Commons Sitting of 7 December 1826

EMIGRATION.
Mr. W. Hortonpresented petitions from Glasgow and Calton, in favour of Emigration, as a measure necessary for the relief of the distressed manufacturers.
Mr. Humehoped that ministers would be prepared to introduce some measure on the subject, as it was one in which thousands and tens of thousands were interested.
Mr. Wilmot Hortonsaid, he was on the point of rising to give notice, that on the 15th of February, he would move to renew the committee on emigration, which had sat during the last session. He assured the hon. member, that it would not at all forward his object to force a decision on the subject at the present moment. The individuals who desired to emigrate could not be removed at this season of the year with any advantage to themselves. The

299
subject of emigration was so extensive in its nature, that the House ought to have the fullest information upon it.
Mr. Abercrombycontended, that government ought to come forward with some specific plan for the relief of the thousands of artisans who were now starving in different parts of the country.
Mr. J. Grattanagreed with his learned friend, that some more explicit declaration was wanted from government. He did not entertain any great hopes of advantage from the renewal of the committee which had sat last session. Indeed, the opinion of that committee, as far as it could be collected from their report, was adverse to emigration.
Mr. W. Hortondissented from the assertion, that the report of the committee held out no hopes of advantage from emigration. He knew not what better evidence could have been collected than that which was collected by the committee, to throw light upon this important subject. He hoped that the next committee would be able to propose some temporary measure, which would in no way interfere with any permanent measure which it might ultimately think proper to adopt.
Sir James Grahamsaid, it was evident, from the correspondence into which ministers had entered with the editor of the "Glasgow Free Press," that they were favourably inclined to the system of emigration. He was sorry to find that they were ready to see thousands of their fellow countrymen seeking to be exiled from their native land. The system of emigration was contrary to the spirit of our laws, and opposed to many of our most ancient regulations, he admitted, that it was necessary to do something to relieve the distresses under which so many of our artisans were at present sinking. He was sorry to inform the House, that since the petition from Carlisle had been presented, he had received accounts, stating that their distress was increasing daily. He could state to the House, that the hand-weavers did not at present receive more than 5s. a week; for which sum they laboured fourteen hours a day. They were most of them a year's rent in arrear, and were therefore liable not only to have that small portion of their property which remained unpledged, sold to defray the claims upon them, but to be ejected from, their tenements. Their diet was of
300
the humblest description, oatmeal and potatoes, and their whole appearance showed that they were reduced to an extremity of want. In fact, there were thousands and tens of thousands of them on the verge of starvation at that moment. He was not going to examine into the causes which had led to this distress; but he believed that one, and perhaps the chief, was placed beyond the reach of parliamentary interposition: he alluded to the improvements which had been recently made in the power-looms. The hand-weavers could not be converted into power-loom weavers, and they were thus compelled to continue a hopeless struggle with power-loom weavers, at a rate of wages which was regularly decreasing. Under these circumstances, some special remedy ought to be applied by government to the distresses of the country. He thought they were so great as even to justify a grant of public money to relieve them.
Mr. Warburtonwished to be informed how, under the present system of our Corn-laws, the corn grown in the colonies was to be sent to England to pay the quit-rent, which was to re-imburse the government for the expenses it might incur in carrying emigrants to the place of their destination.
