasion, quite a new mode of proceeding; forgetting, perhaps, that it was precisely the same as that adopted in 1801, with the support of the right hon. gentleman himself, and in opposition to arguments similar to those which the right hon. gentleman had just advanced. It had, indeed, been the usual practice when papers such as those at present on the table were brought down by ministers to have them referred to a secret committee in the manner proposed in this instance. This manner was then quite agreeable to precedent, especially to that of 1801, to which he had just alluded, and which was followed by an act of indemnity. Parliament, in that case, felt as it must always feel, that government acting for the public safety should not be compelled to give up the sources of that secret information which had urged them tem- 168 porarily to deprive individuals of their liberty. If, indeed, parliament declined thus to shield government, what government or ministers would be found to execute the powers granted by the suspension of the Habeas Corpus act?—Parliament would, he had no doubt, do in this case as it had always done; although the committee were not bound to report according to the pleasure of ministers; the words were "to report as it shall appear to them, to the House." The right hon. gentleman had, he observed, on this occasion repeated an argument which had been often urged before, and in his opinion as often satisfactorily answered—namely, that the Habeas Corpus act should not have been suspended, because no men of rank were implicated in the conspiracy which it was the object of that suspension to put down. But the reports from the committees of the last session alleged, that although no one of rank appeared to be implicated, the conspiracy itself was extensive among the middle and lower classes. Being so extensive then, and its members so numerous throughout the country, there was good reason for the suspension of the Habeas Corpus act. So parliament thought, and therefore the right hon. gentleman's opinion was in opposition to that of the House. The right hon. gentleman had asserted that the heads of the conspiracy were not taken up, but he (Mr. Bathurst) would affirm that this assertion was incorrect, for the heads, such as they were, were taken into custody, and thus the government had a right to take credit for the measures by which they prevented the conspiracy from exploding, as well as for the convictions where treason had been actually committed. Of these convictions he observed, that the right hon. gentleman took very little notice. He appeared, indeed, to overlook them altogether, unless for the purpose of eulogizing an individual employed in the defence of the convicts. But with respect to the conduct of ministers in exercising the powers intrusted to them by the suspension of the Habeas Corpus act, he was entitled to say, that they, by that conduct, had saved the lives and property of many of his majesty's subjects, who would have been otherwise exposed to the same atrocity which marked the insurrection in Derbyshire. If gentlemen, however, insisted upon censuring the government for their conduct, he must say that such censure should rather apply to the magistrates upon whose infor- 169 mation government had acted; for government had never acted without information to which it was bound to attend, and therefore if the government was aspersed, it was entitled to fling that aspersion upon others. But that there was a disposition and arrangement for a general insurrection at the time the Habeas Corpus act was suspended could not now be doubted, after all that had transpired, especially in the trials at Derby. In those I trials, which the right hon. gentleman had so slightly noticed, as strong a case had been made out as could well be imagined, not only from the evidence adduced in court, but from the confession of the convicts themselves. After such trials and confessions, he apprehended it was impossible to doubt that the insurrection at Derby was connected with a general plan of insurrection. That such an insurrection did not take place was owing, he was persuaded, to the manner in which the powers were exercised, which had been granted to government by the suspension of the Habeas Corpus act. Upon the passing of that act, in the first instance, the leaders were taken up, but still as it was stated in the report of the second committee of the last session, the spirit of resistance remaining, not as it was pretended with a view to reform, but to subvert, it became necessary to continue the act; for it was evident that a disposition existed in various parts of the country to co-operate by a simultaneous movement, in a plan to overturn the government. It was clear, indeed, that the insurrection which had taken place in Derbyshire, was not the result of a promiscuous assemblage or a precipitate resolution, but of a deliberate project. Now as to the question of ballot for the proposed committee, most of those who heard him had lived long enough to know, that it was the practice of the treasury to recommend a certain list of names to be appointed upon a committee. But although the government recommended, it was still for the House to appoint, and if the House made an improper selection, the responsibility belonged to itself. He remembered the ingenious and impressive argument of a right hon. gentleman now no more (Mr. Windham) upon this subject. That distinguished gentleman had justly observed, that upon any question for the appointment of a committee, it was likely that persons would be selected who were agreeable to the majority. So it would come to this at last, 170 that if there even were no recommendation from the Treasury, persons would be appointed to such a committee who would be rather more agreeable to the majority than to the minority of the House. Such indeed had been the fact in all cases where papers like those on the table were referred to a committee. Hence, he argued, that for the ultimate appointment of any committee, that House, and not the government, was responsible. He did not mean to travel over all the points urged by the right hon. gentleman, for that would be to extend the debate to an inconvenient length, but there were some which he could not consistently overlook. The right hon. gentleman had, for instance, indulged in censure upon an individual, which censure, he apprehended the right hon gentleman would find it impossible to justify, upon his own avowed principles, for the right hon. gentleman had laid it down that it was right to receive information from persons engaged in a conspiracy, and upon this ground the individual alluded to, ought not to be traduced. That individual instead of producing mischief, had actually rendered great service to the country. A late lamented member of that house had been satisfied that such was this person's conduct. The fact was, that this individual had become acquainted with the conspiracy by accident, and he communicated his information to government. He was employed, upon this communication, to continue his connexion with the persons through whom he obtained his information; and, in order to obtain their confidence, he must, of course, appear to concur in the views of the conspirators, among whom he was introduced by a principal conspirator. There was, therefore, no ground to criminate this individual notwithstanding all the slander that had been circulated against him. Reverting to the committee about to be appointed, he observed that its objects were, first, to report upon the conduct of the government in the exercise of the powers entrusted to it by the suspension of the Habeas Corpus act, and next, upon the general state of the country, for it was not among the objects of the committee to recommend any such power as was created in consequence of the reports of the committees of last session.
