Sitting of 4 February 1817

PETITIONS RELATING TO REFORM, &c
Lord Cochranepresented a petition from certain burgesses and other inhabitants of the town of Hamilton, in Lanarkshire. On a former evening, when presenting a petition, he had been unable to speak to the character and situation of the persons from whom he had received it. In the present instance he could state to the House, that those from whom the petition now in his hand came, were persons of religious habits, whose industry had heretofore maintained them in comfort, and whose general peaceable demeanour could not be called in question. They stated, in temperate language, the distress of which they had to complain, and the grievances which, at length, compelled them to come before that honourable House. Their prayer was for retrenchment in the public expenditure, and for a reform in the House of Commons. Ordered to lie on the table.
Mr. W. Smithsaid, he had a petition to present from Norwich, which he did not know contained airy thing improper or

203
offensive. This opinion of his, however, did not affect, in his mind, the substance or object of the petition. He must decline giving any particular opinion on the contents, because he thought, that the claim upon a member to give such opinion was imposing upon him a task which was at the same time both invidious and useless— invidious, because it called on an individual member to state an opinion as to the wording of a petition, and because such an opinion was imagined to have a certain degree of influence upon the House. There must be very strong language indeed in a petition, before he could be induced to decline to present one from his constituents. The claim was useless, since, after any member's declaration, the House might totally disagree with the petition; so that no advantage was to be gained from the individual member's opinion. If, again, he thought a petition was improper to present, it might be given into the hands of some other member who thought differently, and the House might afterwards think it was fit to be received, in which case his own opinion would be gratuitous and useless. He then adverted to the case of a rejected petition from Horsham on the 25th of April, 1716, which was refused on the score of improper language. That petition prayed for the repeal of the septennial act, which was styled "an overturning of the constitution and subversion of the rights and liberties of the nation." But he thought, that if the House of Commons would go so far as to double the period of its own existence, he scarcely knew any terms so strong as to prevent him from thinking it his duty to offer a petition upon the subject. He had looked at this petition and its prayer, and he thought it ought to be received. There were respectable names on the first sheet, followed by thousands of signatures. It was on the principle of the question that he thought it right to decline giving his own opinion on the terms in which the petition was couched. He moved, that the petition be brought up.
Mr. Wynnregretted exceedingly, that he should find himself called upon to oppose the bringing up of this petition, but remembering what he had heard repeatedly from the oldest members of that House, and the firmest friends of the British constitution, that a member presenting a petition should be held to give his sanction to the language of it, though not to the prayer, he, for one, would not
204
consent, after what had been said by his hon. friend, to receive it. If he looked back to the proceedings of parliament, he found the great examples of Mr. Fox and Mr. Whitbread, who were as anxious as any members to support the just rights of petitioners. They had however presented on some occasions, petitions of which they stated that they did not approve the prayer; but then they said they had read them, and did not see any thing in them offensive or disrespectful to the House. His hon. friend seemed to treat this as nugatory, because the House could reject a petition. But was it really a point of indifference to the House to act on such questions as a mere matter of course, and thereby to be compelled to hear a train of expressions offensive in themselves, and impertinent to, or unconnected with, the subject on which the petition was founded? At this rate, a petition of the size of a quarto volume might be brought up and read, filled with extraneous and offensive matter, till the House was quite tired out with hearing it. He was sorry to be obliged to oppose receiving a petition under the present circumstances. He had said to persons who had brought petitions to him, that he was willing to present them, but sometimes they had run to too great a length, or contained what might cause their rejection, and he had then recommended the parties to amend and alter them. It was much the better way to take any offensive matter out of a petition before presenting it. He saw no one benefit likely to arise from any alteration of the uniform and established practice of the House. There must obviously be a great inconvenience in being obliged to sit and hear all sorts of insult and contumacy. He had, on a former occasion, alluded to the circumstances of the Kentish petition. The House, after hearing offensive language, had no way of animadverting upon it but by the rejection of the petition which contained them. The former practice had been to state objections to petitions on the question of bringing them up. It would be a subject of regret if all petitions were to be read as a matter of course. He should regret deeply if petitions were rejected merely because they contained passages which expressed sentiments contrary to the opinions of the majority of the House. He saw no way more effectual for all desirable purposes, than to inquire the opinion of a member as to the character of a petition;

