HC Deb 17 October 1820 vol 3 cc756-83
Mr. Hume

said, he rose to call the attention of the House to a question of considerable importance, a question involving consequences more extensive than those who had not traced the progress of the mischief, as he had done, could easily believe, and calculated to bring before their view a series of proceedings, the manifest object and tendency of which was, to disturb the peace of the country. The motion with which he should conclude was, that sir Robert Baker, the chief magistrate of Bow-street office, should be called to the bar of that House to answer for his conduct, in permitting the escape of an individual charged with circulating a seditious hand-bill. He would prove, that the practice had been carried to a great extent, and that the mischievous consequences had spread further and been felt more severely, both in England and Scotland, than would on the first statement appear credible. The conspiracy, for a conspiracy he would call it, he would prove it to be such hereafter in the committee, as he had no doubt that the House would see the necessity of appointing one to investigate such a case.—The conspiracy was of the nature he had already described, but much more mischievous than at present they could have any conception of. It begun, as far as his present information went, with the year 1818; though in a short time he expected to trace it much higher; but even now he could state, that from 1818, down to the present moment, a regular manufactory of treasonable placards had been conducted by a man who went at different times by the names of Fletcher, Forbes, and Franklin. He had followed him to the different houses where he went by those names, until at length he was arrested in the name of William Franklin. When he considered the important consequences that had followed from the publication of those treasonable productions—when he recollected the stress which the noble lord (Castlereagh) had laid on them while bringing forward his bills to abridge the liberties of the country—when he recollected that up to the last meeting of the House but one, the same noble lord had complained of such publications as proceeding from those who had advocated the cause of the Queen—when he recollected how many lives had been sacrificed to the system of which he was now speaking, he could not but feel that it was on every account entitled to the solemn consideration of parliament. The House was already aware that on the '1st of April, 1820, a treasonable placard had appeared at Glasgow and Paisley. He had it in his hand; it was not so violent as many of the others; but what were the consequences of that? [Here the honourable gentleman read part of the placard]. As soon as this placard had made its appearance, the magistrates offered a reward of 300l.for the author, and his majesty's government having received the information, offered a reward of 500l. on the 8th of April, with a promise of pardon to all but the individual who wrote it. Nor did the proceedings rest there. On the 8th of April, the heads of twenty families were arrested at Glasgow and Paisley, and put into confinement; and he had a letter in his hand from one of those individuals, a very respectable person, which stated that he was conveyed to prison by a military guard, and that when he was brought to be examined before Mr. Hope, the charge against him was, for having issued a reasonable placard. All his papers had been seized in the mean time. Yet the only ground upon which the accusation could be supported was, that they had found out that he was a friend of rational reform, and disapproved of the introduction of the military, except in subordination to the civil power, and in cases of extreme necessity. Thus, in one night, the heads of twenty families were seized; an evil of no small magnitude itself to the unfortunate individuals, but still worse, and more calamitous than that, those riots were produced which ended in special commissions, and as every body knew, in public executions. It was, therefore, of more importance that the proceedings to which he alluded should be traced to their source. The common answer given by persons of authority, when applied to for the purpose of detecting any conspiracy of this kind, was, that it was extremely difficult to trace these things. But, what would these persons think when they heard that the individual connected with them had been traced by Mr. Charles Pearson in a manner which did him much credit? On the appearance of the placard issued in the name of the Queen's Plate-committee, Mr. Pearson had naturally felt much concerned, because he was connected with that committee; and accordingly he used every means which ingenuity could suggest to detect the author. He might here remark, that this committee had been occasioned by the conduct of his majesty's ministers, and the detection of this conspiracy seemed a judgment upon them for their treatment of the Queen. He said so, because he was convinced that this conspiracy was carried on and supported by his majesty's ministers [Cries of "hear, hear!]; and he should not have laid the matter before the House if that had not been his belief. He had not come to make the present statement on his own simple judgment; he had affidavits of all the facts he was going to state; so that, if his statements were in any respect erroneous, the fault was not his. He had not been satisfied with the declarations of one, two, three, or five individuals, but he had himself traced the hand-bill to the person who received the commission from Franklin; he had examined the compositor who set up the bill, and was furnished with his depositions on that subject. He had also seen the billsticker, who had been employed to stick them up by night; and, in short he had taken every precaution to arrive at the truth. The first affidavit he should read was that of the printer, who had produced eighteen other hand-bills printed by him, all of the most inflammatory nature. This person stated who it was that employed him, and who it was that paid him—and that was William Franklin, whom a magistrate of Bow-street had allowed to escape. To those who were magistrates he would state the following fact, and leave them to judge of it for themselves:—Franklin was arrested on the warrant of one magistrate, and, after having been brought to the office, was discharged by another, without even seeing that one who issued the warrant. He was discharged, too, on Sunday—a thing which, he understood, was not usual, vickery, the officer, who was not in town at present, had told him (Mr. Hume), that Franklin was discharged from his custody on Sunday, by sir Robert Baker, without having seen him. He was taken in bed at 5 o'clock on Sunday morning, and at 7 o'clock he was brought before Mr. Birnie. Mr. Pearson, who was unable to attend, thought it proper to write a letter to the magistrate, stating that the charges were of such a nature, that he should be cautious in taking bail for his appearance, and that, if bail were admitted, it should not be less than two securities of 500l. each. Although the charge on which the warrant was granted, referred only to one hand-bill, there were fifteen others ready to be produced against him. The consequence was, that Mr. Birnie, seeing the importance of the charge against the prisoner, refused to accept bail. Franklin then said, he wished to be taken before sir Robert Baker, for he was sure sir Robert would admit him to bail. He (Mr. Hume) was not prepared to state that the letter of Mr. Pearson to Mr. Birnie was shown to sir Robert Baker; but the fact was, that the latter allowed Franklin to escape. Now, his objection to the conduct of sir R. Baker was, that he acted improperly as a magistrate; and he had, in fact, stated a deliberate falsehood