§ Mr. Tierney
explained. He had never so reflected on the legal proceedings at Derby as to say that no evidence of criminal proceedings had been produced. 171 What he had said was, that the facts which did come to light were such as showed the suspension act to have been utterly unnecessary.
could not pass this opportunity of entering his protest against the mode of proceeding proposed by his majesty's ministers. For he considered all ballots a mere juggle, equally disgraceful and dangerous to the House of Commons. It would, indeed, be more becoming on the part of the noble lord to nominate at once the persons of whom he wished the committee to consist, and have his nomination carried by an undisguised majority, than to propose their appointment by ballot, than attempt to palm such a committee upon the country as the free unbiassed choice of the House of Commons. The right hon. gentleman on the other side had adverted to the case in 1801, with a view to answer the objections of the right hon. gentleman who had just sat down, upon the proposition before the House. But there was no parallel between the two cases: for in the case of 1801 there was not only a bill of indemnity proposed, but a suspension of the Habeas Corpus act in Ireland. Neither had the committee now proposed any parallel to the committees of the last session. The only object, indeed, of the committee under consideration, was to procure an act of indemnity for ministers, and this object was so evident that the proposed form must be deemed a mere fraud. Such, indeed, must be the impression of the country, and therefore the whole proceeding would serve to bring the House into contempt and ridicule. It was argued, however, that if there was any appearance of management and fraud in this proceeding. it was generally known and understood. For his own part, however, he thought all such appearances, and what were sometimes called pious frauds, were much better avoided. Although they might be points of notoriety among themselves, they were considered as points of detection by the country, and whether, justly or unjustly, served to bring into question the honour of the house, which, like the honour of a woman, should be maintained above suspicion. He objected altogether to the principle of forming committees by ballot; but in no case could it be so exceptionable as in that now under consideration. For what did the proposition mean? Why, that ministers, being under accusation, sought to appoint a committee of their own selection for the 172 trial of the cause, and to cover their object through the means of a ballot. It was not pretended that there was any legislative measure in contemplation. The object of the committee was then solely to judge of the conduct of ministers in the exercise of the extraordinary powers with which they had been recently entrusted. Thus ministers were to put themselves on their trial before the committee, and was it becoming in them to set about packing and sorting a jury for the decision of the cause? But the right hon. gentleman on the other side had just stated that which he could not before that statement have supposed possible, namely, that persons actually in office were to form a part of this committee. Was not such a proceeding, he would ask, a complete insult to the understandings of that House and the country? What would the noble lord himself do, if he were personally accused upon any occasion? With those high feelings and honourable principles which belonged to his character, as every one who knew him must admit, the only object of the noble lord would no doubt be to ensure strict impartiality, to have the accusation tried before a great and unbiassed tribunal. Why then should the noble lord shrink from the lofty conduct he would observe in a case concerning himself personally, and adopt an expedient in this instance, nominally to try, but really to shelter himself and his colleagues from any trial whatever? For by the proposed ballot and secret committee, with the exposition given by the right hon. gentleman opposite as to the persons to form that committee, it appeared that ministers were to be both witnesses and jurors in their own cause. Yet upon the verdict of such a jury a bill of indemnity was to be founded. But it was to be recollected, that upon this verdict would also depend the rights of every individual who had been imprisoned by order of ministers.—For those individuals would be deprived, by an act of indemnity to ministers, not only of that right of action for damages which they now possessed, if unjustly imprisoned, but of that opportunity for restoring their character which they would derive from a public trial. The members of the committee would, therefore, have a judicial as well as a political function to discharge; and every individual who might be aftected by their decision had a right to be heard in his own vindication. They had a right to know that their claims and inter- 173 ests were not disposed of by the very persons of whose conduct they complained. He must repeat, that he would rather see the committee altogether composed of a junto of the noble lord's friends, amongst whom he might be sure of triumph, whilst he,Like Cato, gave his little senate laws,And sat attentive to his own applause.But if the noble lord really desired to be acquitted to the satisfaction of the country, he would consent at once to the formation of a committee chosen impartially and armed with effectual powers. He should not have detained the House with any farther observations, had it not been for one or two points in the speech of the right hon. gentleman who had last spoken. Although he certainly compassionated the fate of the unfortunate men who had been brought to punishment at Derby, he knew of nothing in the trials or convictions to which any blame could be attached. The existence of a conspiracy, arising out of Luddism, and the preceding apathy of government was sufficiently established. But those trials afforded, at the same time the strongest proof that no new legislative measure had been required for the correction of the evil. The insurrection had, in fact, been principally put down, not by the civil or the military power, but by the energy of a single individual—the overseer of the Butterley iron-works, who scolded half the conspirators away. He must here allude to another circumstance which had a strong tendency to bring those prosecutions into discredit and disrepute—he meant the extraordinary array of counsel provided for conducting them. The crown was not content on this occasion with retaining the counsel who usually practised on the midland circuit, but dispatched others from London, so as to excite a suspicion that this was done, not for the advantage of their talents, but for the purpose of neutralizing them, and preventing their being brought into action on the other side. With regard to Oliver, he was tar from thinking that the right hon. gentleman had made out his case. He could easily understand the employment of spies in places with which they were necessarily acquainted, and to which they had easy access; but a stranger could not act in this capacity, without carrying letters of introduction, and conveying favourable intelligence as to what was passing in other quarters. It was his belief, that the spies had done all the 174 mischief; that they had made representations which they must have known to be unfounded, and that when they found disaffection, they produced conspiracy.