205
and it was the best mode of avoiding the painful necessity of rejection.
Mr. Lockharthad always thought the member presenting a petition bound to read it, but not to go further, and vouch for the propriety of the language it contained, excepting in particular cases, where the House having reason to believe the matter of it was offensive, might require some assurance on the subject. The opinion he had formed had been confirmed by what occurred a few days back. When the hon. baronet had brought up his first petition, no questions had been asked; but when one or two had been read, and found to be disrespectful to the House, and couched in nearly the same terms, he had properly been asked if those which he was subsequently about to present were of the same character. When called to state what the character of a petition might be, he thought the member presenting it was bound to give a pledge, that it contained nothing improper, but he did not think he was called upon to do this in the first instance.
The Speakerapprehended the rule of the House to be what had been laid down on a former day, and what had been correctly stated by an hon. gentleman on this, that the House had a right to expect a member presenting a petition, would be prepared to declare the language of it was not in his opinion intentionally disrespectful. If he refused to give such a pledge, it seemed hard that the House should be expected to depart from its established rules to receive the petition so presented. The member ought in the first instance to satisfy himself that the language of it was not improper.
Lord Castlereaghsaid, the feeling of the House must ever be in favour of receiving petitions, and it never could be their wish, in considering what was due to their dignify and what was their duty, to throw any obstacles in the way of petitioners. He thought the hon. member who presented this petition had gone most unnecessarily out of the way, and he hoped it would be felt, that if the motion were opposed, it was not from any wish on that side of the House, to get rid of the petition, but from a desire to assert a principle which had now been brought into discussion. He apprehended the rule of the House to be founded in true wisdom, and true wisdom went to throw open their doors to petitioners in the largest sense, and doing this to be careful not to depart
206
from the established usage of parliament. It was not necessary they should submit to be treated with disrespect to secure to petitioners their rights. What degradation would be theirs, were they to submit to every insult that the wicked imaginations of designing men might be pleased to heap upon them—to read every petition that might be presented, and reading, to put it on their journals, however offensive its contents might be! He trusted the members of that House would not lend themselves to become the channels of insult, and to be used as the means of libelling it In a case where a member doubted what was the course most proper to be pursued, he might with propriety state his doubts, and then the petition could be read, that the wisdom of the House might assist him in coming to a decision. But when the hon. gentleman so broadly maintained that the House was bound to receive any petition that might be offered, without requiring any pledge as to its language, he would say, that if they lent themselves to such a doctrine, they lent themselves to their own degradation, and to the destruction of their own privileges and dignity. As this subject had been forced unnecessarily on the House, he had no difficulty in adhering to the established rule, and, considering the rights and liberties of the subject involved in the dignity of that House, he thought they were bound in the present case to reject the petition.
Sir F. Burdettthought it was rather hard on so respectable a body of men as the petitioners, that their petition should be rejected, because the member presenting it, had expressed an opinion on a matter with which they in the present instance had nothing to do. After all, it could not be doubted that every member would exercise his own discretion whenever a petition was brought for him to present, and he hoped the noble lord would not persevere in his opposition on the present occasion.
Mr. Bathurst,after alluding to what had passed on the same subject on a previous evening, observed, that if the hon. member who presented this petition had omitted his observations, it was probable that the petition would have met with no opposition. He might suspect, in such a case, that a member thought that his petition would not be received when read; but he imputed no such thoughts to the hon. gentleman, who, he rather believed, wished merely to raise the question. He could

207
not deny the practice; but he had merely argued against the reasons assigned for the rule, which he seemed to consider as extremely absurd. If a member had any doubt respecting a petition, he could state it. As to a petition, declined by one member, going into the hands of another, that was no argument against the security afforded to the House, by relying, to a certain extent, on the character of one of their own body to protect them against a petition which might contain gross abuse from beginning to end. Many things might be sufficiently stated without offensive language. All responsibility was lost when a member said he had not read what lie presented; yet a libel might thus go to the journals. The point was, whether it was proper to take the chance of a petition which nobody had read, and the risk of insults. It was impossible to assent to this.
Mr. W Smithreplied, that no one was: more ready to bow to the authority of the chair than himself, but he considered the present question as one of great importance. It was upon the principle alone that he stood. He never doubted the power of the House to require of any member that he should declare a petition to be such as the House might receive, or that he might be called upon to read a petition in his place, and in the latter case it would not appear on their journals, if couched in improper language. They could not expect that petitions upon reform, or upon grievances arising from a want of reform, would be expressed in very conciliatory terms; but he did not think it was the duty of a member to make himself the channel of refusal, if he considered a petition objectionable. He was, therefore, ready to abide by the decision of the House on the present occasion, whatever that decision might be.
Mr. Canningobserved, that no question would have been agitated upon the subject of this petition, if the hon. member had not sought it by stating his objection to saying that he had read it.
Mr. Bankesthought that the hon. member had fully complied at first with the rules of the House, in saying he had read the petition, though, he afterwards started the general question about the necessity of his compliance. If he would repeat what he had first stated, so as to undo the effect of his subsequent observations, he would vote for the reading of the petition. The hon. member might bring forward the subject on another occasion.
Mr. Broughamtrusted his hon. friend would not give the House the trouble of dividing, but he also trusted that he would not comply with the request of the last speaker. If it were felt that a member ought to read a petition before he presented it, let a fair and honourable understanding be come to on the subject on both sides; but he hoped that no member nor even the House itself, would get into the habit of administering interrogatories to every hon. gentleman who might present a petition. Such a course, he contended, was extraordinary and unparliamentary, and would lead to a course of examination that would be very inconvenient, as, after the question—"Have you read the petition?" the next question undoubtedly would be—"Is it fit to be presented?" and if a doubt occurred here, it would then be asked—"What do yon think of it upon the whole?" To this he must object, and he therefore hoped his hon. friend would not repeat what he had before stated, in compliance with the suggestion of the last speaker.
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, that an hon. baronet had been questioned on a former night in consequence of his having said he had not read one of the petitions he presented. In the present case no one would have thought of asking the hon. gentleman a question.
The question, that the petition be brought up, was then put and negatived.