in his (Mr. Hume's) hearing—namely, that he had taken security for this person's appearance. What connected this with the Home-office was, that when it was said the man would not be forthcoming, sir R. Baker had declared that he was sure he would, and that he had taken proper security. But Franklin's daughter having told Williams, next day, that her father was a hundred miles from London, Mr. Pearson went to the Home-office on the subject, and found that Mr. Clive, the under-secretary, was already acquainted with all the facts. The object of his motion for bringing sir R. Baker to the bar of the House was, to know when he made the communication of these facts to government, and what was his reason for letting Franklin escape. Considering all the facts of the case, he thought he was warranted in saying, that this conspiracy was connected with the Home-office. Mr. Pearson, on applying at the government-office for assistance in the apprehension of Franklin, presented some of the hand-bills to Mr. Clive, that he might judge of their character; and that gentleman had said to him—"Oh, we know all the circumstances already, and if you will call to-morrow, we shall give you an answer." Mr. Pearson then stated that he knew Franklin had proceeded in the course of the night 100 miles from London, and represented that his object was to prevent the man from escaping. Mr. Pearson, and those who accompanied him, left some of the bills at the office; and, when they came back, the answer given them was, that my lord Sid-mouth did not think the subject worth an investigation by government. It was not his intention to go through all the placards of which he was in possession; but he should select a few, for the purpose of showing the manner in which government had proceeded. In 1796, while the duke of Portland was secretary for the Home-department, an inflammatory hand-bill was issued, which did not amount to half the mischief which those that he complained of were fraught with. The paper was found on the door of the town-hall of Denbigh, on the 3rd of February, and on the 13th of the same month, government issued a proclamation offering a reward of 100 guineas for the principal offender, accompanied with a pardon to all the other persons concerned, who might give information at the office of the secretary of state. In a later instance, when a treasonable paper, entitled, "An Address to the people of England, Scotland, and Ireland," and purporting to be issued by a committee of organization, for forming a provisional government, was affixed to the walls in Glasgow and other places, on the 1st of April, 1820, a proclamation was issued on the 11th, offering a reward of 300l. for the author or printer, and a pardon to the inferior agents, as in the former instance. The gentleman who waited on Mr. Clive had requested that govern- ment should offer a reward in the present case, as an inducement to the officers to be on the alert. Every one knew the effect of such proclamations in stimulating the vigilance of those persons, but lord Sidmouth was of opinion that government ought not to interfere with that public-spirited magistrate sir Robert Baker—who had done nothing [hear, hear!]. But government, it seemed, was determined to do less. If such was to be the conduct of government in all such cases, in what a situation must the country be placed? When he called to his recollection the use that had been made of the placards, and the fact of the individual being without means of his own, for he would prove that he had no visible means of support, he trusted the House would accede to the appointment of a committee. He would farther prove, that he had dined with a minister of the Crown, at least that he had left the house to do so. He would show that he had been traced with one of the placards from Howland-street to Charing-cross, from Charing-cross to St. James's, and from St. James's to the large house in Downing-street, where the sentry walks; that he entered that house, and, after some delay, came out and proceeded to the house of Mr. Denis O'Bryen, in Craven-street, who now denied any acquaintance with Franklin, though, perhaps, he would be convinced before long that he knew him as Fletcher. With these collateral, or as he would call them conclusive, grounds upon his mind, he felt every confidence in proceeding with his case. He had selected three placards from the mass before him. In the first place, he would lay before them the affidavit of the printer: Arthur Scale, of No. 160, Tottenham-court-road, in the county of Middlesex, printer, on his oath saith, that in the latter end of June, or the beginning of July, 1818,a man of gentlemanly appearance, who was then a stranger, called at my office, and asked me if I would print some bills, saying, if I would undertake to do them, it would be very beneficial, as there would be a great deal to do in the same way, and he then produced the manuscript of a bill; I read the bill, and perceiving that it was of an inflammatory nature, I hesitated doing them, whereupon he said he would allow me a little time to make up my mind, and accordingly he went away, and returned in about two hours, when I still scrupled, and he said, I need not fear, for that I should be protected in all I did. I then asked his name and address; he answered, that was of no consequence, for I might rely, not only on being protected, but amply rewarded. I then printed five hundred, and he came and fetched them away at night. On the 12th of July he again came and brought me the manuscript of a bill relating to the chairing of sir Francis Burden, in the body of which are these words—'Have we not in our glorious Burdett a leader fit to disturb the peace of all the world, and rule it when its won:' and also, 'Strike not at all, or strike home; think of our present insupportable servitude, and always remember that the alternative is liberty or a glorious grave.' And I further on oath depose, that a few days previous to the trial of sir Francis Burdett at Leicester, the same gentleman brought me a manuscript letter, headed, 'Private,' apparently intended to be sent to jurors, and desired me to print 48, which I did, and gave them to him. In the course of conversation I understood from him that they were to be sent to the jury who were to try sir Francis Burdett; and I afterwards saw by the newspaper reports that they were used for that purpose. I further depose, that on the 20th of July, 1819, the same person brought me the manuscript of another inflammatory bill, drawing the attention of the public to the Smithfield meeting, which was to be held next day, and headed, 'To the Non-represented,' and I printed, under his direction, near 500 of this last bill, and gave them to him. And I further depose, that I have printed for the same person many other inflammatory and seditious bills, and among others four separate editions of hand-bills respecting the Queen's plate, and headed, 'Evil be to him that evil thinks.' And I further depose, that on many occasions when I expressed my reluctance to print such dangerous papers, and my fear of prosecution, he told me I had nothing to apprehend, for I should be perfectly safe if any discovery took place, and he gave me to understand, that he was officially employed by the executive. But having some doubt of his assertion, I determined to watch him, and also employ others to do the same. And on one occasion, when he left my office I saw him get into a hackney-coach, which I followed to Charing-cross, where he got out, and he afterwards entered two other coaches, and went by a very circuitous rout to Downing-street, and I watched him into a large house next to the sentry box. I waited until he came out again, which was nearly two hours, and I then traced him to the house of Mr. Denis O'Bryen, in Craven-street, Strand. And I further depose, that I have discovered the said person who so employed me to be Mr. W m. Fletcher, otherwise Franklin. "ARTHUR SEALE. The next document to which he would call their attention was the following, addressed to the Non-represented, dated, the 21st of July, 1819—To the Non-Represented.