§ Mr. Bathurst
observed, in explanation, that what he had stated was, that Oliver went down in company with one of the principal conspirators, and by this means became acquainted with the designs that were in agitation among them.
§ Sir S. Romilly
perfectly concurred in opinion with the noble lord that an inquiry was necessary, but he totally differed from him with regard to the nature of it. What prospect could be entertained of any effective inquiry before such a committee as was about to be constituted? The present was, he maintained, quite a new course of proceeding; for there was no instance upon record of the reference of papers to a committee, but with a view to some legislative measure. The noble lord had, however, stated that no legislative measure was in contemplation. What then was the object of this committee? On the first day of the session, immediately after the speech of the lords commissioners representing the Crown, who stated that tranquillity was restored and that nothing more was wanting to maintain it, than the vigilance of the magistrates, it was declared by ministers, that they meant to remove the suspension of the Habeas Corpus act. All the prisoners arrested under that suspension were liberated, and they were discharged, even from their recognizances on the motion of the attorney-general. Therefore no danger could be apprehended by ministers; and what then was the purpose of this committee? Why, solely to procure a report in defence of ministers, with the recommendation of an act of indemnity; which it was felt must necessarily be preceded by at least the appearance of inquiry in the present state of public opinion. He would be surprised at such a proceeding, if any thing on the part of ministers could excite his surprise. To-day the noble lord had observed that the proposition of a bill of indemnity was naturally expected to follow the report of the proposed committee, and yet when the act for suspending the Habeas Corpus act was brought forward, the noble lord declared that ministers would accept with reluctance the painful responsibility which the enactment of that measure Would impose upon them, while during the existence of the suspension the noble lord and 175 his colleagues were continually talking of the moderation and mildness with which the law was executed, defying even the possibility of any charge against them. Yet now it appeared that ministers sought the shield of an act of indemnity.—Now, that the administration of the trust was to be considered, the House was informed that a bill of indemnity always followed a suspension of the constitution. He hoped the House would see the necessity of an ! ample investigation; that they would not suffer themselves to be deluded;] that they would inquire when the danger, if danger there had been to the state, had ceased to exist; and whether parliament ought not to have been assembled at an earlier period. It was of great importance that an inquiry should be instituted, not only for the purpose of ascertaining what the state of the country was in June last, but what it was in September. The House, he trusted, would recollect, that though, according to the admission of the government, tranquillity was restored in September last, and though acting upon the confidence of that tranquillity, they had restored persons to their liberty who were six months in confinement, still they; neglected to call parliament together. It was not until January that they thought proper to adopt that measure, and to determine for themselves that they would discontinue the exercise of those extraordinary powers with which, unfortunately for the best interests of the country, they had been armed. By such conduct ministers had incurred the most serious responsibility. He would ask of those who had been prevailed upon to repose confidence in their discretion, whether they had not done so in the expectation that they would summon an early meeting of parliament, with a view to be determined by the sense of parliament, whether it was necessary to continue the exercise of such powers or not? This surely was a subject which called for the strictest investigation. It was necessary that they should know what the state of the country was when the Habeas Corpus act was suspended; that they should ascertain whether they had been duped by false statements, to lend their sanction to such a measure without the existence of an adequate necessity. It had been admitted, and the admission furnished fresh argument in favour of inquiry, that the very same persons who represented to the unfortunate deluded individuals, that there 176 were fifty and seventy thousand men in different places ready to rise, that those very persons were examined before the committee, in order to prove the existence of that plot which they were instrumental in producing and encouraging. This fact had been acknowledged by the committee themselves. It was also of the highest importance, that the House should recollect the serious responsibility they had incurred, and for which they were accountable to their constituents. They should not deceive themselves with the notion, that the mere appointment of another committee by ballot, would satisfy the minds of the people.—It was impossible not to know, that the sole object which dictated the appointment of such a committee, was to furnish ground for passing a bill of indemnity for the protection of his majesty's ministers, and that the bill of indemnity so procured must arise out of the report of a committee appointed by ministers themselves. On looking to the practice of the House in other instances, they would sec the absurdity of the course which they were required to adopt in the present. How, for instance, would they act, if one of their members, unconnected with the government, was charged with any misconduct cognizable by the House? Would they not, after hearing his defence, require that he should withdraw, and then proceed to the decision as their judgments and consciences directed? But here it was otherwise, the ministers demanded permission to decide for themselves by appointing the committee to which their case was to be submitted. A committee by ballot could be considered in no other light. It might be said that the majority of the House would afterwards determine, but was it not the fact, that the small minority thus appointed would lead the majority of the House by pronouncing an opinion, after the inspection of the documents which the House had no means of investigating for itself? The hon. and learned gentleman on the other side (the solicitor-general) had stated, that the proceedings at Derby justified the government in the measures they had taken, but nothing appeared at those trials descriptive of the origin of the conspiracy, and the counsel for the crown, although