PRINCE REGENT'S MESSAGE RESPECTING CERTAIN COMBINATIONS.
The order of the day being read for taking into consideration the Prince Regent's Message,
Lord Castlereagh,in rising on the present occasion to submit a motion to the House, was happy to think the proposition he had to offer was one on which he could not apprehend the slightest difference of opinion would exist, as it merely went to acknowledge the receipt of the Prince Regent's most gracious message, and to assure his royal highness that that House would take into its most serious consideration the papers he had ordered to be communicated to them without delay. Whatever the situation of things might be at present, nothing could be further from his wish, than to say, one word that might lead to a debate on the present state of the country, as the very nature of the communication which had been made indicated secrecy to be desirable, as the

209
House were not yet in possession of what ministers considered to be necessary to give them a proper knowledge of the present state of the country. It would cause great embarrassment to him, and to the House itself, were this subject now to be entered upon. All he should at present request of them was, that they would keep their minds free and unbiassed, that they might then act as should be necessary on the report of the committee. There was only one other point on which he would offer a single word. He thought it necessary to oppose the idea that had got abroad, that this communication arose out of the late atrocious attack on the person of the Prince Regent. He begged distinctly to state, that the present proceedings did not arise in any shape out of that outrage. The communication which had been made was founded on information which he thought it would be felt that the government, without abandoning their duty to the country and to the constitution could not but advise his royal highness to submit to the House. Having said thus much, he hoped it would be most consonant with the feelings of the House not to enter upon the views which any gentleman might take of the present situation of the country, from the information which they already possessed. He concluded by moving, "That an humble address be presented to his royal highness the Prince Regent, to return his Royal Highness the thanks of this House for his most gracious message, and to assure his Royal Highness that this House will proceed to take the information which by his Royal Highness's commands, has been laid before them, into their immediate and serious consideration."
Mr. Ponsonbydeclared, that he did not rise to offer any observation in opposition to the motion of the noble lord. But he was solicitous to ascertain from him whether it was, or was not, in his contemplation to proceed immediately on the subject, as in his judgment it was one of ail others, in reference to which any delay must be pregnant with public danger [Hear, hear!].
Lord Castlereagh,in answer, stated, that it was the intention to adhere strictly to the precedent established in the year 1795.
The motion was then carried nem. con. Lord Castlereagh then moved successively, 1. That the papers containing the communication from the Crown be referred to a committee. 2. That this com-
210
mittee be secret. 3. That it consist of 21 members. 4. That it be chosen by ballot. All which motions were agreed to.

CASE OF THOMAS DUGOOD.
Mr. Addingtonsaid, he had taken the earliest opportunity of bringing the case of Thomas Dugood under the consideration of the noble lord at the head of the department to which he belonged, and it had been ascertained that the youth had not been committed by a police magistrate, as stated by the noble lord. The committal had been signed by a magistrate for the county of Middlesex.
Lord Folkestoneadmitted a fact to have been stated of which he was not aware, and which went to do away some of the arguments he had used on the preceding day, but his view of the general merits of the case was not affected by this statement.

PETITION OF MR. HUNT.
Lord Cochranerose to present a petition from, a gentleman who complained of being the object of much oppression and misrepresentation. If the petition contained allegations that were untrue, let them be controverted; if, on the contrary, they were true, let the individual have an opportunity of maintaining them. The noble lord then stated, that the petition which he held, was from Mr. Henry Hunt, who complained of a libel having being sent forth upon his character. He stated, that he could prove it to have been printed at the office of the police printer; to have been issued from a police office; to have been, when affixed to different walls of the metropolis, watched by officers of the police stationed for the purpose; and, lastly, that copies of the paper so placarded, were deposited at a police office, for the purpose of enabling the parties who detected others tearing down the bills to identify the torn part from the whole copy so deposited. He hoped, that if such facts were proved at the bar of that House, they would feel the necessity of addressing the Prince Regent, entreating that he would dismiss from the commission of the peace, a magistrate who would be found to have so violated his duty. He concluded by moving, that the petition be brought up.
Mr. Serjeant Bestfelt it right to object to the extraordinary course which was about to be taken on this occasion. Let the House reflect for u moment on the

211
situation in which it would be placed, by receiving this petition. It would stand in a situation to pronounce upon an inquiry, without having the power of ascertaining upon oath the truth or falsehood of the allegations at issue. The petitioner had quite mistaken his course. Some papers had been, it appeared, stuck up, reflecting upon his character, counterparts of which were found at a police office. They might have been there without the knowledge or privity of the magistrate; but if they were with his consent, then the remedy lay in a judicial proceeding against the magistrate in due course of law, where the whole evidence might be taken upon oath. The House would not surely convert itself into a court for taking cognizance in the outset of charges brought against inferior officers. He would, therefore, oppose this petition, as it prayed nothing which could not be put in a regular course of redress in the ordinary way of proceeding.
Sir F. Burdettbegged to observe, that the noble lord had stated the contents of the petition, and, in so doing, had satisfied all the forms contended for in the presentation of petitions.
The petition was brought up and read.
It was couched in the same words as the one presented to the House of Lords, and which will be found at p. 170. On the motion, that it do lie on the table,
Lord Castlereaghsaid, he should not oppose its being laid on the table, but he should certainly oppose any further proceedings on the allegations which it contained.
Ordered to lie on the table.

