HL Deb 24 February 1817 vol 35 cc531-46
Earl Grovesnor

said, he rose for the purpose of presenting a petition from Mr. Cleary similar to that which he had introduced on Friday, and which their lordships then rejected. In the course of the discussion that then took place, it was stated by the learned lord on the Woolsack, that it could not be received, because it alluded to the report of the secret committee, of; which the petitioner could not be cognizant, and because it referred to a measure not then before the House. He now tendered the petition in such a shape (all notice of the committee being omitted) as would, he trusted, prevent any objection to its being laid on the table.

The petition was then read. It denied the existence of the London Union Society for the last three years, but made no re-foresee to the report of the committee. Earl Grovesnor then moved, "That the petition do lie on the table."

The Earl of Harrowby

said, he did not rise to object to the receiving of the petition, which rested on very different grounds to that of the same individual presented to the House on Friday, and was now perfectly regular. He felt it necessary, however, to say a few words upon the question to which that petition referred, involving as it did the correctness of the report of the secret committee. He felt on Friday, that it would not be proper for him to attempt to state, from imperfect recollection, what was the nature of the evidence which induced the committee to come to that conclusion, which was denied by the petitioner. He felt this the more, he having had the honour of being the chairman of the committee. He had been therefore of opinion, that he ought upon such an occasion to speak only what he was authorized by the committee to state. The members of the committee had accordingly in the interverning time assembled, and had gone into an anxious examination of the evidence upon which they had founded their report. The result, he was authorized to state. With regard however, in the first instance, to the charge of implicating the London Union Society with the projects of the, Spencean Philanthropists, it was no fault of the committee; but the construction put upon the passage entirely arose from the fault of the printer in not making a break where he (lord Harrowby) had marked it; but the true grammatical construction of the passage evidently took away from the Union Society all charge of being implicated in the projects of the Spencean Philanthropists. The passages stood thus in the report:—

"Others of these societies are called Union Clubs, professing the same object of parliamentary reform, but under these words understanding universal suffrage and annual parliaments, projects which evidently involve not any qualified or partial change, but a total subversion of the British constitution.

"It appears that there is a London Union Society, and branch Unions corresponding with it, and affiliated to it. Others of these societies have adopted the name of Spencean Philanthropists: and it was by members of a club of this description that the plans of the conspirators in London were discussed and prepared for execution."

It would at once be seen that the words, "It appears that there is a London Union Society, and branch Unions corresponding with it and affiliated to it," belonged to, and ought to have formed a part of the preceding paragraph, without being immediately connected with what followed, respecting the Spencean Philanthropists. For this, therefore, the committee were not answerable. With respect to the phrase, "It appears that there is a London Union Society, and branch Unions corresponding with it, and affiliated to it," and the truth of which was denied by the petitioner, the committee had felt it incumbent upon them to go again over the evidence upon which that statement was founded, in order that there might be no possibility of mistake. For the purpose of satisfying the House, he was authorized to refer to a part of the evidence, respecting which there could be no danger, it being a printed bill from Sheffield. This bill announced the formation of an Union Society at Sheffield in October 1816, which was to correspond with the London Union Society, and with the branch Unions, and one of the resolutions of which expressly stated, that by a rule of the London Union a subscription of 20s. by any person becoming a member of a Local Union, entitled him to become an honorary member of the London Union. The committee, therefore, had every reason to conclude, from the evidence before them, not only that a London Union society was then existing, but also that there was an affiliation to that of, Branch Unions. With regard to the expression, "corresponding with it," the committee had, upon a further examination not been able to trace any correspondence between the Branch Unions and London Union Society, eo nomine. That expression, therefore, he admitted was incorrect; instead of "corresponding with," the phrase ought to have been "co-operating with;" the proof of co-operation derived from the Sheffield bill being sufficiently clear, as was also the affiliation. It would thus be apparent, that the only error was the expression corresponding with," and that there was no charge against the London Union Society, implicating the members of it with the projects of the Spencean Philanthropists.

