Sitting of 27 February 1817

POOR REMOVAL BILL.
Sir Egerton Bridges Sir Egerton Bridges moved for leave to bring in a bill to alter the law of settlements, as far as regards the value of a tenement derived from the pasturage of cows; on which occasion he delivered himself in substance as follows:—He said he had attended very anxiously to the principles laid down on a former night by the member for Carlisle, on moving for a committee on the poor Jaws, and also to those so powerfully expatiated on by the noble lord in the blue ribbon g and if there had been any thing in those principles inconsistent with the
760
amendment he now proposed, he should have hesitated before he made the attempt. But his present object was in direct coincidence with those principles. The great point which now seemed generally agreed to be necessary was, a check upon the improvident resort to the funds of the poor-rates, and a revival of the spirit of industry and independance. The 43d of Elizabeth was good. The evils have arisen from the excrescences of the superstructure. The principle of keeping wages low, and making up the worth of labour by the poor-rates was pernicious. No man ought to be paid less than the worth of his labour by those who employ him: and if he his paid more, such a practice, if extended widely, takes away the necessary check to the excess of population above the means of support, which a country will in that case produce. It is wrong therefore to regulate the quantum of wages by the quantum of family of the person employed. So far as a pauper's inability to support himself arises from want of employment, his parish ought to find such employment, which ought to be of a beneficial and productive kind; and such, it is conceived, might in general be found without much difficulty. It seems clear that till the land has attained the utmost limits of cultivation, every able-bodied poor man may, with the use of the proportionate quantity, generate the means of his own support. The laws of nature have imposed that check on excess of population, which arises from the dread of inability of self-support. The poor laws, as lately administered, have endeavoured to act counter to these inscrutable laws. And its effects have been at last found to be such, as might have been predicted. Constituted as human nature is, it is vain to hope that a man will exert his full industry, when he is sure of his support, whether the work he does is much or little. If it be said that the taunts, the scoffs, and harshness, that on applying, a pauper too often receives from a parish officer, are sufficient to deter him from the application; or at least to instigate him to try previously every method to avoid the necessity, experience has proved, that from the existing state of things, during the last twenty years, such attempts have been so generally fruitless, that as necessity urged, so example has taken away all shame. But unfortunately the evil of the taunts, and the scoffs, and the harshness remains; while the use of them as a check to demand has utterly failed. They have broken, the spirit of the poor roan; and

761
destroyed his moral courage; and moral self-estimation; they have taken away that elasticity of heart by which industry is supported, and strength inspired and cherished. In a state of self-abasement he can be content to submit to servility and indignity for the sake of getting food and shelter for himself and his family without a stretch of bodily toil. Poor houses, in their present, extended use, are among the great evils of the modern system, because they take away the necessity of foresight, self-regulation and self-denial. Allow to a man a cottage, a garden, and (where it can be) enough to keep a cow; and, if he is industrious, he will be able to support his family, however numerous, while young—especially if work be found for him when he cannot find it for himself, if he be not industrious, let him suffer for it; it is the immutable law of nature. If his improvidence and idleness are so gross, as to bring his family to starvation, let him be punished in the house of correction. For sickness, accidents, orphancy, and extreme age, the parish funds must still provide. By the indolence super-induced from the security of sustenance, the pauper loses even the power of great bodily exertions: or, if not, spends the surplus with which the opportunity of extra-exertion occasionally supplies him in enervating drink and dissoluteness. It was with these impressions that he was now stimulated to endeavour to remove an existing obstacle to the poor man's enjoyment of the benefit of a cow. As long as the hire of the produce of a cow depastured on land, which in the construction of the law had been adjudged to be a tenement, gave the pauper a settlement where he resided, if of the value of 10 l. so long would the farmer be debarred from accommodating his labourers with such a boon. Sir Egerton, therefore, proposed to raise the value of the tenement which should give a settlement to 20 l. a year, in all cases in which the tenement consisted wholly or in part of the pasturage of cows. As far as it went, he trusted, that this encouragement would have a tendency to stimulate the labourer to look to his own resources, and not place a blind, servile, and habitual reliance on the poor-rates. In consideration of what had passed so lately on this subject, and that he might not seem so presumptuous as to wish to anticipate the views of the committee now sitting, he should forbear at present from entering more at large on this fertile and multifarious topic of legislation. He then
762
moved, "That leave be given to bring in a bill for altering the laws relating to the removal of the poor in certain cases."
Sir C. Burrellsupported the motion, and thought the amendment would be very useful.
Mr. Lockhartwished to wait for the report of the committee, who had in view a total alteration and simplification of the law of settlements.
Sir C. Monckwas of a similar opinion.
Sir Egerton Brydgesreplied, that the extensive alterations to which the committee looked must be a work of time, in the mean time why not remove a partial but pressing evil? He appealed to an hon. baronet, the chairman of the East Kent sessions, if a large number of the cases in the court where he presided did not turn upon cow tenements, and observed, that when a more extensive amelioration was Found, if it could be found, this might be superseded as unnecessary; but let it operate as long as it was wanted.
Sir E. Knatchbullconfirmed this statement: and expressed his approbation of the objects of the bill, adding, that if, on the bill being printed, there should be any thing in it to render it adviseable to wait the report of the committee, it might then be suspended.
Leave was given to bring in the bill. It was afterwards brought in, and read a first time.