PETITION FROM WASHINGTON COMPLAINING OF OBSTRUCTIONS IN PETITIONING.
Mr. Broughamsaid, he held in his hand a petition from a number of the inhabitants of Warrington, in the county palatine of Lancaster, complaining of a gross violation of the subject's best privilege—the right of petition. If the facts alleged in the petition were borne out, and in their support he had two affidavits, he sincerely hoped, that whilst documents, probably of an opposite tendency, were about to be referred to a committee soon to be appointed, the subject's complaint of grievances would also be entertained and examined. It was the indubitable duty of the king's government to preserve the public peace, and of that House to support the executive in the
212
constitutional manner of conserving the national tranquillity; but, on the other hand, it was no less the indubitable obligation of that House to see that the people's grievances were redressed, before they were driven to those acts of violence which the disregard of protection might alone originate. If that, as he took it, was the first duty of the representative, it was particularly imperative in its application when the nation was suffering in the most afflicting extent, when at least no obstruction should be given to the bare consolation of expressing in a legal, peaceable, and constitutional manner, their complaints. The House would best guard against public outrage, as it would best fulfil its natural duty, by listening to popular grievances; by throwing open its doors widely to the claims of general misery; but, above all, by marking with its determined indignation any effort to stifle or impede it. The case to which the petition referred appeared to be one where a most serious obstruction was given to the right of petitioning. A petition had been signed by some hundreds of the inhabitants praying for retrenchment and reform. Its language was guarded and cautious; it broached no violent doctrines. Yet the petition was forcibly seized in the streets, as it was handing from house to house for signatures, by a man named Richard Burrows; was given by him to Edward Coates, and afterwards was forwarded to Mr. Thomas Lyon, the nephew of the acting magistrate, in whose house Mr. Lyon resided. Application was made for it by letter, stating the outrage, but the petitioners were unable to recover it. A second petition was then drawn out, but from an informality in the signatures it was unfit to be presented. The subjects right was thus obstructed by the unjustifiable outrage. The petition he held in his hand complained of that outrage, and he had therefore to move to have it brought up.
The petition was then read, setting forth, "That the petitioners, together with a considerable number of the inhabitants of Warrington and the neighbourhood, signed a petition to the House; and that, on the evening of Wednesday the 22nd day of January 1817, the said petition was forcibly seized in the street by Richard Burrows, carried by him to the house of Mr. Edward Coates, and conveyed from thence to Thomas Lyon, junior, esquire, from whom the petitioners have

213
not been able to recover it; that, in addition to the petition seized by the said Richard Burrows, which contained about three hundred and fifty signatures, there are other parchments, with copies of the said petition affixed, having five hundred and six signatures to them; that, after the seizure of the aforesaid petition was known, no more signatures to the said petition were received, otherwise the number of persons subscribing it would have been considerably increased; that the petitioners humbly conceive the outrage of which they complain to be not only a gross attack on the right of the people to petition; but also a high breach of the privileges of the House, as it is prejudging the question, and not leaving its decision to the wisdom of the House, who alone have the right to determine whether the said petition should be received, and whether its prayer should be granted; and the petitioners humbly pray that the House will take into their most serious consideration this attempt by lawless violence to prevent the petitioners from submitting their wishes to the House, and that they will take such measures as may appear to the House the best calculated to prevent a recurrence of such outrageous, illegal, and unconstitutional proceedings, and that they will thereby secure to the petitioners that right of petitioning which is the birthright of every Briton."
Mr. Broughamsaid, at present he should merely move that the petition do lie on the table, in order to give every opportunity to the parties complained against of vindicating themselves, and to put the House in possession of every fact. If this opportunity was not embraced, he should in eight or ten days, feel it his duty to take some further measures.
Mr. Bootle Wilbrahamapproved the course that the hon. and learned gentleman had taken in letting it lie on the table, and he thought it probable that no further steps would be taken, as though lie knew nothing of the transaction, he was convinced, on explanation, it would prove to be no serious intention of obstructing the right of petition, but a mere coarse joke, such as he knew to be common among the lower classes of the manufacturing districts. That it appeared to him a new petition might easily have been prepared and signed in the course of a few ours; the persons who signed the former one and the parchment being at hand;
214
and that he ventured to think it would not be found a subject worthy of the serious attention of the House.
Mr. Ponsonbycould not suffer this matter to pass without making one or two remarks. And, first, he must express the extreme satisfaction which he felt at the temperate and moderate language in which his hon. and learned friend had stated this most extraordinary occurrence to the House. The hon. member opposite had been pleased to call it only a coarse joke; but to him it appeared one of the most gross and flagrant violations of the privileges of the people, and of that House, that had ever occurred. In the present situation of the country nothing could be more dangerous than to give the people an opportunity of stating, that their petitions: were not suffered to reach that House. The distresses of all classes of the community were unparalleled in the history of the country; and they should be permitted, at least, to state their grievances, in order that the House might adopt the most effectual means of administering relief. His hon. and learned friend had very properly suggested, that other information might be afforded on the facts of this petition; but if that information was not presented to the House, he hoped nothing would prevent his hon. and learned friend from showing to the people, that their sacred and indubitable right of petitioning would be preserved, at least by the faithful representatives of the country.
Mr. Wynnconcurred in the praise due to the temperate and proper mode in which the petition was introduced, and he regretted that such a subject had for a moment been treated with levity. It was a duty paramount to all others for the House to show the people that it would protect the humblest individual in the land from any obstruction to his right of petition—a right solemnly recognized by the Bill of Rights, and the fair exercise of which could not for a moment be trenched upon. The House, when such an allegation as this petition contained was made, should trace the matter to its source, and show that they would not allow such an outrage to be for a moment endured.
Mr. B. Wilbrahamdenied that he had treated the subject with levity. He really believed that, on inquiry, it would prove as he had said.
Ordered to lie on the table.