challenged by the prisoners counsel to do so, studiously avoided to say one word about the origin of the conspiracy, or in disproof of the allegation of its having been caused 177 by the agents of government. The general impression was, that if ministers had gone into that part of the case, it would be found to have originated with the per- sons employed by them in the different districts. He did not mean to say that it was positively the case, but such was the impression on the public mind. His hon. and learned friend appeared to him, in the conduct of those trials, to have done his duty better towards his majesty's ministers than he had towards the public. If ministers were of opinion that the suspicions to which he alluded could have been cleared up, the opportunity for so doing was presented to them by the trials at Derby. That was the place and that the time for entering into the whole of the case, for explaining the extent and nature of the conspiracy, and justifying to the country the suspension of the Habeas Corpus act by proving the magnitude of the danger with which the country was threatened. By neglecting to do so the public had taken up a contrary opinion, and it was in vain to expect that the appointment of a committee by ballot would alter their present sentiments on the subject. What did his hon. and learned friend mean by saying that the proceedings at Derby justified the conduct of his majesty's ministers? If they took the words of the gentleman on the other side of the House, the conduct of ministers must have been justified by any course of events which it was possible for the ingenuity of man to contemplate. If tranquillity was restored, it was owing to the suspension of the Habeas Corpus act. If disturbance increased, the suspension of the Habeas Corpus act was necessary to put it down; and if the disturbance was only partial, it would have been much worse, but for the suspension of that act, whose operation seemed to be inconsistent with any supposed or possible condition of our internal affairs. But after all, the solicitor-general had not proved that the suspension was necessary; it was impossible that he could have proved it. The conspiracy was checked and extinguished by the ordinary tribunals; and if any argument were wanting to show that the laws were sufficient, even under all the aggravation infused by the government missionaries into the minds of the people, the fate of that conspiracy would afford it. It was too plain, indeed, that the guilt had been suggested and encouraged by men who, with the zeal of 178 religious missonaries, but with a very different design, went about propagating evil, insinuating themselves into the confidence of the poor and the distressed, visiting them at their looms and forges, and with hypocritical sympathy inflaming discontent to desperation. Ministers were seldom slow to convert disaffection to themselves into disaffection to the constitution, or to reward as for good services those who laboured to convert the one into the other for the purpose of afterwards betraying their victims. The transactions of last session were of such importance as called loudly for inquiry. He could not believe that the House would discharge its duty, or satisfy the expectations of the country, if it did not, by a minute inquiry and the fullest disclosure of all these transactions, make some atonement for the dangerous precedent which they had been induced the last session to establish. They were bound to do away, as far as they were capable of doing away, the mischief of such a precedent,—a precedent which was not only fraught with mischief, as it was employed to tear away individuals from their families, to plunge them in solitary confinement, to load them with irons and expose them to all the rigours of arbitrary imprisonment; but as it must operate upon the constitution itself in the present and in future times. Even the mass of individual suffering that was experienced under this act, was far outweighed by the incalculable disadvantages entailed upon the general system of our government. They were bound to see how far they could do away a part of the poison, which, if not mitigated in its effects, was fraught with the most alarming evils to posterity.—They should recollect, that it was a measure without example, and that it was the nature of every new precedent to go beyond the former. What would have been the case if ministers had a precedent in the case he was considering—if they could have stated that in former cases of insurrection the same measure was resorted to, would they not have required it as a matter of course? And were they not to apprehend the same consequence in future times which former precedents must have entailed upon the present? They might look forward to some future minister, anxious to increase the power of the Crown long after the grave had closed upon the present generation—they might suppose some future sovereign of the 179 house of Brunswick, but feeling in his breast the principles of a Stuart willing to avail himself of such a minister, preferring rather to imitate the despots of Europe, than to reign in the hearts of a free people. What a precedent had they furnished to facilitate such designs, by suspending the Habeas Corpus act at a period when there was no war, no pretender to the throne; in short, no other pretence for its adoption than those expressions of discontent which always broke forth in a free country when governed by a weak administration, with whom the feelings of the people did not sympathize. It had been truly said by an hon. baronet on a former occasion, that the Habeas Corpus act might as well have no existence, as be liable to such interruptions. For when was the act of use? Was it not in times when his majesty's government was complained of, in times of disaffection to ministers, which they were always willing to represent as disaffection to their master? Yet in such times, that act, which gave them, he might say, a privilege above all other nations, might in future be taken away by the precedent established in the reign of George 3rd, or rather in the regency of the Prince by whom he was represented. It would have the effect of making Englishmen hereafter a different class of men from what they had hitherto been, unless they who had laid the foundation of such a change, could adopt some measure by which it might happily be prevented. This was to be accomplished by other means than the partial and delusive inquiry which was now proposed. The only excuse upon which the appointment of committees by ballot could be defended was, the existence of such danger as rendered secrecy imperative. Could such a ground be now advanced, or was there, in fact, any other reason for resorting to it, than the necessity which was felt of obtaining a bill of indemnity?