PETITION FROM THE BIRMINGHAM HAMPDEN CLUB, RESPECTING THE REPORT OF THE SECRET COMMITTEE.
Lord Cochranepresented a petition from George Edmonds, chairman of the Birmingham Hampden-club, denying that the assertions in the report of the Secret Committee, relative to the Hampden-club were true, and expressing his confidence that, if the House would be pleased to call him to their bar, and hear his evidence, he could convince them that those assertions rested on an ex-parte examination, and were not founded in fact. The noble lord observed, that it would have been highly proper had the House, before agreeing to the bill now in progress for the suspension of the Habeas Corpus act, entered into a full and fair investigation of the whole matter. If he might judge from the small portion of the evidence which ministers had communicated to the House, he had a right to infer that the great body of the evidence submitted to the secret committee had not been of a very authentic nature. He had

763
last night particularly called on the lord advocate of Scotland to state—not from what precise quarter he had received the oath which he read to the House—but whether it had been found on any of the individuals seized in Scotland, or had been obtained from any one by whom it had been taken? Probably owing to the lateness of the hour, the learned lord did not answer his question. It was certainly very desirable to know the true nature and value of that single scrap of evidence. If it had been acquired by a seizure of the papers and records of the persons who had been apprehended, it was a document which unequivocally proved that such a wicked oath had actually been administered; but if it had been obtained by other means, it bore, in his opinion, a very questionable character. He begged leave to say, that no man wished more than himself for the preservation of general tranquillity. But he maintained that the measures proposed by ministers were not calculated to preserve it. Without the disclosure of names, the House might assuredly have had on its table the greater part of the information on which the committee had founded its report. With respect to the pikes, for instance, why could not the circumstances of that transaction be detailed without stating the name of the informer? In the total ignorance of the House with regard to the proofs of the allegations of the secret committee, it was, in his opinion, most unwarrantable to condemn the whole people, without hearing them in their defence. It was due to the character of the House, and of the individuals who had been accused, to inquire into the matter and ascertain by an examination at the bar, whether those individuals could or could not refute the charges adduced against them. The present petitioner was the chairman of the Hampden-club at Birmingham. He (lord C.) could assure the House, that had he thought the Hampden-clubs in any way conducive to the attainment of parliamentary reform, he would have sedulously attended that in London. But so insignificant did he consider their efforts, that he had only attended at two meetings—one in an open room, to which every one had access, and another at which only three individuals had been present. The reason that more of the members had not attended on the latter occasion was declared to be the extravagant ideas that had been suggested by certain individuals with respect to universal suffrage and annual par-
764
liaments. In fact, the Hampden-club was made up of materials so discordant, that to suppose that any thing like a conspiracy could originate in it was most absurd. Not two of them agreed on the subject of parliamentary reform, or indeed on any other subject. Some were for one plan, some for another. But he solemnly declared before God, that he never heard any thing in the Hampden-club which tended to put the smallest part of the constitution, in the slightest danger. He was persuaded that his hon. colleague, who was chairman of that club, would vouch for the truth of this declaration. He believed that not a single paper had issued from the Hampden-club, which was not written by a venerable individual, whose character stood deservedly high with all who were in any way acquainted with him.
The petition was ordered to lie on the table.