PRINCE REGENT'S MESSAGE RESPECTING CERTAIN DANGEROUS COMBINATIONS.
The order of the day being read, for taking into consideration the Message from the Prince Regent, which was brought down yesterday,
§
Lord Sidmouthrose and said:—My lords; I rise to propose to your lordships an Address to his royal highness the Prince Regent, in answer to the Message which I brought down yesterday by his Royal Highness's command. My lords, it will be readily imagined by your lordships, that such a communication could not be made to this House, without strong feelings of pain and regret on the part of the illustrious person, by whose command it was submitted to the House. It is, indeed, my lords, a most afflicting consideration, that it should be announced to your lordships, to this country, and to the world, that information has been received, of certain practices, meetings, and combinations, tending to alienate the affections of his majesty's subjects, to endanger the public tranquillity, to bring into hatred and contempt his majesty's government, and to overthrow the whole system of our laws and constitution! and your lordships will, I am sure, readily believe, that such a communication could not, and would not have been made, except under circumstances of peculiar and inevitable necessity. My lords, if it should be your lordships pleasure, as I have no doubt it will be, to concur in an address to his royal highness the Prince Regent, in answer to his gracious message, such a one shall be proposed, as, I trust, will be considered proper, because it shall not pledge your lordships to any measure beyond the mere consideration of the papers. Under all the circumstances of the case, I shall propose to your lordships, that the information referred to in the message of his Royal Highness be referred to a committee of secrecy, and, in making this statement, I naturally feel, that it is not proper, it is not possible, that I should now enter into any explanation relative to the information contained in those documents. I shall also abstain from making any reference to any ulterior measures that may arise from the proceedings of the committee. On this point, my lords, nothing can be done, and nothing ought to be said, until the report of the committee, if it be your pleasure to appoint one, is laid on your lordships table. My lords, all I have to request of your lordships is, that you will abstain from making up your minds, if I may be allowed to use the expression, with respect to the course which it may be expedient, or inexpedient, to follow, after your lordships are in possession of the information which shall be laid before