—May that day of trial, which our intrepid leader, in his answer to our requisition, said could not be far distant, be this day.—Universal suffrage, annual elections, and voting by ballot, if possible without breach of peace; but, at all hazards, those objects.—No riot, no bloodshed by choice; but blood-thirsty despots must grant our rights. If that over-grown pauper; if the puppet of C——, of L——, and S——, whose villainous impudence at his late prorogation of the houses of corruption could mock the miseries of the Non-represented by jargoning about our 'happy constitution!'—if he can be put down without breach of peace, let peace be preserved.—If that compound of villainy and fraud, the B of Ed—if those who deserve the punishment they indict upon their fellow counterfeits and merit halters more than the forgers they hang, can be annihilated without breach of the peace, let all be peaceful. Peace is our wish; but let us never forget that resistance to oppression is the constitutional privilege of every Briton. In London, Westminster, and South-wark, there may be perhaps about twenty thousand voters; shall a million of stout non-franchised hearts, reduced to the abject condition of slaves, lick the feet of such a comparative handful of rascals, who trample upon us, as they are lorded over by superior scoundrels? Shall ten-times tenfold the whole body of electors in infamous Westminster crouch to those, who, in a fifteen days' poll, insulted the venerable Cartwright with 38 voices? None but the Borough thieves of both the factions can maintain that any practical liberty remains to once free England. If the work can be done without fasting, praying, or peace-breaking, good; but if the unspeakable grievances of non-representation cannot be redressed without vengeance, 'tis better to break our chains upon the heads of our common tyrants, than longer to endure our servitude. And oh! if the day of trial is come, recollect that the corrupt knaves of the daily London press, with their hellish types, have been our greatest oppressors.—July 21, 1819. He had a paper in his possession which be considered of great importance to the investigation of the case. It was the only one that had been preserved in the handwriting of Franklin. Having found that he was prosecuted for crim. con. by admiral Goodall, he (Mr. Hume) had succeeded in procuring one of his letters to the lady, and on a comparison of the hand-writing with that of the placard, by-two persons of skill and ingenuity in such matters, the hand-writing in both was pronounced to be the same. Another address was dated the 7th of Sept. 1818, and was of a nature peculiarly malignant. The object of such publications generally, was to excite the lower and middling classes against the higher; but this was an appeal to the lower classes only against the middling and the higher: Let us, in this mighty crisis, bear in mind, that the great are not our only foes. Those middle ranks who make us hew and draw; and dole their pittance to us according to their humour—these are our most grinding enemies. What is the constituent body but the tyrants of the non-represented? What are the ten thousand wretches who, in Westminster, voted against Mr. Hunt, but oppressors of their non-franchised fellow-citizens—content to crawl before the higher orders, that we may continue slaves to both. Alike then, and equal, be their common destiny. The brave, though starving outstanders of Manchester should be avenged in London. Shall non-represented Britons in such a cause, be scared by the fear of gibbets or bayonets? Be' our remonstrance to the Crown decorous, but let us, in one heroic day, convince mankind that the grievances of non-representation are now become insupportable. ONE OF THE NON-REPRESENTED.—September 7, 1818. Here, then, was a series of inflammatory placards, extending from 1818 till 1820. There was, indeed, a small chasm of the Glasgow address, and one or two placards since, which they had not been able yet to trace to their origin. Having stated these facts, and also the conduct of government, and of the magistrate who had a situation in the Home-office, he could not separate from the conduct he had stated, a direct charge of conniving at Franklin's escape. He understood that, when it was reported that Franklin had been at Dover under the name of Harrison, and Mr. Pearson had applied at the Foreign-office for a passport, it was granted with great willingness. This was so far well. Until this individual should be forthcoming, it was impossible that the case could be made as strong as it ought to be; but he was prepared to make out a strong case before a committee, where only the actors and acts in such a proceeding could be fully disclosed. It was found that technical impediments were presented elsewhere to an inquiry sufficiently extensive to be satisfactory. This was an inquiry of the utmost moment; it was a case of state-necessity; it was the peace of the country that was at issue. What was the object of government but the protection of the many against the lawless acts of a few? And if they allowed this conspiracy to pass unascertained and unpunish- ed, was not the object of government perverted? His own opinion was, but he spoke only for himself,—his own opinion was, when he contrasted this proceeding with the escape of Edwards, who had not been equally guilty with this individual by means of whom twenty families in Glasgow were dragged from their houses, and committed to dungeons;—when he contrasted the conduct of government on this occasion with their conduct towards Castles, well-known to an honourable and learned gentleman opposite (the solicitor-general), and justly described as the well-clothed Castles—and when he found lord Sidmouth describing Oliver as "a much-injured individual;"—when he contrasted the present case with the escape of Edwards, the good treatment of Castles, and the commiseration of Oliver, he was of opinion, that there was just ground for parliamentary interference. No court of law could entertain the question in the shape which the rights of the country required; no court of law could award the justice which the manes of those sacrificed to the arts and practices of such traitors demanded. In taking this course, he thought that, in the first instance, the House ought to have sir Robert Baker brought before them, in order to explain his conduct. If he were one of his majesty's ministers, or one of their advisers, he would court this opportunity of explaining and justifying their conduct. If they refused to avail themselves of it for that purpose, the conclusion against them would be much stronger. The refusal to probe this case to the very bottom would be considered as proof, that countenance was somewhere given to the nefarious transactions in question. Although a Bow-street magistrate could not understand treason against the people, they in that House were bound to inquire into this case for the people of England. That House would not do its duty if they did not call the individual implicated in discharging the offender before them, and probe the whole business to the bottom. If any hon. member could suggest a better mode of proceeding, he was not so pertinaciously attached to his own motion as to refuse to alter it; but he should now conclude with moving, "That Sir Robert Baker, of the Public Office, Bow Street, be ordered to attend this House, to be examined respecting the liberation of William Franklin, alias Forbes, alias