Mr. Secretary Peeldeprecated the continuance of the present discussion. It was of great importance that hon. gentlemen should keep their minds open to information on this subject, and that they should not pledge themselves to opinions now, which might, by possibility, fetter their judgments hereafter. There were many points connected with the subject of emigration, into which it would be incumbent on the House to examine before it came to any determination. They must consider; first, how far emigration would be available to meet the distress which now prevailed in this country on account of the population being greater than the demand for labour; and secondly, how far the encouragement of emigration would affect the interests of the colonies. It might be impossible to incur the expense of relieving the distress of the country by emigration, and when it was recollected, that an expense of 20 l. was to be incurred for each emigrant, it could not be expected that the excess of the population could be sensibly relieved by emigration. One might, however, see an advantage in supplying the waste lands

301
in the North American provinces with an active population, inasmuch as it would create, an increased demand for British manufactures. There would also be, in his opinion, a great advantage to the colonies by encouraging emigration upon a large scale, even though it might not mitigate the distress of the mother country. He was sorry that the hon. baronet had fallen into the fallacy which had been so ably exposed on a former night. He had said, that there were at present many individuals who were willing to place themselves in the same situation with convicts, and who voluntarily asked for that exile which the law attached as a penalty to great crimes. Now this was not the case. The exile into which the petitioners wished to enter was very different from that to which convicts were consigned. In the first place, the exile of the convict was a punishment, and inflicted upon him legal infamy. He went out stigmatized by a conviction for crime, and not as a free settler. His labour was not his own; but was appropriated to another individual who paid him no wages for it. On the other hand, so far was the exile into which the emigrant went from being considered as a punishment, that many individuals who were in possession of a small capital, and by no means in a state of distress, had made application to the government in the following style:— "Give me a grant of a hundred or two hundred acres, and I will transport myself and family to Canada, because I feel that I can turn my capital to greater effect in that country than I can do here." Individuals who made such applications scarcely considered themselves exiles, and certainly ought not to be described as individuals placed in the situation of convicts. It was the repetition of this extravagant argument that had induced him to rise upon this occasion, and to intreat gentlemen not to pledge themselves to any hasty opinions on the subject of emigration, until they had read the report of the committee upon it, and the evidence attached to that report. The information which colonel Cockburn had given to the committee was particularly valuable, from the knowledge which he possessed on the subject, and well deserved the attention of hon. gentlemen.
Mr. Maberlytrusted that ministers would take the advice which had been tendered to them by the hon. baronet, and
302
would depart from the rule which they had laid down three sessions ago. On a motion which his hon. relative had then brought forward respecting the best mode of relieving the distress which prevailed in Ireland owing to a redundancy of population, it had been laid down by ministers, that the interference of government, in the way of an advance of money, was highly improper. He contended, however, that where there was a redundant population, it must be relieved by an advance of capital, otherwise it could not be got rid of. A special remedy was required for a special case of distress; and more inconvenience would be occasioned to the country, in the present instance, by adhering to fixed rules, than would be occasioned to it, in other instances, by departing from them.
Mr. Benettcontended, that it would be better to put the waste lands of England into cultivation, than to send our population abroad to engage in similar employment. The waste lands of England, would long since have been cultivated, had it not been for the embargo of tithes and taxation which was laid upon them. He thought it extraordinary that, at a time when we had eleven millions of acres ready for cultivation, we should send our population at the expense of 20 l. a man, to cultivate the woods and deserts of Canada. He believed that nothing was wanted in Ireland but the security of life and property, to rescue the waste lands of that country from their present uncultivated state. If life and property were rendered secure in that country, English and Scotch capital would soon flow in. He objected to the project of emigration, and thought that the inquiry into the propriety of it, should be postponed till after the discussion of the Corn-laws. If the prayer of the numerous petitions which the hon. member for Aberdeen had presented should be granted, the House would have a number not only of manufacturing but also of agricultural labourers, praying to be banished from their country. He trusted, however, that both classes of labourers would soon find employment in their native country, and would long remain in it, adding to its wealth, and increasing its resources.
Mr. W. Hortonsaid, that if the hon. member would allow him, he would propose him as one of the committee; and he had little doubt, but he would soon be con-

303
vinced, that it was much better that persons should leave this country to cultivate the richest lands in some of our colonies, than remain here to cultivate the worst.
Ordered to lie on the table.

CAPE OF GOOD HOPE—CONDUCT OF LORD CHARLES SOMERSET.