Lord Grenville

said, that when the subject was under consideration on a former occasion, he had felt himself in the same situation as the noble earl who had just sat down. This, however, he was sure of, from a very jealous attention to the conduct of the committee, that nothing like any intention to deceive had ever existed on their part, when he had heard the statement in the petition, his first desire was again to see and examine the evidence: and if, upon such examination, it should appear that the committee had fallen into any error, it was his most anxious wish that the very earliest opportunity should be taken of clearing up that error. It was: no degradation to any one to acknowledge an error into which he might have accidentally fallen; the degradation would have been in persevering in it, where error had been discovered. Pie assured their lordships therefore, that he had at first gone to the examination of the papers, as if he had gone into a jury-box, to form the best judgment he could upon the evidence laid before him. He went back again to the consideration of the evidence with the same feeling, and with the conviction, that if any error should be discovered, the amount of that error ought: to be distinctly and immediately stated. The noble earl who had just sat down had I shown, that whatever misapprehension might have arisen from the mode in which the report was printed, the committee was no party thereto; but had, in fact, directed it to be printed in a different form; and if any one found his feelings hurt by its being represented that he held the principles of the Spencean Philanthropists, owing to the mistake which had just been stated, he trusted that such person would be satisfied with the explanation which had been given and it ought to be observed, that it was distinctly stated in the report, that "the committee would by no means ascribe to all these societies the same practices and designs which they had found to be but too prevalent amongst a large number of them."—Another point on which the noble earl had not touched was this—that some appeared to have imagined the committee meant to say that it was the intention of all those societies to produce those consequences which the committee itself firmly believed would result from carrying their projects into execution. Many of them might not have intended these consequences; and every candid mind would make the distinction. He himself firmly believed, that the effect of annual parliaments and universal suffrage would be not a qualified or partial change, but the total subversion of the British constitution. The committee, however, never intended to impute any such motive to all those societies; but when they said that those projects involved not any "qualified or partial change, but a total subversion of the British constitution," this was an argument and inference drawn by themselves from the evidence which had been laid before them. Then, as to the assertion in the petition, that the London Union Society was not now in existence; whether it was true that it existed or was dissolved, he knew nothing, except from the document which had been mentioned to their lordships. He never knew, or if he did know he had forgotten the circumstance, that any such London Union Society had existed, till he had read this address of the Sheffield Union. All he was anxious for was to show the ground upon which the committee had proceeded. A document had been laid before them, published in October last by the Sheffield Union, stating their object to be co-operate with the London Union and its branches. From this the committee had drawn a conclusion that the London Union did exist; and that there were branch Unions corresponding with it, and affiliated to it. They found in the same address of the Sheffield Union, a reference to a rule of the London Union Society, by which a person who subscribed annually twenty shillings to any of the local Unions became an honorary member of the London Union; and they could find no term which appeared to them to express this connexion so precisely as the term "affiliation." This was exactly what the committee meant by that term; and they thought themselves authorized to make the statement which appeared in that passage of the report, upon the ground of that document. That this might be met by contrary evidence there was no question but he trusted that the statement of the committee, reporting only upon ex parte evidence laid before them, would be justified up to that point. With the same openness he wished to state, that in as far as correspondence was distinguished from co operation, the committee had fallen into a mistake. He could not easily see how there could be co-operation without correspondence; but he admitted that there might, by possibility, be such co-operation without correspondence; and he was willing to apologize for that degree of inaccuracy. He entreated their lordships, therefore, to discharge from their minds all notion of correspondence, so far as it was distinguished from co-operation. This much he had thought due to his character and feelings to declare to the House upon this subject.