Fletcher, arrested on the 8th of October, on a charge of writing and issuing Seditious and Inflammatory Placards, Letters, and Hand-bills, without bail."

Lord Castlereagh

declared, that he was quite astonished at the motion with which the hon. member concluded, as it was so very incommensurate with the opening of his speech. But that motion itself was of a surprising character. For he believed it was the first time that an application was made to that House, in the first instance, to take cognizance of the irregularity of any magistrate, the usual way being to make such application to the Court of King's-Bench. But as to the opening of the hon. member's speech, he distinctly charged the existence of a conspiracy for the purpose of fabricating and circulating seditious and treasonable publications, of which he alleged that his majesty's ministers formed a part. What! that ministers should become a party to a confederacy for exciting discontent, for promoting sedition, for contriving the means of endangering the security of the government, and of the constitution of the country, merely with a view to defeat an endeavour to procure a service of plate for the Queen? The hon. member had often drawn upon the credulity of the country, but he himself could hardly calculate upon the acceptance of such a draft at sight as his statement of this evening presented. There was not surely such a lack of libels in the country as to render the assistance of government necessary to the manufacture of such articles. Mr. Carlile, Mr. Hone, and Mr. Wooler, were found, he believed, to produce quite enough of sedition, or of inflammatory and treasonable placards, to satisfy the amateurs of that species of composition, and to forward their object, without any aid from his majesty's government, which it was their object to overthrow. But, if ministers were parties to the conspiracy, which the hon. member alleged to exist, how clumsily must they have proceeded, according to his description. They, indeed, if the hon. member's information were correct, had selected an agent for the advancement of their end, who must necessarily have been brought into public view; for, as that hon. gentleman had stated, Franklin, who had absconded, was the confidential friend of ministers, with whom he dined on one day, while on the other he was found in a carriage with a multitude of seditious placards, accompa- nied by a person almost without clothes, and who was employed to distribute these placards in such an ostentatious manner, that detection could not be avoided. So that the person thus employed was taken into the very midst of danger, from which no one could hope to protect himself, to distribute seditious hand-bills; and this was done, or directed by a man whom the hon. gentleman described as the confidential agent and convivial companion of ministers of state. Amidst the indefatigable efforts 'of the hon member to collect accusations against his majesty's ministers, the present was really the most extraordinary. It was surprising, indeed, that the hon. member should have attempted to bring such an affair before that House. He assured the hon. member, that he fully concurred with him in thinking, that if any one connected with government could take any part in such a conspiracy as he charged to exist, either as a principal or as an agent, such person would deserve the utmost detestation. Any person, indeed, ought to be consigned to universal execration and contempt who could countenance, promote, or belong to such a scandalous confederacy; for the publications which the hon. member had quoted were of the most infamous description. They bore, indeed, upon the face of them such flagrant guilt, that he thought them not unlikely to have proceeded from some radical committee, so peculiarly calculated were they to favour the views of such a committee, and so congenial were they with that abominable system which had brought this country to the verge of a national convulsion. Ministers then, if they had promoted such publications, must have determined to second the views of the radicals; for such publications were those which the radicals must naturally desire to circulate. But could any one of common sense or common justice suppose ministers guilty of lending their aid to such an infernal purpose? If a conspiracy existed as the hon. member charged (for the charge of conspiracy was the fashionable cant of the day) would any man, whose mind was informed or regulated by the principles of justice and the laws of the land, determine that instead of carrying the charge before the ordinary and regular tribunal, an inquiry should be instituted in that House, upon so grave a question, in the way proposed by the hon. member? But upon what ground was the hon. member's application made to that House? Why, upon the affidavits of persons who deposed that they were acquainted with the existence and progress of the alleged conspiracy since the month of April.

Mr. Hume

said, No, from September last.

Lord Castlereagh

maintained, that affidavits were produced by the hon. member from persons who stated that they had a knowledge of the proceedings of this alleged conspiracy since 1818, when the placard referring to sir Francis Burdett was promulgated during the Westminster election. Did the hon. gentleman then really mean, that persons who were so long in possession of the character and conduct of this plot, without making, until very lately, any disclosure upon the subject, were, entitled to the credit which he appeared to assume? The hon. member came forward with extra-judicial affidavits, which, if even full of falsehood, could not subject the deponents to any punishment; and yet, upon the faith which he claimed for such affidavits, he came down to that House to propose the institution of a parliamentary inquiry. If upon such grounds any proceeding was founded, it was scarcely possible to imagine into what awkward situations the House might be occasionally led. It must, indeed, suggest itself to any one acquainted with the laws of the country, that that House was not the proper place for such an inquiry as the hon. member desired to institute. Having said so much as to the folly and absurdity of the course which the hon. member proposed, with regard to a case already in a course of legal proceeding—

Mr. Hume

asked, where?