§ Mr. Philips
observed, that one of the charges against the disaffected was, that they laboured to bring the House of Commons into contempt; but nothing could so effectually reduce them in the public opinion as the partial election of a tribunal which was constituted for such a purpose as that under consideration. With regard to the assertion, that the suspension act had secured the tranquillity of the country, he was persuaded that that tranquillity had never been disturbed, except 180 at the instigation of informers, whose dismissal from their employment would of itself have immediately restored it. It was understood, that the conspiracy had first been entered into in the county of Lancaster. He had no doubt that the plots and conspiracies in Lancashire might be traced to spies and informers. So far as his own inquiries extended, he found reason to rely firmly on that opinion. The county, he allowed, had been disturbed, but it had been disturbed chiefly by the measures taken by government, and the agents they employed for the purpose of tranquillizing it. He thought his majesty's ministers might have learned a lesson on the late occasion, from what happened in 1812, when dreadful confusion ensued from the employment of the same means that were last year resorted to. It now appeared that the plots which then alarmed the country were principally to be traced to the agency of the persons sent to detect them. The letters of Dr. Taylor, who was then residing at Bolton, and who now lived at Liverpool, proved satisfactorily, that the plots in question were to be attributed to spies. He allowed that great weight was due to the opinions of the magistracy of the country, and to the information they communicated; but he did not think that, in all cases, their opinion or their information was implicitly to be relied upon. The magistrates themselves were liable to considerable delusion from the principles by which they were actuated, and the rumours to which they listened; and therefore, honestly intending to perform their duty, could not always be depended upon in their reports of the state of their districts. If, for instance, a magistrate professing himself a member of an Orange Society, resided in districts abounding with Roman Catholics, his impressions of the conduct of the people in his neighbourhood ought to be received with some degree of suspicion, and his representations interpreted with latitude. The Lancashire plots in 1812 excited the greatest alarm; but to show that they were alarming, principally from the misrepresentations which were given of them, and the means taken to suppress them, it was only necessary to refer to the opinions of those who had made the most inquiry concerning them, who all concurred in considering them as grossly exaggerated. Great incredulity now prevailed with regard to their exist- 181 ence in the part of the country whose tranquillity they were said to have endangered. He had no doubt that the late plots would turn out equally to have been fabricated by the agents employed to detect and expose them. If conspirators, who were spoken of in the report of the committee as having entertained the design of overpowering the civil authorities and of burning Manchester, were really guilty of having formed such an atrocious project, and were arrested on proper evidence of their guilt, why were they not brought to trial? Should men engaged in such plots have been liberated and restored to society to hatch similar atrocities? Should they have been sent back to their places of abode, without any attempt to make them expiate their alleged crimes? Nay, by the course pursued with regard to them, they had now become more dangerous than ever; and if guilty, it was a more imperious duty on the government to bring them to justice. They now returned with the character, not of conspirators, but with the reputation of martyrs in the cause of liberty; and their dangerous influence (if there really had ever been any danger) was incalculably increased by their imprisonment. How were these contradictions to be reconciled? From the means employed by government to preserve tranquillity, and from the wicked agency of the persons they sent to the agitated districts, he was rather surprised that, where so much distress and discontent prevailed, real mischief did not ensue, than that there was so much disturbance. This, he was convinced, would appear, when a proper inquiry was instituted: not by a secret committee deciding on papers produced and assorted by those whom the inquiry would affect, but by a committee of a different description. As far as he could learn the state of the county of which he was speaking, the people were in the greatest distress "from scarcity of subsistence and want of employment; and in this crisis were taught to associate their sufferings with the measures of the legislature, and to expect relief from parliamentary reform. While between 8 and 900,000 people were in this situation, and looking out for any means of relief, spies and informers were sent among them to exasperate their discontents, and to encourage them in their delusions. Had a different course been adopted, had means been employed to enlighten their minds 182 on the causes of their distress, and to sooth their feelings by confidence and kind treatment, he was persuaded that the late measures would not have been necessary, and the public tranquillity would have been preserved, without the suspension of the great bulwark of our rights.