WOOTTON BASSETT ELECTION—THOMAS JEFFERIES REPRIMANDED.
Thomas Jefferies was, according to order, brought to the bar, where he received a reprimand from Mr. Speaker, and was ordered to be discharged out of custody, paying his fees. The reprimand was as follows:
"Thomas Jefferies; A select committee of this House appointed to try and determine the merits of the last election for Wootton Bassett, have reported, that you being called as a witness before the committee were guilty of wilful prevarication; and for that offence you were committed by this House to the common gaol allotted for all such offenders.—In the committees established by law for these trials the most favourable attention and protection are bestowed upon all witnesses who come before them; and of that indulgence you, upon your examination, had abundant proof. Repeatedly admonished of the sacred obligation of your oath, and of the duty which you owed to God and your country, you persisted nevertheless in your criminal endeavours to defeat the justice of the cause then under trial. Such practices, however, were, and always will be, unavailing. The example of your punishment, which followed without delay, will operate, we trust, as a warning to all others who may be called upon to give testimony before these tribunals; and the notoriety of your case will, wherever you may have to present yourself during the remainder of your life, teach all men to know, that of such misconduct imprison-

765
ment and ignominy are the inevitable consequences—At length, however, you have been brought to a just sense of your crime; and in consideration of the penitence expressed in your petition, this House has ordered, that you be now discharged, and you are discharged accordingly, paying your fees."

PETITION OF THOMAS EVANS.
Mr. Bennetheld in his hand a Petition, which, as the language of it was respectful to that House, he thought it was his duty to present, though, he begged to say, he had not known, till within these few days, that the individual from whom it came was in existence. It was from a person of the name of Evans, lately residing in Newcastle-street, but now a prisoner in the House of Correction, on a charge of high treason. It set forth, that in the year 1798 the petitioner was arrested under a warrant, signed by the late duke of Portland, committed to prison, and kept in confinement three years. While in such confinement he was denied all access to, or intercourse with his friends; and further, which was a severe punishment, as he understood the petitioner to be a literary man, he was not permitted to read or write. He saw no one, but was shut up in a solitary cell during the whole of that period. In consequence all his prospects were ruined, and he had, in a great measure, subsisted on the charity of the late sir R. Ford. On the 9th of the present month the petitioner had been arrested, with his son, on a charge of high treason. He denied being concerned in, or privy to any treasonable practices. He stated himself to be librarian to the Spencean Society, but he most solemnly denied that the society was connected with any body of men who entertained designs against the state, or that he or them had interfered on the subject of the public grievances and parliamentary reform. The prayer of the petitioner was, that the bill for the suspension of the Habeas Corpus act might not be passed into a law, as he feared, if this were done, he might again be placed under it, in the situation he had described, as he was when the Habeas Corpus act was formerly suspended.
The petition was read, and ordered to lie on the table.

PETITION FROM BATH RESPECTING THE SUSPENSION OF THE HABEAS CORPUS ACT.
Sir F. Burdett.in present-
766
ing a petition from Bath against the suspension of the Habeas Corpus act, expressed a hope that longer time would be given, that the sentiments of the country might be made known on this important subject. The petition in his hand had been prepared in great haste, from an apprehension, on the part of the petitioners, that if any delay occurred, it would not be presented in time. It was pretty numerously signed; but the gentleman from whom he had received it, had written, that it had been kept but a few hours at his house for signature; had more time been afforded, it would have been signed by 10,000 persons.
Mr. Serjeant Onslowsaid, the suspension of the Habeas Corpus act, was a measure which must command the attention of every man who had any regard for the British constitution. He had, he might say, a sort of superstitious reverence for that sacred act. This the bill he had recently brought in would he thought go to prove. He, however, could not say that the petition before the House had altered the opinion which he had previously formed. He thought there was an imperious necessity for passing the act.
Mr. Broughamwas surprised at the course taken by the last speaker. He had referred the House for what he called his superstitious reverence for the Habeas Corpus act, to a bill which he had brought into that House, and which, after much opposition in another place, had passed into a law; but now having made the Habeas Corpus act more valuable to the nation than ever it was before, he showed his superstitious reverence for it by voting in favour of its suspension. Under these circumstances, he could only wish, that instead of a superstitious reverence, he had had merely a reasonable reverence for it, as in that case it was probable he would have voted against the bill now in the House.
The petition was ordered to lie on the table.