Lord Castlereagh

replied, that a warrant had been granted for the apprehension of Franklin, and, if justice should not appear to be duly administered, it would then be time enough to call upon that House to interfere. But, with respect to the case of Franklin, he would now state to the House an outline of what he understood to be the particulars of that case, and what remained, other gentlemen, from whom he obtained his information, would be ready to supply. It was only this day that he had been at all aware of the intention to bring the case before the House; and feeling it his duty to make every inquiry which the time afforded, he obtained all the information in his power upon the subject. But first he would assure the hon. member, that until that night he knew nothing whatever of Franklin, or Fletcher, or Forbes, except through the newspapers, and that he could make the same assurance on the part of all his colleagues. After saying this, he thought it not necessary to deny the convivial part of the hon. member's charge. With respect to the other parts of the charge, he could state, upon the authority of the Home-department, what had occurred upon the subject. A warrant was granted, for the apprehension of Franklin, by Mr. Minshull, the police magistrate, upon an affidavit from Mr. Pearson, which affidavit certainly contained rather loose charges against the accused. Franklin was, however, arrested, and upon his arrest was carried before Mr. Birnie, to whom application was made for his release. But the ground of the application being deemed unsatisfactory by Mr. Birnie, with whom he (lord Castlereagh) had had no opportunity of conversing upon the subject, the application was refused.—Franklin was then taken to the house of sir Robert Baker, in Berner's-street. The hon. member in his eager zeal to fix an imputation upon his majesty's ministers, had thought proper to insinuate, that the arrest of Franklin was known at the Home-department before sir Robert Baker dealt with the case, and the object of that insinuation could not be misunderstood. He (lord C.) had not the honour to know sir Robert Baker, except by sight, but he was assured by the Home-department that sir Robert was a most honourable man, and that in any capacity he was not the sort of character likely to submit to the dictation of any man. Such was the magistrate who thought proper to release Franklin, upon His solemn assurance that he would appear again next day, that assurance being seconded by a very respectable tradesman, who was known as such to sir Robert. But as to the hon. member's statement respecting the time at which the arrest of Franklin was known to the Home-department, he could assure the hon. gentleman, that this department had received no information upon the subject until the Monday; and he could further assure the hon. gentleman, that the information as to Franklin's non-appearance at Bow-street, notwithstanding his pledge, was received in the first instance, not from sir R. Baker, but from Mr. Minshull, who thought proper to apply to the office to issue an order for stopping Franklin at the out-ports, or to proclaim a reward for his apprehension. Therefore it was not correct that this application originated with Mr. Pearson, as it was made by a magistrate, who thought that the course which he recommended was the best mode of curing the evil that resulted from sir Robert Baker's liberation of Franklin. Mr. Minshull's application was set aside by his hon. friend behind him, ad referendum, for the consideration of lord Sidmouth, who determined against the propriety of issuing, in such a case, either a proclamation for Franklin's apprehension, or an order for stopping him at the out-ports. Such an order had, indeed, never been issued, unless upon a charge of felony or treason; and it was naturally apprehended, from experience in such cases, that if an order were issued for stopping Franklin at the out-ports, above twenty Franklins would have been most probably arrested. He would appeal, then, to the hon. gentleman, what was, in candour, likely to be the decision of his mind, if the question were taken the other way? If, instead of a supposed agent or partisan of government, the object was to arrest an apostle of liberty charged with sedition, and that lord Sidmouth issued a special order to stop him at the out-ports, what loud objections were likely to be heard against such a proceeding, by those who had raised such an out-cry against the circular letter of lord Sidmouth, with respect to the holding of a libeller to bail upon an affidavit before a magistrate. If, indeed, lord Sidmouth had issued such an order in such a case, there could be little doubt of motions in that House, day after day, pregnant with complaints of the violation of the liberty of the subject.—But as to the original arrest of Franklin, he held in his hand the affidavit of Pearson, upon which the warrant for that arrest was granted by Mr. Minshull, and he could not help expressing a doubt whether, upon more loose allegations than this affidavit contained, a warrant to hold a man to bail, could have been obtained from any magistrate. There was no such word as treason or felony in any part of the affidavit. There was indeed the word "treasonably" mixed up with the word "sedition;" but that the offence, as it stood, was a bailable offence, was clear; because the whole charge against sir Robert Baker was, that he had not regularly required bail. It was hardly necessary to trouble the House with reading the papers, because all that Pearson had sworn was, that be had reason to believe (upon grounds which he did not describe), that the person who had delivered the placards to the boy was a person named Franklin, but whose Christian name he did not know. He (lord Castlereagh) had no design to lessen the magnitude of the charge; the act imputed was an act equally profligate and mad; but he did think that, under the circumstances, lord Sidmouth had exercised a sound discretion, in declining to issue the warrant which had been applied for. The hon. member opposite had stated, and with great candour, to the House, that Pearson had found no indisposition in any department of government to assist him in pursuing Franklin, and following up his charge; that passports had been immediately granted and every facility afforded. He believed that passports were unnecessary; but he was free to state, that every step had been taken to induce the foreign authorities to assist the efforts of Mr. Pearson; and that his majesty's ministers were most anxious that those efforts should be successful—that Franklin should be produced—that the charge should be brought forward, and the offence, if proved, punished with the utmost severity of the law.—There was only one more observation with which he would trespass upon the time of the House. The Foreign-office, he scarcely knew why, did very often find its way into the mouth of the hon. member opposite; and it had been introduced, he hardly knew how, upon the present occasion: it had been said, that the individual, Franklin, had been traced to a house in Downing-street, where there were two soldiers at the door. Now, he begged most clearly and directly to state, without evasion, equivocation, or mental reservation, his firm belief, that no individual connected with government had any connexion of any kind with Franklin. The noble lord then contended, that the House ought not, at all events in the present stage of the business, to interfere; that the matter, which might be considered in a train of legal investigation, would be more properly examined in a court of justice, where testimony upon oath would be substituted for assertion; and concluded by characterizing the case presented by the hon. member, as the most inconsistent, inconceivable, and incomprehensible romance that had ever been invented for the annoyance of a government.