193
you. On this subject I will not say a word. All I ask of your lordships is, to suspend your opinions and judgments, until the Report is on your table—until you have an opportunity of reading and fully considering it. There is only one other observation, which I now think it proper to offer. It is this—that the communication made on this occasion, is, in no degree, founded on, or connected with, that shameful outrage upon the Prince Regent, which, I am sure, is contemplated, not by your lordships only, or by the other House of Parliament, but by the great body of the people of this country, with detestation and horror. If that outrage had not been committed, if that indignity had not been offered to his Royal Highness's person, his majesty's ministers, being in possession of the information which will be laid before your lordships this day, would have found it necessary to have submitted to your lordships those documents which are referred to in the message from the Prince Regent. My lords, I shall now content myself by moving, "That an humble Address be presented to his royal highness the Prince Regent, to return his Royal Highness the thanks of this House for his most gracious message, and to assure his Royal Highness that this House will proceed to take the information, which by his Royal Highness's commands has been laid before them, into their immediate and serious consideration."
Earl Grovesnor.My lords, the noble viscount has undoubtedly made a most tremendous charge against a large portion of the people of this country. I trust that charge will not be sustained; but at all events, your lordships cannot but acquiesce in the proposition of the noble viscount, for going into this committee, after such a serious such a momentous charge. Of this, however, I am convinced, that, let the disaffection be great or trivial, it has been provoked by the disposition which has been manifested, on many occasions, by his majesty's ministers to their faces against every species of reform, and pertinaciously to oppose every thing like extended and efficient retrenchment.
Lord Holland.My lords, to the motion made by the noble viscount, and to the whole course of proceeding recommended by him, it is impossible, in my humble opinion, to make any objection, when a message of this nature has been sent down from the throne. The state-
194
ment, that such serious communications were to be made, is quite sufficient to authorize your lordships to enter into the ordinary course of examinations hitherto adopted on such occasions. When meetings and combinations are stated to exist, by which the constitution of the country is endangered, the line proposed to be taken by the noble viscount is undoubtedly the correct one. I do not rise, therefore, my lords, to object to this proceeding. But still, I should not leave this House at all satisfied with myself, if I did not express the deep regret I feel on this occasion, that such a communication should be made, whether it has proceeded from improper practices on the part of individuals, or from the intention of any one, in power, or out of power, to create a false alarm, at this period, throughout the country. It was but yesterday that a noble friend of mine presented a petition to this House, containing a statement of severe personal grievance and oppression; which petition your lordships rejected.* And on what ground did your lordships reject it? On this ground—that the individual, so petitioning the House, had his redress at common law. I feel that the rejection of that petition was proper. But, I hope, that the same justice will be exercised in this case, as was manifested in that. I hope that the even hand of justice will deal out the same measure to the powerful as to the powerless:—and that, when the noble viscount says, that some proceedings have taken place, which demand the notice of parliament, he will go farther, and prove, that they are of such a nature as to preclude any redress by common course of law. This, at all times, is a principle, that ought to guide ministers in proceedings of this sort—but ought now to be particularly attended to. In a time of peace, when no apprehension can be entertained from a foreign enemy—in a time of dreadful distress amongst the people of this country, which naturally renders them anxious to see the legislature and the representatives of the nation conduct themselves in such a manner as to prove the substantial benefits of the constitution, by devising means for their relief—at such a period, measures of a harsh nature ought to be deeply considered before they are adopted. I perfectly agree in the observation of the noble viscount, that it is not fit, at the
* The petition of Thomas Dugood, see p. 183.

195
present moment, to say any thing of the ulterior measures that may be proposed. I therefore trust, that those who may go into this committee will form their judgment and opinion on an unbiassed view of the nature of the case. But it would be, I think, a matter of deep regret, if the investigation of the practices alluded to in the Prince Regent's message, should, at this period, lead, in the judgment of your lordships, to the enactment of any law that may tend to abridge the liberty of the subject. It is unnecessary to say, in a British House of Lords, that any law, tending to abridge the rights of the people, is, at all times, an evil of very great magnitude. But, if that evil be more intolerable at one time than another, the present is the period, when, by the admission of noble lords on all sides of the House, the people are groaning under the most unparalleled distress—when, in consequence of that distress, discontent has been generated—when doubts have arisen with respect to the conduct of government, and a hope has been cherished (fallacious perhaps), that parliament can apply a remedy to the existing evils, more immediately effectual, than, when we go into a consideration of the subject, we may possibly find ourselves able to devise. And here I must remark, that the period when those practices and combinations are said to have been entered into, must be a matter of great importance, and worthy of particular notice, in considering the measures to be hereafter adopted, because, I have felt it a point of congratulation to see, during the last four or five months, large bodies of the people looking to parliament for a redress of their grievances—for relief from their distresses. It will be for the noble viscount to explain to the House and to the country, why, when such a disposition to look to parliament for redress existed, it has been prorogued from time to time— and why, when at length it has been called together, the first measure submitted to its consideration, at this critical period, has been one that implies distrust and jealousy of the people? I, my lords, will bring an unbiassed judgment to the consideration of this question; but I certainly think it a matter of fearful and discouraging omen, that this session should commence with such a proposition. I am ready to believe what the noble viscount has stated, that it is unconnected with the outrage on the Prince Regent which no person (whatever the danger of that out-
196
rage really might be) can look to without abhorence and detestation; but I must regret, I must deplore, that any necessity should be supposed to exist for such a proceeding. I have felt it necessary, my lords, for many reasons, to say thus much at present. On former occasions, when the noble viscount has brought down messages of a similar nature, I must confess I entertained some expectations founded on the noble viscount's own moderation, that he would prevent any results fatal to the liberties of the subject, as the consequence of such communications. I own, that there are many circumstances, at present, that lead me to form rather a contrary opinion; and, therefore, I take this opportunity of stating to your lordships, the distress and wretchedness to which this country would be exposed, if the necessity of a law of the sort that is contemplated, should not be fairly and completely made out, to the satisfaction of every man in this kingdom, before the liberty of the subject should be in the slightest degree contracted or abridged.
The Earl of Liverpool.My lords, I do not mean to trouble your lordships with more than a very few words on this occasion. According to what has been said by the noble lords opposite, no difference of opinion exists as to the mode of proceeding recommended by my noble friend. I cannot think—whatever diversity of sentiment there may be, either with respect to the internal state of the country, or with reference to the measures to be adopted under that situation of things—I cannot, my lords, conceive, that a more proper, a more constitutional, or, I will add, a more liberal proposition, could be introduced, than that brought forward by my noble friend. The general circumstances, undoubtedly, to which the noble lord opposite has alluded, must naturally form apart of the consideration of the committee. But, it was the wish of government, in noticing those general circumstances, not to suffer the message, or the address in answer to it, to pledge parliament to any opinion whatever—either as to the necessity of any farther measures to secure the internal peace and tranquillity of the country, or as to the propriety of letting matters remain as they are. I am sure the noble lord who spoke last will agree with me, that if his majesty's ministers were in possession of the information stated in the Prince Regent's message, they could not have performed their duty