Mr. Humerose for the purpose of calling the attention of the House to a subject, into which justice to the complaints of the colony, and to the character of the individual who was accused as the author of those complaints, required that it should institute an immediate inquiry. Many members of the House might not, perhaps, understand the course which had been adopted with regard to the Cape of Good Hope. In the year 1822, in consequence of the reports which had reached England respecting the misgovernment of that colony, the House had presented an address to his majesty, requesting him to appoint a commission to inquire into the state of that colony, as far as regarded its revenue, its institutions, and the conduct of its governor. On a motion which he had made last session, the instructions sent to the gentlemen who formed the commission were laid upon the table. He was not going, on the present occasion, to question in any respect the propriety of those instructions, though he could not help remarking, that three years and a half had elapsed without the House receiving any information as to the labour of the commissioners, except in one solitary case, into which it appeared that they had instituted some inquiry Neither was he going to complain of the conduct of the commissioners, though from statements which had been forwarded, and in some degree authenticated, to him, he was inclined to question the propriety of their conduct. He was anxious, that the hon. Secretary opposite would state how the House stood with regard to the inquiry into the conduct of the noble lord who had come home from his government in order to meet it. There were various circumstances which rendered an inquiry into the conduct of the governor of u distant colony a matter of considerable difficulty. There was an imperative necessity for investigation. At present, they had nothing but ex-parte statements before them, and they were really ignorant of the situation of the colony, either with respect to the inquiry which had been going on,
304
or to the complaints which had been made by individuals. It was stated last session, that leave would be given to lord Charles Somerset to come home, for the purpose of meeting the charges that had been made against him, and they were now, he thought, in a situation when the House ought to ascertain what was meant to be done. In presenting a petition on this subject last year, he had inquired whether certain persons, colonel Bird and others, would be prevented from returning to the Cape, in order that they might be forthcoming to give information which might tend to exculpate or criminate the noble lord. The evidence of those persons was most material; but nevertheless they were sent back. It was quite impossible for the noble lord to retrieve his character, or to return to the colony, unless some proceeding were adopted in his case. He would, therefore, ask the hon. gentleman in what state they now were, or what course ministers meant to adopt with respect to the noble lord? It was fit that the noble lord himself, and the numerous persons sent from the colony, and who sought for redress against the noble lord, should be made acquainted with the course which it was intended to pursue. Therefore, to accelerate the period when this inquiry should take place, he begged leave to ask ministers, whether they had made up their minds as to when that proceeding should commence? It was necessary that an inquiry should be instituted, and that, too, speedily, that the noble lord might clear his character from the aspersions that had been thrown upon it, and the charges which had been brought against him, as well as to do justice to the interests of various individuals in the colony. There were, certainly, suspicious circumstances attending the conduct of government in this affair. If he was rightly informed, colonel Bird, instead of having been kept here to give evidence, had been sent back to the colony, and pensions granted to him and certain members of his family; for what reason he could not conceive. If this was the case, suspicion certainly rested on the conduct of those who ought to see impartial justice administered. If the answer given to what he now asked was not satisfactory, he would then proceed to state such information as he had acquired on the subject.
Mr. Wilmot Hortonsaid, that the course taken by the hon. gentleman was so very

305