Mr. Bennet

said, he knew not which was most to be admired, the lofty tone which the noble lord had maintained throughout his speech, or the lame and impotent conclusion, in which that speech had terminated. Surely, it might have been expected, that persons so anxious to prove their innocence before the House and the country would seize the first opportunity which presented itself for investigation. But the noble lord objected to examination even in limine,; he would not suffer the House to look at the subject—and why? Because, forsooth, a criminal information might be filed against the magistrate in the court of King's-bench! but he would tell the noble lord, that, before any thing could be done in a court of justice, corruption must be proved; and, although he did not mean to accuse sir It. Baker of corruption, he had no hesitation in saying, that the conduct of that gentleman had been most irregular and extrajudicial, and that he ought to be called upon, at the bar of that House, to explain a conduct which, in spite of the defence of the noble lord, still remained involved in suspicion. Was there an instance—he would put the question to any magistrate sitting in the House—was there an instance in which a warrant granted, no matter upon what ground, by one magistrate, had been dismissed by another, without the complainant or the granter of the warrant, being consulted in such dismissal? He did hope, that he should have some better excuse for the apathy of the Home-department than that which had been offered by the noble lord who had last spoken. He looked at the conduct and at the character of the Home-office in a very different light from that in which he viewed either the noble lord's office or the War-office. Those departments had not fed a Castles, clothed an Oliver, or panegyrised an Edwards. In cases like the present, he looked at the Home-office with suspicion. It was an impure office; and he so considered it, not from any airy fancy of his own, but from facts which were in the mind and in the mouth of every man in the country. Lord Sidmouth had been told, "Here is a man committing an act of almost unparalleled atrocity; he is distributing papers of the most inflammatory and dangerous tendency; this is not his first offence; he has been two years engaged in the commission of similar crimes; and he has done all this, calling himself a loyal man, and having received reward for his loyalty. Lord Sidmouth had heard all this, and had thought it not worth his while to interfere. After such an escape, he really believed that there was no individual in the country, lord Sidmouth alone excepted, who would hesitate to give any assistance in his power, whether by proclamations, by pecuniary sacrifices, or by personal exertions, to facilitate the apprehension of such an artful and abominable incendiary. But what rendered the conduct of sir Robert Baker more extraordinary was this, that usually no magistrate released a prisoner, even upon bail, without consulting the magistrate who granted the warrant for his apprehension, or the party by whom that warrant was obtained; and that custom was founded upon this reason, that it did not follow, because only a certain charge was alleged in the warrant, that there might not be other charges against the prisoner. Here the hon. gentleman took occasion to contrast the manner in which the principal in this case was allowed to escape with the manner in which his miserable instrument was treated—that instrument, a poor boy, who could not read, having been fined and committed to prison for three months by a magistrate, who mocked common sense while he pronounced the sentence, by the pompous profession of humanity. But the ministerial connexion of Franklin, notwithstanding all the noble lord's lofty language, it was not difficult to imagine. He was traced, it appeared, into the house of Mr. Denis O'Bryen, whose intercourse with some of the ministers the noble lord would hardly venture to deny. Yet Franklin was the connexion of this person, who had aggravated the turpitude of his apostacy by the foulest and most unprincipled attacks upon the character of those gentlemen with whom he was at former times permitted to enjoy some society, while he affected to concur with them in political opinion. Two scurrilous letters, which were some time since addressed to earl Fitzwilliam, in "The Morning Post," and which he was sorry the noble lord had not prosecuted, he understood, could be fully proved to have been the production of this O'Bryen. Of such a man, Franklin was a worthy colleague in this base confederacy, the main object of which had for some time been, to depreciate the character, to wound the feelings, to aggravate the sufferings of a woman, and that woman a Queen. He did not moan to charge ministers themselves with sanctioning such a system of publication. But there were notoriously some minor agents, who had long pursued that system with a view to alarm timorous people into a belief of the existence of a base and black spirit in the country, and thus urge such people to rally round ministers, although they abhorred their general principles, and execrated their general conduct. The noble lord ought, in his opinion, to feel obliged to his hon. friend for bringing forward the present motion, especially as it afforded the noble lord an opportunity of proving that innocence which he so confidently affirmed on the part of himself and his colleagues. But he could not help observing that it was a strange way of proving their innocence, to shut up every avenue to the detection of their guilt; and the noble lord opposed all inquiry by stopping it in limine, on this occasion. Still he hoped that his hon. friend would persist in his motion.

Mr. Clive

declared, that the Home-office, in which he had the honour to hold an appointment, had no knowledge of the case of Franklin until the Monday after Franklin's arrest. It was the custom of sir Robert Baker to attend at the Home-office every Monday for the purpose of making an official communication. Upon the Monday alluded to, some conversation took place with respect to Franklin, and the boy detected in circulating the seditious bills. But the first information of Franklin's non-appearance was brought to the office by Mr. Minshull, who made the application referred to by the noble secretary of state. Mr. Pearson came immediately after Mr. Minshull. The latter might, indeed, have almost met the former going down stairs. Mr. Pearson left with him two hand-bills, the one issued with respect to the trial of Brandreth, and the other upon the subject of the Queen's plate. He answered the applications of Mr. Minshull and Mr. Pearson doubtingly at first, but upon reference to lord Sidmouth, to whom he showed the papers left with him by Mr. Pearson, he was instructed by his lordship to say, that it would be inconsistent with official practice to comply with these applications, or to interfere with the police magistrates, who had ample powers to take proceedings for the apprehension of Franklin. Of this Franklin he had heard for the first time on the Monday after his arrest; and as to Mr. O'Bryen, all that he had ever heard of him was, that he was many years ago the author of some political pamphlets; and that he held a place under the government, to which he was appointed by the administration of 1806.

Mr. Gurney

declared his intention to support the motion. The worst symptom of the times was, the total want of confidence in the government of the country, which existed in all classes of the community, and amongst persons of every variety of political opinion. This want of confidence was an enormous evil, and it was the duty of the House to sift to the bottom any transaction which came before them in so questionable a shape as the present one. But his principal reason for rising was, to remark shortly upon a part of the speech of the noble secretary of state.—The noble lord had distinctly avowed, that he had given Mr. Pearson letters to the English ambassador at Paris, to aid him in the apprehension of Mr. Franklin. Now, it must be remembered, the offence charged was, the distribution of seditious hand-bills; and if the governments of Europe were under agreement to play into each other's hands in this way—mutually giving up persons who might be obnoxious to accusation for political misdemeanors, it would go, under the present circumstances of the world, to the establishment of the most unqualified tyranny. Our Alien act had been loudly declaimed against; but the enactments of our Alien bill shrunk into nothing, as compared with the exercise of arbitrary power, which it appeared the noble lord bad claimed of the government of France.

Lord Castlereagh

rose to explain how the case stood as to the facts mentioned in the latter part of the hon. member's speech. The assistance which was occasionally rendered by one country to secure the persons who had fled from justice in another, was only given in consequence of mutual arrangements. This country had been applied to to make such arrangements; but there was not one of the powers which had made those applications, respecting the securing of murderers and forgers, to which it had not been told, that whatever assistance they might give us, we could not give reciprocal assistance, as it was repugnant to the spirit of our laws; for whatever notion existed that the Alien act had been indirectly applied to that purpose was quite erroneous; ail foreign powers had been informed, that such assistance was against our laws, and that whatever aid they might give us, there could be nothing reciprocal.

Mr. Gurney

said, his allusion was to the demand made for the giving up a person accused simply of seditious proceedings, and had no reference whatever either to murders, felonies, or other crimes.

Mr. Gipps

could not vote for the motion, but said, that for several months past he had seen with indignation the activity with which placards of the most inflammatory nature had been circulated, to excite the people to discontent. He thought that this could not have been carried on to such an extent if the Home-department had been sufficiently active, and had employed agents either to pull down the placards, or to bring the authors to punishment.