thought, that though the question now before the House, opened a door for the discussion of the whole subject, regarding the state of the country since last session, yet that, as no one had objected to referring the papers to the committee, it might be convenient to postpone so general a topic to another opportunity. However, as it had been asserted in the course of the debate that no one could retain the same opinion as to the conspiracy since the trials had taken place, he felt himself called upon to state his opinion now of the conduct he pursued in the last session, as far as the grounds of it had been affected by events that had since occurred; and he was free to declare, that his conviction of the necessity of the Suspension act remained unchanged; that it had been confirmed by every thing that passed in the country, and by all the evidence that was disclosed on the trials alluded to; that it had averted threatened danger, and that by it the country had been preserved from confusion. It had been said, that if the ministers had taken advantage of it, they might have prevented the disturbances that broke out in Derbyshire. He had understood an hon. and learned friend to say, that by apprehending the ringleaders of the insurrection in Derbyshire at an earlier period, under the suspension act, the mischief would not have followed; but however that might be, it was not a proper argument against a measure of prevention, that the evil did not occur which it was intended to prevent. If no disturbance had subsequently happened, the preservation of the public tranquillity might be owing to the very cause, the operation of which was attempted to be proved unnecessary, by the existence of that tranquillity which was its effect. It had been said on the trials at Derby, that the prisoners expected co-operation from the north, and from various quarters. He believed that their hopes were not without foundation. He believed, from evidence gained on other trials, and by other means, that bands from Manchester, Yorkshire, and other places, were pre- 183 pared to break out about the same time. In Yorkshire, an insurrection did take place; an armed mob fired upon the king's troops, and the greatest disturbances were threatened. If it be replied to this, that there was no conviction, he would say, that though, from the darkness of the night, and the difficulty of identifying the persons who had assembled to commit the acts of violence, a verdict could not be obtained against them, yet the fact of the insurrection was no less true and undoubted. It had been asked by an hon. and learned friend of his, why the evidence connecting the prisoners at Derby with other associations bad not been brought forward on the trial? and he thought this question was easily answered without affecting the truth of such a combination. Enough was brought out, enough was proved, to convict the unhappy men in question; and it would have been superfluous to have called more evidence. He even saw the propriety of not trying these men for the plot, when Sufficient facts could be established for their conviction of the act of treason itself. Supposing the prisoners had been taken up immediately after their meetings and arrangements, supposing that the only witnesses against them had been those admitted to a knowledge of their secrets and intended projects, and supposing the charge of treason alone to have been grounded on their machinations against the public tranquillity without any overt acts, there was such an odium in' the country at the time against accomplices who turned witnesses, that they would not have been believed. They would have been branded with the names of spies and informers, their evidence would have been heard with disgust, and their testimony entirely rejected. When the overt act and intention could be proved, there was no necessity for going into all their previous counsels. He therefore thought that the prosecution behaved properly in not calling such extraneous evidence, and that no suspicion could be thrown on the policy of the suspension act by withholding it. This measure was extremely useful in preserving the public tranquillity, till the circumstances of the country were altered, and till the people, by the attainment of a more prosperous state, were withdrawn from the influence of those who exasperated their discontents into disaffection. Upon the whole, he saw no cause to repent the vote he had given. With re- 184 spect to the appointment of a committee by ballot, or otherwise, he thought it a 'question of no importance, for there was no reason to doubt that exactly the same men would be chosen, whether they proceeded by ballot or by motion. The ballot was resorted to for the election of a committee, because it was thought that some members who would not choose to act ostensibly against the administration, would yet vote against them under this cover of secrecy. He did not know if this would be the case, but at least such was the ground of its adoption. He did not, therefore, see how it could be more favourable to ministers to elect a committee by ballot, in preference to one by motion, for there was no reason why the person who put a particular name into a glass should not vote for it also. If ministers had a majority in both cases, their committee would be appointed, and their favourable chance would not be increased by the former mode of nomination.
§ Sir W. Burroughs
did not at first intend to have addressed the House on the present occasion, but it appeared to him impossible to sit still while the Suspension act was under discussion, and not to attempt an answer to what had fallen from the hon. and learned member who spoke last. That hon. member thought that subsequent events had completely justified the measure. He (sir W. Burroughs) was of a different opinion, and he would state the grounds of that opinion. Looking at the reports on which the Suspension act was grounded, he found, in the first, that a conspiracy was alleged to have been formed in London to burn the barracks, to storm the Tower, to seize upon the Bank, to destroy the bridges, and in short, to overturn the government, and to subvert the order of society. But what were the facts that appeared on the trial of Watson and the other prisonerstried in Westminster-hall? and how did the evidence given on that occasion support the representations of the secret commit tee? The conspiracy was found to have been formed by two surgeons without employment, a man of broken fortune, two cobblers, and the bully of a brothel. It did not appear that any person of respectability or influence favoured their projects, or partook of their counsels, or that they had any connexion with other conspirators or agitators in the country. Then there followed a second report, which 185 omitted all mention of the conspiracy of the metropolis. The hand-bills, exciting to the murder of the Prince Regent and of the noble lord opposite, of which 5,000 copies were said to have been prepared, were no where to be found. The seat of the conspiracy was, therefore, transferred to the north, and the disturbances which afterwards gave occasion to the trials at Derby were brought forward. But it appeared that this formidable insurrection was dispersed by the ordinary efforts of the magistrates; that the ringleaders were arrested, imprisoned, and brought to trial. The rising took place in June, the trials took place at Derby in October, and nothing happened in the interval to excite any alarm, or to call for the exercise of extraordinary powers. It was said by the hon. and learned gentleman, that the evidence of previous plots and meetings was not necessary on these trials, but he begged leave to differ from him. The judges, in addressing the juries on that occasion, laid down the law, and very properly, in his opinion, that a rising for a general and public object constituted the crime for which the prisoners were indicted; and that the only questions on which they were called to decide, related to the overt act of the insurrection, and the general purpose. Now, to have established by evidence the connexion of the prisoners with other conspirators in different parts of the country, frequent