HABEAS CORPUS SUSPENSION BILL.
On the order of the day for going into a committee on this bill,
Mr. Grenfellsaid, that after the best consideration which he had been able to give to this subject, painful as it was to him to differ from those around him, with whom he had so long acted, he had brought his mind to the conviction, a conviction which, indeed, might perhaps be

767
erroneous, but which he trusted his friends would do him the justice to believe, was honest, that in giving his support to the present Bill, he was supporting that which was best calculated to defend the liberties of the country.
Mr. Curwensaid, that notwithstanding the strong opinion declared by the House last night, it was impossible for him to forget what were the strong feelings of those who opposed a similar measure above 20 years ago. Most of the great characters of that day were now removed for ever from the stage. Every feeling of political hostility had long since subsided. However strong his own opposition to the measure then was, in every stage of it, he viewed it now in the same light he did any post historical event. But the impressions of the impolicy of that time remained in him unimpaired; and he felt it his duty, though his opposition was hopeless, to mark his opinion to the House; and the country. There was a very great difference between the state of the country then and now, when parties ran so high, when we laboured, under peculiar difficulties, and when pernicious opinions were said to be spreading so widely. He had been closely engaged in all the oppositions to the measure at that time, and he saw no reason to regret it. The results of the policy then pursued, justified in his mind those who were in the opposition. Could it be forgotten by any body, that an attempt was made in those days, which, if successful, would have left us neither liberty nor security?—he meant the attempt at constructive treason. The virtue of the judge, and the manliness and integrity of the juries, would, he was satisfied, command the admiration and gratitude of posterity.—They completely negatived the plot and exposed the political purposes for which it was hatched. All the circumstances justified the objections he had entertained to intrusting such a power as this into the hands of ministers. There were circumstances attending the present case of peculiar delicacy. A right hon. gentleman (Mr. Ponsonby), who had been on the committee, had delivered a speech last night which ought to endear him to the House and to the country by its sense and mildness. But though he had said, that had he been in the cabinet he should have recommended a communication to parliament, and some measure to be abopted; yet, in saying so, he by no means recommended
768
this particular measure of the suspension of the Habeas Corpus act. Never in any serious discussion in that House had he witnessed such a total deficiency of argument in the defence of any measure, as was evinced last night by the advocates of the suspension. He particularly alluded to the speech of the learned lord advocate of Scotland, who, by his own statement, had clearly shown, that by means of the laws as they stood, he had been enabled to arrest a number of conspirators or ringleaders of the disaffected. And if there was danger the existing laws were sufficient to secure the public peace. If this proceeding was so easily effected, what could ministers want with this bill of suspension? This was conclusive, that it could not be wanted for any useful purpose, and that the existing laws rendered it needless. He thought that the laws officers of the Crown had shown no grounds to entitle government to the aid of additional laws, since in England they had not yet tried the efficiency of those which exist. He, for one, would not agree to the suspension. He pointedly referred to the year 1794, and the proceedings then adopted; the effects of which were to place every man who dared to oppose the plans of ministers in the dangerous situation of a person suspected of hostility to the government and constitution of the country [Hear!]. He particularly well remembered one instance of a hundred gentlemen of respectability, in the north of England, who met together on the 4th of November to celebrate the revolution; a spy of Mr. Reeves's was sent down there, and every word that was uttered by the gentleman present, from affection to the revolution which placed the present royal family upon the throne, was noticed. What then happened? Why, that the spy reported to his employer that there was a great deal of disaffection and treason [Hear!]. Mr. Reeves wrote to an officer who had been present; and whose proper and manly reply to Mr. Reeves was, that if any thing disloyal or disaffected had occurred, he should not have required Mr. Reeves's inquiries or advice to know what he ought to do. Supposing a letter of this description put into the green-bag, totally contrary to truth; full of misrepresentations and calumnies, for expressions used in warm affection for that great event which atone gave to the reigning family their title to the throne of these realms!—A title of
‡