extraordinary, that he scarcely knew how to meet it. On a former night the hon. gentleman had stated, that he would move for certain papers, and he had informed him, that ministers would grant some of those papers, and state their reasons for refusing the remainder. But now the hon. gentleman shifted his ground, and wished to know what ministers meant to do with respect to the general inquiry. Did the hon. gentleman think that the commissioners had done nothing? Did he suppose that they had made no inquiry? There were on their table 230 closely printed folio pages, on a case which had occupied that House three or four times, and on which several discussions had taken place. The hon. member had expressed his opinion on that case, and had stated that he was prepared to support it. He alluded to the case of Mr. Bishop Burnett. The investigation of that case had cost the country many thousand pounds. It had detained the commissioners at the Cape half-a-year longer than they would otherwise have remained there. No pains had been spared in that investigation; and here were the means, if gentlemen would read these papers, of deciding on this case, as clearly as any inquiry, or combination of inquiries, which the wit of man could devise, would enable them to do. Was it, then, intended, after this proceeding, that the case should be thrown aside, and that they should go into an indefinite inquiry without any specific facts before them? The hon. gentleman had asserted, that he had looked into those papers, and was prepared to consider them. If so, was he ready to support the case of Mr. Bishop Burnett? Was it fit that he should call for more papers until that case was disposed of? If that case were decided in favour of lord C. Somerset—if nine cases were afterwards decided in his favour—still it would be proper for the House to entertain a tenth, if the statement of facts were sufficiently strong; but he contended, that it was contrary to the principles of justice to recede from this particular inquiry, and go into others of an indefinite nature. When the case to which he had alluded was decided, he would deny no papers for which the hon. gentleman might think proper to move, provided he laid fair parliamentary grounds for their production. As to the papers which the hon. gentleman meant to move for that night, on
306
what parliamentary ground did he intend to rest his application? Had he, out of doors, looked into those papers; and, if so, did he find in them matter for a charge? If he did, then he was ready to give the hon. gentleman an answer. If a gentleman came forward, and said, "I have looked into this or that particular case, and it demands inquiry," it then rested with government to decide, whether they ought to grant the papers which he desired, or to resist the application, in part, or altogether. He felt that they would be doing flagrant injustice to the noble lord, after the calumnies that had been heaped upon him, by various means, and from various quarters, if they proceeded in the manner pointed out by the hon. gentleman. Would it, he asked, be worthy of that House to put aside a case which was ready for investigation, and to go into an indefinite inquiry, with respect to charges got up by any means, as to the general government of the Cape? There was no man who would not sink under such an accumulation of charges brought forward in such a manner. He did not prejudge the case of Mr. Bishop Burnett; but, before they proceeded with any other, they ought certainly to decide upon that. There was no want of information. On the contrary, there was an abundance of gratuitous information offered to the House. As a proof of which, he held in his hand Mr. Bishop Burnett's answer to the report of the commissioners; and if all the calumnies, and all the declamation which it contained, were expunged, it might be put into the shape of a memorial, and placed in the hands of members. Throughout that production, its author imputed to government the worst motives, and to the commissioners the basest feelings. He felt himself under the necessity of giving this answer to the hon. gentleman. If he moved for papers, he would agree to the production of such as could be granted with propriety, and he would state his reasons for withholding such as ought to be refused.
Mr. Humesaid, he would now submit a motion to the House, which would enable him to point out the extraordinary conduct of the hon. gentleman on this occasion. The hon. gentleman had asked him, if he would proceed with the case of Mr. Bishop Burnett? Now, he had nothing to do with that case. He did not present the petition of that individual. It

307
was brought forward by the learned member for Winchelsea, who was not now present. But, suppose the whole of that case, as charged, fully proved; because an individual had acted erroneously in one instance, was he to be condemned altogether? That would be unjust to lord Charles Somerset. That case was only one of many charges against that noble lord's government. Conduct was imputed to him, for a long-continued period, which demanded inquiry. But not only did the hon. gentleman ask him to go on with this case, but he wished to father on him a book, purporting to be the answer of Mr. Bishop Burnett to the report of the commissioners. Was the conduct and character of lord C. Somerset to rest on that single case? He would answer, no; and would state his reason for demanding an inquiry. He held in his hand a list of several persons who had been banished from the colony, and who were now seeking for redress. He had stated the case of Mr. Edwards; and he was told that, having been a convict, no inquiry could take place with