Earl Grey

, before he proceeded to make some observations on the statement which had been submitted to the House with respect to the grounds on which the committee had proceeded when they referred to the London Union Society, requested permission to congratulate their lordships upon the circumstance that they now saw no objection to the receiving of this petition. It would be a consolation even to those who voted against it the other night, and who must now be presumed to have done so with very great regret, to find that the time and the occasion were so soon arrived when they might indulge their feelings so far as to allow the petition to be laid on the table. But with respect to himself, who was not capable of applying to the consideration of the subject that nice discrimination which belonged to the learned lord on the woolsack and the noble lords on the other side of the House, he could not possibly see any grounds for the rejection of the petition before, which might not, with equal just- ness and force, be stated for its rejection now. The petition, however, was now to be received, and on that circumstance he congratulated their lordships.—Now, then, as to the statements made in the report of the committee; and here he begged leave to set himself right with the House and the public, and to protest against any inference being drawn from his observations, that he meant to say that the committee had stated any fact which did not appear to them to be warranted by the evidence before them, or had stated any conclusion except such as they imagined might be fairly deduced from that evidence. His noble friends, he trusted, could never have supposed, that he had ever intended to throw any imputation on their motives; and political hostility could not lead him to think, that the noble lords opposite were capable of any attempt to represent the effect of the evidence laid before them any otherwise than such as it appeared to them to be. But the circumstances, as now brought before them, showed the danger of proceeding to legislate on matters of the highest importance—to suspend the laws upon which the liberties of the subject depended—merely on an examination of ex-parte evidence. All that he had imputed to the committee was, that they had nothing but ex-parte evidence to go upon, and that human minds were fallible. Then what was it that this petition complained of? His noble friend who spoke last, and the noble president of the council, had considered the subject of complaint to be, that the petitioner had been confounded with the Spencean Philanthropists. He, however, did not think that this was the gravamen of the complaint; nor did he think it of much consequence to the matter in question, whether, in the printing of the report, it had or had not been rightly pointed. What the petitioner complained of was, a charge of a much more grave and serious nature—a charge that he was connected with a system of clubs spread over the country, having for their object the subversion of the British constitution. This was the charge made by the report; and the House ought not to suffer itself to be led away with the idea, that this statement, as to these Union Clubs, did not constitute a material feature of the report. What was the statement of that report? That societies were established throughout the country, with a traitorous design of subverting the constitution. This was the general statement, and these the objects which these societies were said to have in view. The committee stated, that some of the societies established for these purposes were called Hampden Clubs, that others of them were called Union Clubs, and that there was a central Union Society in London. Now he would ask, whether this individual, if his statement was true, was not materially aggrieved by the report of the committee; and whether they were not called upon, in justice, to allow him to explain and justify his conduct? He (lord G.), said this was a most serious charge, especially at this moment, when they were proposing to suspend the Habeas Corpus act, to enable them to detain in custody such persons as the ministers thought fit, without bringing them to trial. It was, under these circumstances, a most serious charge against an individual to be described as engaged in such a system. Had they forgotten the act of 1799, which referred to affiliation and unlawful correspondence with branch societies; and that the offence might be punished with a fine of 20l., or three months imprisonment; or, upon indictment, with transportation for seven years? If the committee were not able to call for an explanation, why did not the secretary of state call for it? And why had he not proceeded, with the ad-vice and assistance of the attorney-general, by law against these societies, if such objects were in their contemplation? The noble president of the council had stated, that the address of the Sheffield Union Society was the ground upon which they had proceeded: but what their lordships had now to consider was, that a most material fact stated in the report of the committee had been directly impeached by the secretary to the Union Society. His noble friend, who spoke last, and the noble president of the council, had said, that they retracted the word "correspondence," and meant only to insist upon "co-operation." It was worthy of their candor, if they had I fallen into an error, thus to acknowledge it: but with all due deference to them, if the word had been" co-operation," it would not have made the matter much better. The Sheffield society spoke of "co-operation;" but the answer of the petitioner was, that the London Union Society had not been in existence for three years past; and there was, therefore, no possibility of co-operation: and this, and other important facts, impeaching the statement of the committee, the petitioner averred that he was ready to prove at the bar. He (lord G.) believed he had authority to state, that there was now in the House a note from the present lord mayor, whose conduct, on a late occasion, he thought, would at any rate free him from having any concern with societies engaged in traitorous conspiracies, stating, that he and Mr. alderman Goodbehere had examined the books of the London Union Society since the time of the former discussion on the subject in that House, and that they firmly believed that every part of the statement in the petition was strictly and correctly true; and that they were themselves ready to come forward as witnesses, and substantiate its allegations at the bar. This was no light matter: it had been no light matter before; and now it had assumed a much more grave and serious character. Their lordships had now agreed to receive the petition, and having received it, they were bound to examine its allegations, and in justice to the petitioner, to themselves, and to the country, to reappoint the committee to investigate more fully the subject matter of that petition. He thought this was a duty from which they could not absolve themselves; and in the mean time he thought that all further proceedings on the bill ought to be suspended until the committee had completed that investigation. The statement now impeached was one of the most material features of the report: and if the allegation in the petition were true, that the London Union Society did not exist, that fact ought to be explained before they proceeded to legislate on a matter of this importance. If they did not adopt the course which he recommended, they would diminish the respect of the country for their decisions. The noble lord on the woolsack, even though surrounded by the military, and with all the security of power, when he had on a former night said, that even though he stood alone he would protect the orders of the House, appeared to have felt as if he had been exposed to some personal danger. Let him, then, sympathize with this humble individual, who had no such security; and who might be exposed to the severe penalties of the laws, if their lordships proceeded to act upon the report of the committee without farther investigation. But the interests of this individual were as nothing in comparison with the greater interest which the public had in this question, which was neither more nor less than this—whether the Habeas Corpus act, which had been called the palladium of their liberties, should be suspended on the ground of a statement which was now directly impeached. He imputed nothing improper to the committee, although he thought there was some negligence on the part of the noble secretary of state, who ought to have fully investigated the subject before he recommended the adoption of such measures as these; measures which would never be satisfactory to the country, unless it clearly appeared that they were called for by a paramount necessity. He would show that he had never meant to impute any improper motive to the committee; for he earnestly recommended that this petition should be sent back to them, with directions more fully to investigate the subject, and report upon the whole to the House. He felt that this was a matter of the highest importance, and trusted that this recommendation would not be rejected by their lordships.