Mr. Bernal

wished to know whether the noble lord meant to let the matter rest in its present shape, and whether he would refuse that inquiry which was so necessary? Without imputing to the administration itself, a participation in the criminal matters which had been discovered, it was not too much to infer that there might be knaves and fools in the inferior departments of the government. Very grave facts had been stated, that had not been repudiated in any material respect. This fact especially remained unshaken, that notwithstanding the reasons stated by various gentlemen at the Home-office, steps were not taken to apprehend the offender, and that even as yet no reward had been offered, though in the case of the placard published at Glasgow, a reward of 500l. had been offered for the author, whose production did not contain any thing more criminal than the placards which had been issued by the person who had absconded. The noble lord had referred them to the court of King's-bench, and had said, that that Court would take cognizance of the whole affair. This he denied. They would have nothing to do with the agents of government. The Court would try any offence which was charged against an individual, but would not trace the whole of the transaction. He, therefore, thought, that if the noble lord induced the House to throw out the motion of his hon. friend, he was bound to pledge himself to take some measure which his great influence might enable him to carry through at a future time to elucidate these transactions.

Sir John Sebright

said, that in this, as in all other cases, he was the friend of the fullest inquiry, but he did not see any practical end that would be answered by calling sir Robert Baker to the bar. As to any participation which the government of the country was supposed to have had in the distribution of these placards, he could not conceive for a moment that they would have been so absurd as to commit such an act of suicide. The thing was improbable on the face of it, and he gave full credit to the assertions of the noble lord, which he had never any reason to question. He was sorry to agree with Mr. Gurney, that the government of the country was excessively unpopular, and that was a reason for the fullest inquiry. But, what was equally important, he was sorry to believe, that in such a state of feeling as existed, the people would be satisfied with no government whatever. The ministers had given reason for discontent; but all possible means had been employed to foment it.

Mr. Tierney

said, he was very forcibly impressed by what had been said by an hon. gentleman as to the state of the public mind, which demanded a full inquiry into all proceedings of the nature of that which had been brought under their attention. The noble lord should bear in mind, that whatever he might say, whether the magistrates might be justified or not, whether the Home-department was in the right or not, a general impression prevailed in the country, that the government, in order to produce explosions, were accustomed to employ agents, who systematically urged the discontented to go greater lengths than they would otherwise go to. The fact, too, yet remained unexplained and unanswered, why a reward had not been offered. Here was a case in which a person had been distributing placards almost treasonable; he was apprehended, and taken to the Police-office, and then a different magistrate from the one who had caused him to be apprehended comes, and on what he considers the assurance of a respectable gentleman, discharges him. The man absconds—on the face of it this was an implication of guilt, and yet the government said, that there was on the face of this nothing which justified their interference! But what said the noble lord to this? Why, that it was all a dexterous plan of the radicals; and so because the noble lord was pleased to suppose that it might turn out to be a plan of the radicals they were to rest content without any inquiry! As to the motion which had been submitted to the House, he was sorry he could not vote for it, because, in the first place, they could not properly call the magistrate to the bar to criminate himself. The noble lord had observed, that they should give a little time to see whether the man who had absconded could be found. To this he had no objection, and he hoped his hon. friend would, with a view to see what might be the result of the efforts to apprehend him, withdraw his motion for the present. That some inquiry should take place in the event of the man's not being apprehended was absolutely necessary. It was impossible to conceive any thing more calculated to inflame the public mind, than the facts which now stood before the public. The placards which had been issued by this person were ten times more inflammatory than those which, not long ago had been put into green bags and formed the ostensible ground of laws against the liberties of the people. He had said thus much because he wished it to be known, while he objected to the form of the present motion, that he was not insensible to the facts which had been disclosed. He believed that the impression, as to the part which the government had taken in proceedings like this, was working in the public mind. He had heard it from so many quarters, that he felt a firm persuasion, that unless the matter was sifted to the bottom, this feeling would produce unpleasant consequences. He hoped, however, that the Home-department would be able to give what they had not yet given, a satisfactory account t why, after all the representations that had I been made, they had not offered a reward for the apprehension of the offender. It seemed odd, by-the-by, that the noble lord, should have written letters for the persons who went in pursuit of the fugitive, which according to his own account, were not worth a single shilling. "Oh," said the noble lord, "I gave them letters to sir Chas. Stewart, and would willingly have given them letters to the ministers in any other countries, but foreign governments will not interfere at our request." Now there was no reason to think the noble lord was correct in this. He had read in the newspapers, that there were cases in which foreign governments had actively interfered to make their own subjects come over to this country [Hear!] There were statements of persons who had been examined as witnesses, and who declared, that they had no notion of coming over here, but that they were obliged to come by their governments [Hear!] And how did it happen that those governments interfered, but that they knew it was an object of desire to our government to get those witnesses sent here? The noble lord, however, said, that if we received obligations of this kind from foreign countries, we could never oblige them in return, for that the Alien act was never employed directly or indirectly to any such purpose. The noble lord's memory was treacherous; two of the most respectable individuals in Europe had been ordered to leave this country, not because they were doing any thing contrary to the interest or wishes of our own government, but because their residence here was unpleasant to a foreign government [Lord Castlereagh gave signs of dissent]. Had the noble lord never heard of——,a Dutchman? [Mr. Tierney here mentioned a name which was not audible in the gallery; lord Castlereagh said across the table, No.] He affirmed the fact on evidence which left no doubt on his mind, that these persons were sent out of the country merely at the wish of a foreign government. The fact occurred about two years ago. It would hereafter be brought in a distinct shape before the House. He hoped his hon. friend would withdraw his motion; as the day could not be fat distant when either the man would be apprehended, or his apprehension would be shown to be impracticable. In the one case it would be investigated in the ordinary course of law, in the other, the Home-department would be bound to give the most satisfactory explanations why they had not used the same means of apprehending the offender in this as in other instances.

Lord Castlereagh

, in explanation, denied having admitted, that the letters would be of no use. He had only stated, that foreign governments were not bound by any agreement to assist in the arrest of subjects of this country, except in the cases he had mentioned; but they had in many instances given that assistance, when they were not bound so to do. The case of the individual alluded to was only a misdemeanor, and they might if they pleased assist even in that.