197
in any other way so well as by bringing it before parliament, and, according to established precedent, submitting it to the consideration of a secret committee, so that no person should be bound to express an opinion, as to what should be done, or whether any thing ought to be done, until the circumstances were fully investigated. This is the course pursued on the present occasion. The House is not called on by the address to offer any opinion, and my noble friend has strongly desired, that no noble lord should prejudge the question, and form an opinion whatever it might be. I wish it to be therefore understood, that we go to this inquiry with unbiassed feelings. I hope that noble lords will restrain their minds from coming to a conclusion on this subject, until those who are on the committee have made their report, and they have all had an opportunity of seeing it, and of deciding fairly whether some ulterior proceedings should or should not be adopted. That decision will be formed, with every regard to the liberties of the subject—with a strong disposition not to infringe on the established laws of the country — with every tenderness to the feelings of the people on the one hand, but, on the other, with a firm determination to uphold the constitution at government of the country. With respect to what has been stated, by a noble earl, who says, that there is a tremendous charge made against a great body of the people of this country, I would ask the noble earl, where does he find that charge? — [Earl Grovesnor—"In the Speech."] Neither in the speech delivered on the first day of the session, nor in the message presented yesterday, and now taken into consideration, has such a charge been made. His royal highness, on the contrary, has been advised to declare, that the great body of the people of this country are loyal, and are arrayed against the attempts of disaffected and seditious persons, who might endeavour to draw them from their allegiance. My noble friend, who spoke last, adverted to the distresses of the time (which are admitted on all hands) as a consideration that should operate against the enactment of new measures. I admit the distresses of the time; but, if my noble friend considers the principle which he has advanced, he will perceive that it is not tenable. Designing men, I know, will be at all moments disposed to do mischief and create confusion, if they can j but my noble friend will al-
§
198
low that it is not in time of peace and prosperity, when no distress is felt in the country that such efforts are likely to prevail and become successful. It must always be in time of difficulty, either internal or external, that such attempts can be successfully resorted to by the designing. What I am most anxious to do is this, to restate what is substantively contained in the speech from the throne; namely, that we are not disposed, for a moment to bring any charge against the great body of the people of this nation, whom I believe, most sincerely, to be firmly attached to the established constitution. But, my lords, we are not, on that account, to be insensible to the fact, that, in many periods of the history of this country, persons have been misled by the arts and delusions of others—and, therefore, the present state of things cannot be looked on with indifference. I trust, my lords, we shall not show that supineness and apathy which encourage danger, but that we shall keep our minds free from such feelings; and that, when the question comes regularly before us, we shall look at it without fear and without prejudice. We ought not to countenance any unnecessary infringement of the law, neither ought we to sacrifice, to mere names, that which is most essential to the security and well-being of the state.
Earl Grosvenor,in explanation, said, that the charge must be supposed to have been brought against a large portion of the people, otherwise it would have been idle and unnecessary to have called the attention of their lordships to the subject.
Earl Grey.My lords, to the course of proceeding mentioned by the noble secretary of state, and by the noble earl who has recently spoken, I do not know that any objection has been offered by my noble friends near me, nor, indeed, that any objection can be made. Undoubtedly, if it be true that his majesty's ministers have obtained information of practices that threaten danger to the constitution, it was their duty to communicate it to parliament, and they could not do so in a more proper mode than by adopting the course which had been pursued on similar occasions. Whether that information is of such a nature as to render this communication necessary—whether it is of so much importance as to call for so grave a proceeding—is what we shall hereafter have to decide on; when, on a full consideration of the case, the whole matter