The Earl of Liverpool

said, that the motion before their lordships was, that the petition be received, and to that motion he should offer no objection; but, notwithstanding the speeches which had been made by the noble earl now, and by the noble baron near him on the other night, he must say, that he had heard nothing which could induce him to alter his opinion, or to regret the vote which he had given. The noble earl had represented him to have said, that though the petition could not be received on Friday, there might be stages of a future measure in which a similar petition could he legitimately submitted to their lordships consideration. He had stated that in the progress of any bill, a petition against the principle of the proposed measure might, consistently with the privileges of their lordships, be brought under their notice; but that no petition of the nature of that of Friday, which not only complained of statements in a report which could not legitimately have come to the knowledge of the petitioner but also had reference to measures which the petitioner supposed to be in contemplation, was fit to be entertained. The petition now read was of a very different nature, inasmuch as it applied to a measure before the House. It came before their lordships under very different circumstances, and its prayer was also very different from that which the noble earl opposite wished to have laid on the table on Friday. In fact, the former petition, if it prayed against any thing at all, it prayed against something of which their lordships had no knowledge, as it related to a measure merely expected to be proposed. If any line was to be drawn with respect to petitions (and surely some line was necessary), that which he had stated was plain and obvious. The distinction, whether allowed to be right or wrong, was a clear one; and it had justly, he thought, been considered by the House as affording a sufficient ground for rejecting the petition presented on Friday.—Having said thus much with reference to the business of Friday, he should now trouble their lordships with a few words on the other branches of the subject. Indeed, after the clear, distinct, and manly statements of his noble friend, and the hon. baron opposite, relative to what had passed in the committee, he could not have occasion to detain their lordships long on these points. Those noble lords had shown, that the paragraph in the report which appeared to connect the Union Clubs and Spencean Societies had been erroneously printed; and they had also stated and explained the evidence on which that part of the report that speaks of the London Union Society was founded. The noble earl, however, considers this explanation insufficient, and contends that serious injury has been done by the report to the individual who has signed the petition, and to the other members of the Union Society. In taking this view of the subject, however, it was plain that the noble earl had confounded two distinct parts of the report. The conspiracy for overthrowing the government was alluded to in the first instance, but it was to be carried into effect by meetings called on the 15th of November and the 2d of December. It is afterwards stated, that various societies have, by the notions they disseminate, a tendency dangerous to the public security. This tendency is attributed to these clubs as the result of the general concoction of their doctrines; but instead of its being the object of the report to include all in the same charge, it, on the contrary, states, that the objects of the declared societies are different, and that many individuals who have become members may have done so without being aware of the ultimate intentions of many of their leaders. Some clubs are stated to have for their object annual par- liaments and universal suffrage; others are described under the name of Spencean Philanthropists; but it never was intended to confound these two descriptions of persons together. What the report inferred was merely this—that they all tend to the same end, namely, to shake the allegiance of the subject, and to dissolve the bonds subsisting between the government and the governed. This was described as a general effect, but not as the direct object, either of all the societies, or of all the individuals composing them. With regard to the question respecting the Union Society, it cannot be denied that there exists in different parts of the country societies under that name, which are affiliated, which correspond with each other, and whose avowed object is the establishment of annual parliaments and universal suffrage. His noble friend had read a paper which showed that a country society proposed to correspond with the London Union Club. Was it to be supposed that they would resolve to correspond with a society which did not exist? The petition, it was true, stated, that the club had not met for three years, but it did not say that it was actually dissolved. If, however, the petitioner and the members of the London Union were supposed to be affected by the charge of affiliation and correspondence between that and other societies, the imputation was not so groundless as the noble earl seemed to suppose. He had referred to the societiy's regulations, and it appeared that they contained not only foundation for what was stated in the Sheffield resolutions respecting the right of every member who contributed 20s. to the country society to become an honorary member of the London Union, but also a distinct recommendation to promote the institution of provincial clubs of the same description. The 13th article stated, that the cause of parliamentary reform would probably soon be crowned with success, if numerous Union Societies, on the same plan and principles as the London Union, were established in every country, city, and town in the kingdom, and it was recommended to the members to exert themselves in forming such establishments. What was this but forming affliliated and corresponding societies? He should, however, be told by the noble earl, that the London Union had not met for three years. He was not disposed to contest this assertion, taken in one sense: it might be true that the society had not, during the period specified, met as it was originally constituted, under the same name and with all the members present whose names were included in the petition; but that Union Societies had very recently met, having the same secretary and some of the same members as that in question, was matter of public notoriety. On the 22d of January a meeting of delegates from various societies met under the pretext of petitioning for parliamentary reform. These delegates declared for annual parliaments and universal suffrage, and their chairman was major Cartwright, their secretary Thomas Cleary, the petitioner [Hear, hear!]. This meeting adjourned, after passing resolutions to the effect he had stated; and he must contend, from its constitution and its proceedings, that it was in effect a London central Union Club. Under the circumstances stated, the petitioner had no right to complain. It was, in fact, part of the system of the leaders of these societies to make them change their names. What effect the circumstances which had been stated might have on the measure the House was going to discuss he could not determine; but whoever looked at the votes of the other House of parliament, and observed that great numbers of petitions had been presented from different parts of the country, all in nearly the same terms, and praying for the same object, certainly could not doubt that there was a central Union Society, directing and putting in motion the rest; and where could this be supposed to be placed but in London?