Mr. Clive

observed, that it was not the practice of the Home-department to offer rewards in cases of offences similar to the one charged in this instance. They had offered a reward for the apprehension of the author of the Glasgow placard; but then it should be recollected, that that was in times of known existing treason.

Mr. Beckett

was anxious, in addition to the statement of his hon. friend, to mention, that in the course of his experience it was not the practice of government to offer rewards in such cases as the one alluded to. They usually offered rewards in cases of murder, burglary, and other cases of violence; and the reason was, that the party being likely to escape, the offer of a reward would tend to prevent the purposes of justice from being defeated; but it was only in cases where it was supposed that the ordinary methods would fail that such rewards were offered. But this application was made instanter, and the secretary of state of course said, "you must first employ the ordinary means;" if those failed, it then became a question whether the extraordinary means at his disposal should be resorted to. With respect to sir Robert Baker, he could not let the debate pass without observing, from his knowledge of that gentleman, that he was utterly incapable of a corrupt motive. But whatever might be thought of him, it was quite impossible for any one to condemn him in that House, when the law had provided a remedy in the court of King's-bench. It was open to any member of the House to bring the conduct of sir It. Baker before that court.

Mr. Brougham

said, he only wished to express his entire concurrence in the recommendation to his hon. friend to reconsider his motion, and to postpone his proceedings till the ordinary means of detection, and he might add, the ordinary means of defence had been resorted to; for though there might be a prima facie case, and though he was the last to deny the right of the House as the great inquest of the nation, without waiting for the decision of any other court, to inquire into circumstances which were presented to them, though this right was inherent and inseparable from them at all times, yet the very fact that it was an extraordinary power, showed that it should not be exercised, but on very extraordinary occasions. He quite agreed, that the ordinary remedies of the law afforded no means for inquiring into the conduct of the ministers; but the facts stated, afforded no matter of impeachment, and if they were pressed at all, they must go to impeachment. But with respect to sir Robert Baker, though he was glad to hear the statement of the judge-advocate, it was utterly inconsistent with that of the hon. member for Montrose. A magistrate might be right or wrong in the use of his discretion of setting a person at large without bail, and supposing him to be wrong, he might be wrong only through error. The statement of the hon. member for Montrose seemed, however, to be inconsistent with a correct motive, for when sir Robert Baker had set this person free without bail, he represented that he had taken bail, and that the person would be forthcoming in a few minutes. He hoped there was some misunderstanding on the subject; and he was the rather inclined to believe there was, as the conduct of sir Robert Baker must appear very foolish, as well as very culpable, in making a false statement, which was sure to receive a decisive and speedy contradiction. But what required more explanation was, that no reward had been offered by the Home-office. The representation had been made to that office, not by any private person, it should be observed, but by the magistrate who had issued the warrant. The judge advocate had made this defence for the secretary of state, that the offer of rewards was only an extraordinary remedy, that the offer was never made in the first instance, that it was necessary to see whether all other means had failed before they resorted to this. But in this case the government was the party, and they had shown no lack of alacrity on other occasions. Was it not also a material fact, that at the time when the application was made to the Home-office, the ordinary means in such cases had been resorted to in vain; the man could not be found. The statement of the right hon. gentleman was not a defence; he hoped ministers had something else to offer, and he wished them a better advocate.

Mr. Beckett

believed he had been misunderstood in what he had said with respect to sir Robert Baker. He had stated, and he repeated the assertion, that from the knowledge he had of that gentleman, he believed him wholly incapable of acting from a corrupt motive. But if any fault was found with his conduct, the King's-bench was the place where that conduct might be inquired into. As to the offering of a reward, it was not customary to use the king's prerogative except in such cases as those he had mentioned. But in other cases the secretary of state would require, that it shoulds atisfactorily appear that the ordinary mode had failed before he resorted to a reward. Now, in the present case, that could not have appeared; for the thing was only known in the office about an hour befor the time mentioned.

Mr. C. Calvert

joined in the suggestion to the member for Aberdeen to withdraw his motion. As to Sir R. Baker, he was convinced that he was as incapable of stating a falsehood as any man in or out of those walls.

Sir R. Wilson

wished to know whether, in case of the apprehension of Fletcher, the law-officers would be directed to prosecute? If not, the expense would fall upon individuals, and there would be no more possibility of redress, than there was for the sufferers at Manchester.

Lord Castlereagh

said, he could not answer for a department of which he was not at the head; but he had no doubt there would be every anxiety shown to bring the author of those placards to punishment.

Lord John Russell

expressed his satisfaction, that notwithstanding the activity with which those seditious and inflammatory placards had been circulated within the last few years, and the great distress and privation of most of the lower ranks of people during that time, they had been productive of so very little effect, and that it should be a matter of consideration, that perhaps some of those unfortunate persons who were now suffering in prison for having been connected with illegal meetings, might have been instigated by some of those placards.

Mr. Hume

said, that though he still thought the motion which he had made was proper on the commencement of the inquiry, he should yield to the superior experience of others, and withdraw it. The noble lord had made a bold assertion when in defence of the placards he had said, that more seditious publications daily issued from the press of Wooler and Hone. If the noble lord was sincere, he had then passed the severest censure on the attorney-general, who had suffered them to go unnoticed. But he utterly denied that such was the fact, or that Mr. Hone or Mr. Wooler ever published anything like those placards. It was a piece of injustice, and only a trick of the noble lord to cover himself, to insinuate that these placards originated from radical committees. He (Mr. Hume) had not "drawn on the credulity of the House;" he had given them affidavits and facts which did not rest on his assertion; and j as to the general statement of the impression which prevailed in the country, he was fully borne out by the testimony of the hon. baronet (sir J. Sebright), and another hon. gentleman, near him (Mr. H. Gurney). The noble lord had attempted to turn oft' these charges by protestations of innocence. But protestations would not serve against grave and serious facts. The only course which he could have pursued with credit, was, to pledge himself at a future period to institute a full inquiry. He had not done so, and that was quite sufficient to identify the proceedings with the government. He had no hesitation in saying, that sir It. Baker had asserted in court, that he had taken bail, and that Franklin would be there by-and-by. He was one out of many hearers, and neither this nor any other of the statements rested on his individual testimony.

The motion was withdrawn.