respect to him. But his having been a convict at one time of his life, had nothing to do with his after-conduct. With respect to Mr. Bishop Burnett, was it just to him, when he entreated leave to go back to the colony, to refuse him? Yet such was the fact. He was refused by the department with which the hon. gentleman was connected Surely, the government could not rest contented with this half-mangled case. The cases of D'Escary and Gregg, individuals who had been banished, called loudly for inquiry. Documents had, indeed, been laid on the table, but no statement, of the grounds on which these persons had been banished. There were also the cases of Mr. Francis, of lieutenants White and Clarke, of Dr. Geary, and of several other persons, and amongst them a lady, the whole of whom complained of acts of gross oppression. These complaints, coming from so many quarters, demanded a strict investigation. But this was not all. The conduct of lord Charles Somerset, with respect to his financial proceedings in the colony, deserved to be inquired into. That extravagant and wasteful expenditure which had almost ruined the colony, was a fit subject for parliamentary inquiry. Without pledging himself as to the course which he might pursue after the recess, he thought it was
308
incumbent on ministers to bring home from the Cape many witnesses who could give important evidence in this business. He understood, that, in September last, two of the commissioners had left the Cape, and one continued there to despatch the remaining business. He supposed, therefore, that those gentlemen had arrived in this country, and that from them government would receive much additional information. This was another reason for instituting an inquiry as soon as possible. The instructions in conformity with which the commissioners were to act at the Cape directed, that they should not inquire into any cases, except those sent out from the department here, or those which were of a special nature. This, he contended, operated decidedly against a full and impartial inquiry. The commissioners ought to have been empowered to hear, generally, the complaints of the inhabitants; but that was impossible under this very partial instruction. He meant to move for the following papers:—"1. Copy of lieutenant-colonel Bird's examination, and correspondence, if any, with the Commissioners of Inquiry. 2. Correspondence between the Colonial Department and the Commissioners of Inquiry, in reference to all complaints preferred against lord Charles Somerset's Government. 3. Reports of the Commissioners on all special cases referred to their investigation. 4. List of all persons banished from the Cape of Good Hope during the government of Lord Charles Somerset. 5. Copies of Mr. D'Escary's correspondence with the Colonial Department, and the Commissioners of Inquiry."
Mr. Ordsaid, he felt it to be his duty to vindicate, as far as his abilities would allow him, the conduct of the commissioners of inquiry. He possessed no materials that would enable him to enter into a laboured defence of those gentlemen; but he must say, that the hon. member had just as little ground for making an attack on them. Nearly connected as he was, in relationship, with one of those commissioners, Mr. Biggs, any thing he might say in his favour might be attributed to partiality. He should, therefore, only state, that Mr. Biggs was as incapable of being actuated by any unworthy motive as the hon. gentleman himself. That gentleman had been employed, for many years, in important public situations, and he was admitted to have discharged the

309
duties of those situations with credit to himself, and advantage to the country. He had, for a considerable time, acted as judge in the island of Trinidad; he was afterwards employed on the inquiry into the state of New South Wales; and, he believed, in both situations his labours were beneficial to the public. Circumstances of ill health had prevented his recent labours from being so expeditious as some gentlemen might wish. He had met with a dangerous accident, which had for a long time confined him to his bed, and had latterly obliged him to use crutches. This might account for the delay. It was, he thought, due to Mr. Biggs, and the other commissioners, to suspend any opinion on their conduct until their reports were before the House [hear]. He was as willing as any man that they should be tried by their deeds, when the necessary documents were in readiness; and when that time came, he believed there would be found as little reason to condemn those commissioners as to condemn any other set of persons.
General Grosvenorwas surprised at the manner in which the hon. member for Aberdeen had disclaimed the petition of Mr. Bishop Burnett. It was true that he did not present that petition; but then he spoke upon it with a warmth, and in terms, which were not called for at the time. As for the story itself, which he might fairly describe as "Bishop Burnett's History of his own Times," he thought it ought to be disposed of first.