Lord Holland

was of opinion, that the reasons the noble secretary of state had assigned both for the rejection of the former petition, and for the receiving of the present, were equally unfounded; but, leaving that question, he should proceed to the point now immediately under consideration, which was of the greatest importance, both with respect to the present preservation of the people's rights, and as: handing down a memorable example to posterity. The noble earl had entered into some detail of argument to show, that the London Union Society referred to in the petition did now exist, either under the same or some other name; but their lordships would recollect, that it was not upon reasoning, but upon fact that they I had to decide. The committee, he was well convinced, had acted with the strictest honour, and to the best of their judgment; but they were fallible men, and had to report upon ex-parte evidence. They had to draw some conclusion from the evidence with which they were furnished, and they might have come to a false conclusion. He would not say that their report was disproved, but its credit was certainly impeached. The question was not, whether a Union Society existed; but whether, when the report was so contradicted, their lordships would not pause to inquire, before they agreed to the bill now on their table. They were asked to do away that law which was the birthright of the people; but before they proceeded to adopt that calamitous measure, they ought to be convinced whether the report rested on evidence which could not be contradicted. It was offered to be proved that the London Union Club had exercised no function for three years and a half; but the noble earl says, that does not signify; a club of the same sort lately met under a different name. But this was far from sufficient to reconcile the inconsistency and incorrectness of the report. How did it happen, that his majesty's ministers, when the facts in their possession respecting illegal and even treasonable proceedings came to their knowledge, took no steps to avert the danger they apprehended? The noble lord had stated, that these societies had changed their names; but that change ought not to have enabled them to elude his vigilance, if their projects were of the nature stated. What were names under such circumstances? Tin's proof of the existence of the Union Society under another name, which the noble earl was so anxious to establish, reminded him of the story of an Irish gentleman, who wrote a book to prove, that no such person as Ossian ever existed; but who finding his proofs in support of that proposition rather weak, turned round, and proceeded to establish, that if Ossian did really exist, it was perfectly clear that he was an Irishman. The reasoning of the noble lord about the Union Club was much to the same purport. Their lordships were now asked to depart from their usual forms—to set aside their standing orders—to pass a bill which was to deprive the people of their liberties, of the most valuable rights they inherited from their ancestors. Why this haste? Why the present apprehension from delay, when he should show, from a petition in his pocket, that ministers had been in- formed of all that was to take place at the meetings they now represented as so dangerous. The adjournment of such meetings as that of Spa-fields, from one day to another, he certainly considered highly improper; but whether it was proper or not, he had got proofs in his pocket of that adjournment having received the sanction of his majesty's ministers [Cries of Hear, hear!]. Well, it may not be true, but this was certain, that there was not much difference between the evidence on which the report was founded, and that which he had to offer. The noble lord had brought forward his ex-parte evidence in the committee; it was but fair, then, that his (lord Holland's) should be heard also. He had in his pocket a document, in which it was offered to be proved, that the noble viscount had expressed his thanks, and the thanks of his majesty's government, to the person who took a leading part in the meetings now stated to be illegal and dangerous, for his conduct at them. [Loud, cries of Hear, hear! in which we distinguished lord Sidmouth's voice.] He certainly did not mean to assert that this was correct, but the facts he had stated were fit to be inquired into before a government of law was changed into a government of arbitrary power. After having so long delayed the meeting of parliament, and having also delayed taking steps to enforce the existing laws against the persons said to be guilty, he thought there could be no just ground for precipitation now.