meetings and common objects, would have at once decided the nature of their design, which was the only thing on which there could remain a doubt, and the non-existence of which was the only circumstance on which their counsel rested their defence. If it had been shown that they were acting in concert with persons at Manchester, at London, at Nottingham, or in Yorkshire, for overturning the government, the fact of their having committed high treason could not have been doubted for an instant. Why, then, was not such evidence brought forward? It was not difficult to discover the reason. Had the prosecution gone into testimony for this purpose, it would have appeared, that the insurrection had been arranged and encouraged by the agents of government. One of the unhappy men convicted on this occasion, nearly at his dying moment, when he might have been supposed to be inclined to speak the truth, and when he was as-sored that a falsehood could have no in- 186 fluence on his fate, imputed to the instigation of Oliver the crime for which he was about to suffer. But, said the solicitor-general on a former night, why did not the learned counsel for the defence of the prisoners bring forward and examine this person, if his evidence was so important? The reason of this is obvious. He could not have been examined as to their consenting to commit treason, without proving the treason for which they were arraigned. He must have been the most dangerous witness they could have called; and if they had produced him, they must have produced the means of their own conviction. The admission that they had consulted with him to overturn the government, would have amounted to a confession of their crime, and deprived them of all the means of defence. In the second report of the committee of secrecy, they shifted the scene from London to Manchester, where the conspirators were to burn the town, and massacre the inhabitants. If such were the designs of the men apprehended under the Suspension act, how could ministers account to their country for having liberated them without a trial? On what plea could they be discharged, at first with the idle farce of taking their recognizances, and afterwards from their recognizances? If this was not a confession that the ministers had nothing to produce against the alleged traitors at Manchester, and that the evidence on which the report of the committee in which they were arraigned was unfounded, they incurred a heavy responsibility for sending back such dangerous characters into society. Their conduct was inexplicable on the supposition that the report was true, and the Suspension act could not be justified on the ground that it was not. No events happened since to justify such a measure. If he might advert to one melancholy event which had united the nation in one common expression of sorrow, he might draw from it an irresistible inference, that the minds of the people were sound, and that their attachment to the House of Brunswick remained unshaken. Never in any country was there more sincere or more general sympathy, and never did any nation more unequivocally testify their affection for the family of their sovereign. With respect to the immediate question before the House, he could not agree that the election of a committee by ballot was so favourable to free inquiry as 187 one by motion. Suppose a committee I were to be elected by motion, the noble lord and the right hon. gentleman, as it was to decide on their own conduct, might feel a little delicacy in nominating themselves: whereas a ballot totally destroys this feeling; and though the list was made by themselves, they might still be on it without offending any sense of propriety. That the proposed committee was intended to bring in a posthumous justification of the Suspension act, there could be no doubt. Could any other object be conceived in the inquiry but an indemnity bill? The suspension act was abrogated; it would not be their intention to renew it. Did they mean to recommend the continuance of the seditious meeting bill? Was this to hang over the head of the people during the ensuing general election? An indemnity bill would certainly be the first measure. If then indemnity was the object, he begged to say, that the Suspension act gave to the servants of the crown no new powers for the apprehension of the subject. It merely gave the power of postponing his release. But the noble lord had allowed that some violation of the law might have taken place. To what did that admission amount? It amounted to this, that ministers, by their own acknowledgement even, exceeded the extended limits of the very extraordinary powers which they themselves felt sufficient for the public danger at the time—a danger, it would be recollected, that was; now proved to be idle to most, and doubtful to all. But the House would not for-get that it had an obligation to discharge to the sufferers under these extraordinary powers. Had the imprisoned no claims? In what way had they to satisfy their own feelings, to reinstate themselves in the good opinion of their connexions and country, to redeem themselves with society, but by bringing their whole conduct into public discussion, by an action at law against the persons under whose warrant they were apprehended? If there has been an abuse of power, were the sufferers to be deprived of a remedy on a report of a committee, recommended by the very persons accused, and to be taken on the ex-parte statements which those very accused might think proper to adduce? If that be the course to be pursued, he must pronounce it one of the most violent expedients ever submitted to an impartial and enlightened assembly. At all events, he 188 trusted that the House would challenge the name of every minister that might appear on the returned list.
Sir John Sebright
said, that after reading the reports of the secret committees of the last session, he at that time felt that the state of the country, as described in those reports, required, in his judgment, the passing of the suspension act. Under that impression he had given the measure his support, being ever determined to strengthen the activity of the executive government, for the purpose of putting down all conspiracies against the peace and tranquillity of the state. But he had that night a duty to himself, to his constituents, and his country, to discharge, in declaring that he was grossly mistaken in the view he had taken of the public danger at the period, and in the necessity for arming ministers with these extraordinary powers. The gentlemen on that side were much mistaken if they believed that he rose for the purpose of abusing the ministers of the Crown. No! He believed that they had no intention to deceive the country, but his conviction was that they were themselves deceived. Every occurrence that had subsequently-transpired had convinced him that there existed no one circumstance to justify the suspension, even for a moment, of that great bulwark of British liberty, the Habeas Corpus act. Evil designing men might have been active in taking advantage of the public distress, but the ordinary laws were fully sufficient to counteract and defeat their efforts. In declaring that opinion he took no credit for himself: it was an imperative duty to the country, to assert that, in his opinion, the coercive measure was not justified by necessity.
contended, that no one could believe otherwise than that Brandreth had had a gross falsehood imposed on him respecting Oliver, at the time of his examination. That we had been in danger he had no doubt; but thank God, we had subdued it. He could state, from his own experience as a magistrate, that there had been emissaries going about the country, to excite the people to outrages. But he thought that if parliament had not acted as they had done, they would have been guilty of a dereliction of their duty, and if ministers could not make out a good case of justification as to the exercise of the discretionary powers intrusted to them, he would pledge him- 189 self to vote against them. He protested against that sort of blasphemous and seditious trash with which we were inundated, and the object of which was to de-moralize the country.