Mr. Wilmot Hortonsaid, that as the hon. member for Aberdeen appeared to have misunderstood him, it would be necessary for him to repeat a few of the observations which he had submitted to the House. That hon. member was totally mistaken if he supposed that it was his wish to get rid of this investigation with the half-mangled case, as he termed it, of Bishop Burnett. He had merely mentioned to the House the very great expense which had been imposed on the country in collecting materials for coming to a decision on this case, and he would now pledge himself, that if gentlemen would take the trouble to wade through the report on their table, they would find ample and conclusive evidence to enable them to come to a determination on this case, and it did appear to him to be a most cruel and unjust mode of proceeding that, after the charges which had been
310
first preferred against the noble lord, had been referred for investigation to gentlemen of high character, and every way qualified to conduct such an inquiry, who had reported thereon, the House should now, instead of taking into consideration the full and minute report furnished by those gentlemen, throw it altogether aside, and receive fresh accusations against the noble lord. If the hon. member would show any parliamentary ground for calling for these documents, he would at once either consent to their being furnished, or state his reasons for withholding them; but the hon. member, instead of showing any such grounds, had contented himself with running over a list of names, and calling for evidence as to the cases of a variety of individuals, who had incurred the censure of the government at the Cape, because, forsooth, by possibility, some of these persons might have been ill-treated. No doubt charges had been made by individuals against the noble lord, and there was no wish on the part of government to throw any unfair obstacle in the way of their being fully investigated. All that was desired was, that they should be brought forward in some intelligible manner, so that the House, in entering upon the consideration of them, might know what it was called upon to investigate and decide upon. The hon. member had said, that it would be requisite to go back to the period when the commission was appointed, for the purpose of investigating the charges against the noble lord. He would remind the hon. member, that the Cape of Good Hope had been annexed to the Crown during the late war; that Dutch laws and Dutch customs prevailed there. To bring about a change in this respect, and to anglicize the colony, was, of course, a most desirable object; and it was to this that the commission owed its origin; for one system of law could not all at once be made to supersede another. This could only be affected progressively, and was a work which required great caution; and what better means could be devised for carrying it into execution without risk, I than intrusting the management of it to a commission composed of gentlemen of high character and known ability? This measure was not merely confined to the Cape; it extended to the Mauritius, and to the isle of Ceylon. This was the origin and object of the commission. It was

311
after their appointment that special grievances were referred to their consideration. The hon. member had thought proper to impute partial and improper motives to the government, with regard to the instructions given to the commissioners. It certainly was not the intention of government—indeed it would have been highly absurd in them—to unfurl a standard in a new colony for all the disaffected to rally round. They never intended to set up a mart for grievances; but if the House would take the trouble to look over the number of cases which had been referred to, and reported on, by these commissioners, no one would regret that more ample powers had not been given them. The noble lord had been placed in a most perplexing and difficult situation. According to the oath he had taken, he was bound to govern the colony according to a law totally different, and very much inferior, to that of his native country. All the defects attendant on this system had been laid to his charge. The commission had been specially appointed for the amelioration of this law; and any communication from them relating to this object he had no objection to lay on the table; but when the hon. gentleman called for all the correspondence between these commissioners and the government, relating to various unconnected subjects, he could not but oppose so sweeping a demand.
Mr. Humeobserved, that he only asked for the correspondence relating to the special cases which had been referred to the commissioners.
Mr. Wilmot Hortoncontinued. He could not accede to this indefinite demand. If the hon. member would state a specific case—if he would pledge his character that he had examined into it, and that he thought it required the attention of the House—he would then either consent to produce the papers, or assign such reasons for withholding them as he thought would satisfy the House. But it would be a most inconvenient mode of proceeding in this particular case, and set a very bad precedent, to accumulate and huddle together a host of fresh charges, whilst they threw aside and abandoned those which had been preferred in the first instance, and on which a report had been already made. The hon. member was likewise mistaken as to the reason why a pension had been granted to colonel Bird. It had been granted him for many years
312
of valuable service to the country; and, as to the government not detaining him in this country to give evidence, he would merely observe that it had no power to do so. He was not prepared to produce this officer's correspondence for it seemed to him that it would be unjust to lay a private paper, received from colonel Bird, before the House, until his examination taken before the commissioners should also be adduced. With regard to Mr. D'Escary's correspondence, he could see no reason why it ought to be produced, unless it was intended to bring forward some specific charge on that case. Government were fully satisfied upon it, and did not intend to do any thing with regard to it. If the hon. member thought something ought to be done, let him bring forward some definite proposition respecting it. With regard to Burnett's case, it had been mentioned four or five times in the House, and represented as a case of the greatest hardship and oppression. That case had been fully investigated, and the House had all the materials before it for coming to a decision upon it. If it should be now thrown aside, and after the high tone which had been assumed respecting it, no one should be found to bring it forward, he for one should certainly consider it as admitted, that it had been preferred without any foundation.
Mr. Humeasked, to what particular motion the hon. gentleman objected.
Mr. Wilmot Hortonreplied, that he should resist, in the first place, the production of colonel Bird's examination.