Lord Erskine

said, he had heard with great satisfaction the construction now put upon the most alarming passage in the report, though he could by no means reconcile it with its language. When he first connected it with all that preceded and followed it, he had supposed that ministers were prepared to establish such a case as they acted upon in 1795. The proceedings of that period were fresh in his memory, and for ever must remain there; he had however read them over that very morning, with the most anxious attention, and was still utterly at a loss to discover a single point of resemblance between them. If he were asked, therefore, upon such evidence to suspend the Habeas Corpus, he should answer, that he could only suspend his judgment. In 1795 his majesty by his message informed the House, not as now, that from general report he suspected mischievous combina- tions, but that having detected a formed conspiracy to overthrow the government by rebellious force, he had seized the papers of the conspirators and secured their persons for trial. Was this the case now, or any thing approaching it? On the contrary, the views or at least the acts of the most obnoxious societies, were this moment admitted to be only what he had yesterday supposed them to be when the former petition was presented, viz. that though they were associated to maintain opinions which in their consequences might be subversive of the constitution if; adopted, yet that speaking of them gene-rally in the report, they only submitted them to parliament for adoption or rejection. Why, then, were their opinions and wishes on the subject of reform misrepresented and stigmatized as projects, since they projected nothing beyond what the laws solemnly authorised every subject to project? viz. to petition parliament. So much for these Union Clubs—but was there now, as in 1795, any charge of a convention to assume the functions of parliament, and was not that accusation negatived even when it was brought to the test? So memorable an example of the danger of parole evidence, surely administered a wholesome caution, and ought to incline the House rather to court information than to reject it when legally offered. As to the Spenceans, they could not be gravely considered as objects of criminal justice. Instead of the warrants of magistrates, the certificates of apothecaries might secure their persons if they became dangerous, where no Habeas Corpus could reach them even if the act were in force. What other prison, indeed, but a madhouse, could be opened to receive persons so completely insane as to entertain an expectation that in such a country as England, they could bring its whole surface and property into equal division and distribution? Nothing then remained but the blasphemous and seditious publications alluded to in the report; which the existing laws were amply sufficient to suppress, and to punish their authors, but they had not yet been appealed to in any one instance he had heard of. Every thing, therefore, conspired to support the policy and justice of opening the door to further evidence, instead of treating through the ordinary customs of parliament to reject it. The petitions he had himself presented from Glasgow and its neighbourhood were signed by above 20,000 per- sons, a large part of the industrious population, and it was preposterous to suppose that they could on a sudden be engaged in a treasonable combination against the state. He implored the House therefore not to be precipitate but to place confidence in the people, governing them by their affections, the only security for the obedience of a free people. In a system of coercion and terror there was no security, and in England it had always overthrown its authors. He was as much a friend to order as the authors of the bill, but he wished to maintain it by the ways of the constitution.

The petition being laid on the table, earl Grey moved, that the petition be referred to the same lords who composed the secret committee, that they be empowered to examine witnesses, and report their opinion to the House. The question was put on this motion, and the House divided—Contents, 23; Not-contents, 74:—Majority, 51.