199
shall be brought before us. Until that period arrives, I shall suspend my opinion, as the noble lords opposite have desired me to suspend it; but, in suspending that opinion, I must, in common with my noble friend behind me, express my regret, considering particularly the situation in which we are placed, that any such necessity should have arisen, even in the minds of the noble lords opposite themselves. My noble friends, in mentioning the situation of the country and the conduct of the people, have stated nothing more than what is just and true. Perhaps there never was a time, when, suffering under such an amount of distress, when, labouring under the pressure of such severe calamity—affecting the highest and the lowest—the lowest weighed down by privation, which human nature can hardly any longer support—the highest impoverished by the calls of benevolence and charity, so universally displayed in relieving their less fortunate fellow-creatures;—perhaps, my lords, under so great an accumulation of misery, such exemplary patience, forbearance, resignation, and confidence in the existing constitution and government of the country, were never before exhibited. When we see this—when we see that these effects are produced by an unfeigned veneration for that constitution which we all love—but which I have rarely heard eulogized by the noble lords opposite, except as a preliminary to some invasion of it—when we consider that this forbearance, this patience, this resignation, afford the best proof of the benefit of our constitution, which inspires such confidence, and produces such temperate conduct—ought we not to be most cautious in agreeing to any innovation? The noble lords opposite called on the House to go into the examination without favour, without affection. I repeat the adjuration: and I call on your lordships to enter on this question without favour, without partiality, without fear; or, if fear should mingle with your deliberations, with at least as much fear and apprehension of weakening and impairing the liberties of the people, as of injuring the constitution. I think it is a most unfortunate circumstance, a most lamentable necessity, that, at this period of distress and misery, when no measure of relief has been adopted, when no one efficient measure of reduction and retrenchment has been carried into effect, but when, on the contrary, as has been
200
truly stated by my noble friend (earl Grosvenor), every effort to obtain a reduction of the public expenditure, for which the people of England have unanimously called, has been met with rejection or evasion by his majesty's government— it is most unfortunate, that, at such a time, a measure should be proposed, which, there is too much reason to apprehend, may lead to some invasion or infringement of the people's rights. The noble earl says, he hopes your lordships will not employ yourselves in attending to mere names, while matters of substantial importance are abandoned. I hope, my lords, we shall not; but I also hope that you will consider what is the real state of the constitution, I trust you will consider, above all, looking to the circumstances of the time, as the noble earl calls on you to do, that you stand in a critical and difficult situation, in which precipitancy ought to be avoided, in which you ought to act equally for the security of the people as for the safety of the throne. The noble earl says, that at periods like the present, malignant and malicious spirits will be at work. This is true. But when, year after year, new powers are given to the crown—when we are daily arming the executive government with novel and unheard of authority—when, on the other hand, we know not of any new powers being added to those sanctioned by our ancestors for the security of the people— I hope we shall cautiously abstain from following up this system, and that we shall not continue to give fresh strength to the executive government, while we impair and weaken the liberties of the subject. Your lordships have marked the manner in which the people have behaved under the pressure of affliction and distress-distress which nothing but a proud confidence in the constitution could have enabled them to support. You will give them an additional reason for continuing to act as they have done, by preserving for them, unimpaired, the securities which the constitution has provided for them. That is a reward worthy of all their patience, all their resignation, all their forbearance. Nothing, my lords, but a necessity of the most imperative kind—a necessity of so paramount a nature, that it can be removed by no other means, should induce your lordships to interfere with the slightest particle of those constitutional barriers, which have hitherto protected the people, and which the

201
experience of ages has sanctified. I shall not enter into any observations on the proceedings that may probably take place. I hope the result of this inquiry will be, not to introduce any coercive measure, which would be most improper and unjust, if not supported by the clearest and plainest necessity. I conjure your lordships to consider the case, when it is laid before you, with all the impartiality it requires; and, at the same time, with that sentiment, which, I trust, will ever be the paramount feeling in the heart of every British legislator—a determination not to trench on the liberties of the people; being well convinced, that such an encroachment is as great an evil, as any that may be apprehended from the effervescence of popular spirit."
The Marquis of Buckingham.My lords, I feel, in common with my noble friends, a sincere regret that it should be deemed necessary by his majesty's government to resort to a measure of this nature. The responsibility of proving that necessity rests upon ministers, and as far as they have gone, they are unquestionably entitled to the confidence of the House, that they would not have so proceeded without strong grounds to justify them. When at a future period those grounds come to be examined, tremendous will the responsibility be. I shall go to the inquiry with the dispositions so properly recommended by the noble lords on the opposite Bide. I shall enter upon it as I would enter upon the functions of a juror, in a case of life and death. When the period of investigation arrives, it will be necessary to satisfy me, not only that they shall be able to show that such difficulties have existed as they now state to exist, and that such combinations have been formed as they now represent to be in a state of activity; they must also prove, that the law as it stands at present, is insufficient to counteract the dangers to be apprehended from both. If that is not done, I shall say, that but half their case is proved. If they cannot show distinctly that the law, as it now exists, has been applied to, and found inadequate, the question of their defence will then resolve itself into this proposition unsupported by fact, that the greater the degree of distress, the greater should be the power of the law. If it is proved that the law was not sufficient to suppress the difficulties with which we are threatened, the case will then be made out, it will then appear to
202
be necessary that this inquiry should be instituted, in order to determine what powers ought to be given, not to this or that government individually, but to any government in being at the time that such practices are discovered. No humanity can be more mistaken than that which would allow the people to become the dupes of designing individuals, to be misled by persons few in number but desperate in character, who, under the pretence of calling the attention of the people to their grievances, and the remedies for them, turn away their attention from their real grievances, and the real and true remedies, and fill their minds with imaginary grievances, and the most delusive, visionary, and dangerous plans of relief; with vain theoretical notions and schemes, which even when reduced to their utmost standard of moderation, will be found to be most mischievous, dangerous, and destructive to their own liberties as to the constitution of the country.
The address was agreed to.
Lord Sidmouth Lord Sidmouth then moved, that the papers on the table should be to-morrow-referred to a committee of secrecy, consisting of eleven lords, to be then chosen by ballot. This motion was agreed to.