Mr. Humesaid, that as the report of the commissioners containing it was about to be laid upon the table, he would withdraw that motion. He hoped, however, that the hon. gentleman would consent to lay upon the table the correspondence respecting the special cases against lord C. Somerset. It was idle to call upon a member to bring forward a special case, when the very means of investigating it were denied. Justice could not be done without the production of the correspondence on the particular charges.
Mr. Wilmot Hortoncontended, that there was not the slightest ground for the presumption that ministers meant to impede the course of justice by refusing the papers. The charges against lord C. Somerset at present were sweeping and general. Let them be made particular; and, if sufficient arguments could be

313
offered, nothing should be withheld that could throw light upon the case. Government were not disposed to lay all the documents upon the table, in order that particular charges might be picked out of them.
Mr. Secretary Peelsaid, that if the House should resolve itself into a court to enter upon the consideration of every individual case, although no imputation had been cast on the report of the commissioners, it was impossible to say what papers they might be called upon to print. He would put it to the hon. member, whether it would be at all consistent with that economy of the public money which he so much advocated, to adopt this course. But it would be in the highest degree unjust to the commissioners, whom he believed to be most impartial and able men; for it would assume, that they had conducted themselves with partiality and injustice, and would consequently lower them in the estimation of the public, and embarrass them in the exercise of their functions. His hon. friend had very fairly offered, if the hon. member would take upon himself to bring forward any specific charge, cither to produce the papers relating to it, or to assign a satisfactory reason for refusing them.
Mr. Humesaid, he must admit that the proposition which had been made by the hon. gentleman was a very reasonable one; and if he had understood at first that this would have been conceded to, he would not have pressed his motion, which he would now withdraw.

ARIGNA MINING COMPANY.
Mr. R. Martinsaid, that he had a motion to make relating to a petition which had been referred to a select committee of the House against the directors of the Arigna Mining Company. An hon. friend of his (Mr. Brogden) had been one of the directors of this company, and as such, along with the other directors, had been charged by the petitioners with purchasing property for 10,000 l., and charging the parties for whom they purchased 25,000 l. for it. Had his hon. friend acted in this manner, he not only deserved to lose his seat in that House, but to be sent out of the country. But he was convinced that he was incapable of having acted in such a manner. Still, this petition would have the effect of producing a prejudice against
314
him in the public mind, which could not be removed until the committee had made their report. In order, however, to obviate this prejudice, he wished it to be known, that the number of the petitioners only amounted to four, although the subscribers to the company exceeded a thousand. That the public should know who they were, he would move, "That the names subscribed to the Petition be printed."
Mr. Wynnsaid, that if the names were printed in this instance, impartial justice required that they should be omitted in no others. At present the expense of putting petitions into type was sufficiently heavy; and if the signatures were appended, the votes would soon be as voluminous as the statutes at large. He recommended the hon. gentleman to withdraw his motion, which was now unnecessary, as the House had appointed a committee to investigate the charges against the hon. member. If it turned out that there was no foundation for the accusation, those who had brought it forward would, of course, meet with merited disgrace.
Mr. Alderman Waithmantermed the advice given by the right hon. gentleman lenient towards the hon. mover, but argued, that it would degrade the character and dignity of the House, to allow the motion to be withdrawn. If he had attended to one branch of history more than another, it was that which related to the constitutional principles of parliament and the country, and he would venture to say, that since the Revolution, a more atrocious attack had never been made upon the rights and liberties of the subject. This was the first time he had heard, that the value of what was stated in a petition depended upon the number of the signatures, or even upon the characters of the parties. To require their publication was most improperly to obstruct the right of petitioning, and to encroach upon one of our dearest privileges. The hon. gentleman then adverted to the expulsion of sir John Trevor, in 1695, in consequence of the circulation of a pamphlet in the lobby, by one Crosfield, which complained of a gross misapplication of the public money, and quoted the Parliamentary History of the time upon the subject. The investigation went on, and one thing came out after another, until

315
they led to the expulsion of several members.* Again, in 1680—
Mr. Wynnrose to order. The hon. I alderman, he said, seemed to misunderstand the question before the House, which was merely whether certain names should or should not be printed. There had been no attempt made to throw obstruction in the way of inquiry. In fact, the House had already determined, that an inquiry should take place.