769
which he hoped and trusted they would always remember the true foundation; but of which, if they abandoned the principles, he could hope for them only the fate of those whom they succeeded! [Hear!]. He remembered very well that for some time Mr. Pitt would not yield to the goadings of Mr. Burke; but was inclined to think the factions contemptible: but. then came the great object of putting down all hopes of reform in the representation; and this, more than any other object, governed the measures of the day. Now a similar measure was called for to answer a similar object, which, it was thought, would by this means be defeated: but he believed all honest men, from one end of the country to the other, wished for reform; and they could not expect public security, or public peace, without a change in the representation in that House [Hear!]. He would say, in the words of Mr. Pitt himself, that without it they could neither expect redress for the past, nor security for the future [Hear!]. Could not any man read the preamble of that bill, which declared that the sale of seats in that House was notorious, and as Mr. Speaker had justly and strongly expressed himself, as nototious as noon-day? He knew that many of his friends were displeased at such strong expressions in the preamble; but, for his own part, he thought they showed what was wanted, and laid a foundation for further proceedings in better times. The bill enacted nothing to defeat the great object. Was not the country right, then, with the authorities they had in favour of their opinions, to say that there did exist an influence within those walls which could not unite the House and the people together as they ought to be? It was impossible to have that union in such circumstances. He remembered, on a former occasion, having mentioned that 20,000 l. had been laid out to purchase seats in that House; then he was told he was mistaken in that instance in the sum; for the amount was only 18,500 l. He admitted the correction, if that was any gratification to the parties, and was only sorry that so much money had been laid out for such a purpose, for it was far too much. It must appear a mockery to say, that we could have gone on so many years in such an enormous and wasteful expenditure of the public money, had there been a reform in the representation in parliament
770
[Hear!]. What was to be expected from a parliament under undue influence? What put an end to the expensive American war? Was it merely the wisdom, patriotism, and virtue of the House? No, it was the sense of the people. What was it that prevented a troublesome and ridiculous war with Russia? Was it the parliament merely? No; it was the strong expression of the people's feelings. What was it that procured for parliament in the last year the applause and confidence of the people but the influence of their opinion which put an end to the income-tax, which had it passed could not have been collected. What was it then that could alone explode corruption, and do away places and pensions given, not even for services, but for worse than no services at all? Every grant made for a public service he considered as sacred as private property. But, while he readily admitted that, he did not conceive that the House was prevented from striking off those which were made to reward services directly injurious to the true interests of the country. As to the acts of bad men in the country, those men were not the allies of reform—they were the promoters of the system of those who opposed all reform. The first suspension of the Habeas Corpus act was, to get Mr. Pitt out of the difficulties that attended him in the question of reform. So now the object was, to make use of circumstances to avoid reform, and sanction the establishment of an army too great for the country to hold or to pay; and to blind the nation as to its real state. These plots and alarms were the only means by which to get the enormous expenses of the country tolerated. If ministers were really aware of the true situation of the country, he thought we should have examined carefully into the state of our colonies, and, by making every possible retrenchment, have lopped off our expenses by millions. Whenever they came fairly to grapple with the chancellor of the exchequer, it would be seen, that we shall still have 20 millions of expenditure, in various ways, above our resources. Were not these things enough to draw the attention of the nation? This bill was said to be owing to the discontent of the people. No; the people had been exemplary, patient, and forbearing. The House might see how the legal officers in many places attempted to prevent the people from holding legal meetings. He agreed in what fell from the