considered the country as much improved since last year, in its commercial, agricultural, and manufacturing interests, but he could not altogether give the ministers credit for its amelioration. The hints, the strong hints, which they had received from parliament, induced them to take the measures of economy and retrenchment which had been so successful. It was the great boast of the country, and the best answer to bold reformers, that such recommendations were sure to have an operative influence on the executive government. So long as ministers attended to the voice of parliament, he would always give them his support. He wished to be considered as an independent man, and when he gave his support to ministers, he gave it on general grounds. He had never desired a place from ministers. He came into parliament perfectly unbiassed, and he should always consider an independent voice in such an assembly as a greater glory than any situation that could be conferred upon him. He had no wish to stand well with ministers. He wished to stand well with the respectable part of mankind in general, for be was not indifferent to the vox populi. He thought every man should be considered as independent, however he might change his opinion, who did not go from one side of the House to the other for his own benefit. He had now had a seat in that assembly for 11 years, and he could safely say, that he had never got any thing for his vote. He had been accused of inconsistency, for having voted against the ministers in the last session; and he had been told that his opposition was imputed to a refusal on the part of ministers of a situation for a diplomatic friend of his. He disclaimed such a motive. He had got a seat in that assembly on independent principles: he had received an independent fortune from his father, and he would never disgrace either by sacrificing his independence.
said, be did not think that the measures which his majesty's ministers had adopted had been by any means uncalled for or unnecessary, though he considered that some different use might have been made of them. If they had been employed in stopping the proceedings of 190 many of those persons who had been in the habit of attending public meetings, and of making inflammatory speeches to the public, it might have been better. He would rather have seen some of those men apprehended, than some who had been only excited to do what they did, by their speeches. Had such been the case, he was convinced it would have met with the approbation of a very large portion of the population.
The question was then put and agreed to, as were the questions that the committee should be a committee of secrecy, and should consist of 21 members. On the question, "That the committee be chosen by way of balloting,"
§ Mr. Brougham
said, that, passing over the merits of the discussion as to the appointment of the committee at all, and referring merely to the question of form, he wished to ask the noble lord, how it was possible by the usual mode of ballot, to get out of the difficulty that must arise, should the noble lord, as secretary of state, be returned on the list given by the scrutineers after the ballot? Looking, he would say, to the substantial object of impartiality with a view to ultimate indemnity, the noble lord himself must admit, that he ought not to be on that list. As it would be for the committee, probably, to report whether certain individuals should be debarred from bringing their actions at law against persons returned on that list, some of whom had been already perhaps made a party on the record, be was anxious to know, before the question of ballot was put, whether in case of that question being carried, any subsequent mode presented itself of arguing the question as to the individual propriety? According to the mode adopt ed last session, he believed there existed no mode, after the return of the scrutineers, of taking the sense of the House on a separate name.
said, that the noble lord's name would not appear on the returned list, unless it was the sense of the majority of the House that it ought to be there. What, then, was there extraordinary in the case, but that the minority could not turn round on the decision of the majority of the House. It was the usual custom of parliament to elect such committees by ballot; and if there was any one mode by which the individual dissent of members on an individual name could be more distinctly obtained, it was 191 by the mode now proposed. Within his recollection, it was the custom to circulate two lists in the House, one called the Treasury, and the other the opposition list; and the result always proved the wonderful correspondence between the actual return and the individual assent of the House. He did not see any grounds for a departure in the present instance from the ordinary usage of the House, merely for the purpose of affording the opportunity of an individual discussion.
§ Mr. Brougham,
in explanation, said, he did not name the noble lord invidiously; he merely mentioned him as the only secretary of state in that House. Were lord Sidmouth a member of that House, he would more directly have adverted to him; or had his right hon. relative, connected with the home department, been present, he should have instanced him instead of the noble lord: but the right hon. gentleman must see that, he had not at all met the objection; for, though the noble lord should be returned on the list, such return could only give him a relative majority.
§ Mr. Tierney
wished to know whether any answer would be given to his learned friend's question, for none had yet been given; namely, whether, after the scrutineers made their return from the glasses, there was any mode of submitting a motion on individual names to the sense of the House?
§ The question was loudly called for, and the House divided: Ayes, 102; Noes, 29.
|List of the Minority.|
|Babington, T.||Macdonald, Jas.|
|Burroughs, sir W.||Methuen, P.|
|Brougham, H.||Nugent, lord.|
|Burdett, sir F.||Ossulston, lord.|
|Barnett, James||Ord, W.|
|Brand, hon. T.||Piggott. sir A.|
|Browne, Dom.||Philips, George|
|Calcraft, J.||Romilly, sir S.|
|Campbell, hon. J.||Scudamore, R. P.|
|Douglas, hon. F.||Simmons, T. P.|
|Folkestone, vis.||Sebright, sir J.|
|Fellowes, hon. N.||Tierney, right hon. G.|
|Fazakerly, J. N.||Waldegrave, hon. W.|
|Fergusson, sir R. C.||Wood, alderman.|
|Heron, sir R.||Abercromby, J.|
|Latouche, col.||Gordon, R.|