Mr. Alderman Waithmanmaintained, that he was perfectly in order. He meant to conclude with moving an amendment. An attempt had been made to obstruct the right of petitioning. It was wished that the names of certain persons who had brought a serious charge against a member of that House should be published, in order to let the world know how few they were in number, and also how much they were wanting in respectability. It mattered not whether a petition was signed by one person or by one hundred, so that the facts contained in it were correct. It was an attempt to obstruct the right of petitioning, to propose to hold up petitioners to ridicule, or to expose them in any way. The hon. member had stated, that the petitioners were not persons of respectability. With respect to the privilege of petitioning, the poorest, man stood upon the same footing as the richest. Previous to the revolution it was asserted, that all attempts to obstruct petitioning were illegal. The obstructing of petitioning was declared to be illegal in the bill of rights. If members were allowed to cast reflections on the characters of petitioners, and to hold them up to public contempt, the doors of the House would be barred against petitions. In 1680, the House of Commons resolved, "That it was, and ever had been, the undoubted right of the subject to petition parliament for the redress of grievances." In pursuance of this resolution, sir F. Withins and sir George Jeffreys were expelled the House, for throwing obstructions in the way of petitioning. Another objection had been made to one of the petitioners, Mr. William Clarke; namely, that he had been running about the streets, collecting information relative to this Joint-stock company. So much the better. He was, on that account, the more likely
* Parliamentary History, vol. v. p. 881.
316
to be well informed on the subject, and his petition deserved so much the more attention. But be he what he might, even if he were under sentence of death in Newgate, he had a right to petition the House to make inquiry into any grievance which he might think worthy of its attention. But he himself happened to know something of this gentleman, and he could affirm that, on the Stock-Exchange, he bore a very fair character; and he would mention a fact, which was of itself no small evidence of good character. Having lost a great deal of money in these Joint-stock companies, he was not able to meet the demands of his creditors at the time, but afterwards he paid them every shilling of their debts. He would move, as an amendment, "That it is, and ever has been, the undoubted right of the subject to petition parliament for the redress of grievances, and that to publish the names of the petitioners, with the view of bringing discredit on them, tends to obstruct that right, and to deter the subject from bringing his grievances before parliament, and is subversive of the liberties of the subject."
Mr. R. Martinsaid, that he would not have been very anxious to press his motion, if the hon. alderman had named the other three petitioners, as he had named Mr. Clarke; for walls had cars, and if the hon. alderman had done so, they would be known all over London to-morrow morning. He denied that his object was to hold up the petitioners to ridicule. His object was, to show the public, that out of a thousand persons interested, only four had petitioned against his hon. friend. There was nothing in this which went to impugn the right of petitioning. He asked, why the petition had been printed without the names of the petitioners? It was wrong—it was monstrously wrong — to print that petition without the names of the petitioners, so long before the investigation could be gone into. It had been said, that if the charges were unfounded, his hon. friend would have an opportunity of clearing himself. So he would. But when? Why, in two months from this time; and during the whole of that time these allegations were hanging over him; so that his hon. friend was punished before he was tried. The process was, to punish him first and hear him afterwards; which was exactly the same as hanging a

317
man first, and then trying him. He regretted that he had consented to the proposition for the retirement, for the present, of his hon. friend, from the situation of chairman of the committee of Ways and Means. He thought that neither he himself nor the House had done perfectly right on that occasion. Why had not this objection been made against his hon. friend a year ago? He was as much involved with this Joint-stock company a year ago as he was at present. He had been already tried by the most competent; of all tribunals—a tribunal composed of the sufferers; and after a full and minute investigation, had been almost unanimously acquitted. He did not mean to protect his hon. friend against a fair investigation of the charges made against him. If, upon such investigation, his hon. friend could not clear himself, then "let the stricken deer go weep:" he would give him up. But what he complained of was, the prejudice which hung over his hon. friend in the mean time.
The motion was negatived.