771
hon. baronet (sir F. Burdett), that dangers arose in the country, from the country gentlemen sleeping on their posts, from not doing their duty sufficiently to the people, and leaving matters of importance to inferior hands [Hear, hear!]. The influence of the Crown was to be met with wherever they turned, and in almost every instance; and under the burthens and difficulties of the country it had increased tenfold [Hear!]. It extinguished high spirit, and destroyed independance of character both within that House and out of it [Hear!]. That vast influence must be cut down, or we could scarcely hope to be relieved and revived. He had particularly listened to the solicitor-general last night, of whose character, talents, and knowledge, no one had a higher opinion than himself. If any body could have made out a good argument for the suspension, he expected it from that learned gentleman; but he was quite deficient in producing conviction on his mind. To say that there was difficulty in procuring convictions according to law, was no argument to prove the necessity of suspending the laws. The only circumstance he (Mr. C.) ever regretted, inspecting the opposition to the suspension in Mr. Pitt's time, was, that they gave way a little too much to their natural feelings in opposition to such a measure: this warmth gave opportunity to throw many imputations upon gentlemen, which all subsequent circumstances proved to be most unjust. He should vainly hope to stop this measure; but he would say, that if dangers did exist, it was well calculated to increase distrust and to banish confidence in the people [Hear!]. It might, he admitted, be necessary, after all, to the ministers, if they were to proceed upon their system, if they were to make their stand as it had been called, and to refuse to knock off another useless place, after dismissing so many brave men who had fought our battles all over the world [Hear!]. No doubt the dismissal of many of these brave men was painful to ministers themselves: but what might these men say? They might say, why not keep 2 or 300 of them, rather than insist in keeping two useless lords of the admiralty, whose business could be transacted by automatons? [Hear!] The people were not to be blamed for withdrawing their confidence from parliament: he should have done the same himself. He felt it his duty to make these observations,
772
though at first he did not intend to detain the House more than a few moments; but being reminded of the active part he took on a former occasion, he immediately said he had not forgotten it [Hear!]. He recollected, that when lord Sidmouth came into power, he entertained hopes that the constitution would be restored, and the previous system abandoned. On that account he certainly regretted, that gentlemen for whom he had the highest respect, on his side of the House, had joined with Mr. Pitt to displace the noble lord's administration. He had delayed the House longer than he ought, but he would always, uninfluenced by party, speak out his mind. No man was ever more sincerely attached to the constitution than he: from this attachment he opposed both the suspension of it, proposed by ministers, and the changes that certain reformers, who supported the doctrines of universal suffrage and annual elections, were desirous of making on it. He opposed the latter, not because he suspected their honesty, but because he doubted their wisdom. He reprobated the demand of power advanced by ministers to preserve the public tranquillity against their designs, because he was convinced that such measures were not necessary. He was convinced that the results would be, not to effect public security, but to produce alarm; not to deter Jacobins, if they existed, from endeavouring to accomplish their designs, but to multiply their numbers and increase their force. He would divide the House, therefore, on the measure at every stage.
Mr. Bathurstrose to answer a question which was put to him by the hon. and respectable member as to the conduct of his noble relative (lord Sidmouth) at a former period. When his noble relative then came into office, he found the country in a state which convinced him that the measures, giving additional power to the executive, which had passed during a former administration, were no longer necessary, and under that conviction he proposed their repeal. So far the hon. member was right. But the hon. member omitted to state how soon after those measures were repealed, it was found necessary to renew those measures. A committee was appointed at that time, from whose report it appeared, that immediately after the liberation of the individuals who had been confined, they met and celebrated their release, drank
†

773
the health of Buonaparté, and seemed to have the same sort of connexion with the revolutionary government in France which they had kept up before their imprisonment. Conspiracies took place, some of the persons concerned in which answered for their crimes with their lives. His noble relative, though disposed to act (as the lion, member had acknowledged) with the greatest indulgence, found himself compelled to resort again to the measures which he had before given up. It would be found by the Appendix to the report of the committee at that time, that the conspirators even then, in 1801, were connected with the Spenceans, and that all the ideas were then afloat which had now made such a mischievous progress.
Mr. Lockhartdeclared, that the atrocious projects disclosed in the report of the secret committee induced him most cordially to give his support to the bill now before the House, which was the only means of preventing the realization of these projects. The report of the secret committee stated, that endeavours were made to undermine all the principles of morality and religion. Now, if the suspension bill would work a temporary change in the constitution, surely this was trifling compared with the change that would be effected in the condition of society by erasing from the minds of the people all sentiments of honesty and feelings of piety. If immorality and atheism should gain a footing here, they would not stop, but would extend to the other hemisphere, and overturn all our Indian and foreign establishments. Attempts were made by artful men to drive the people to desperation, by taking advantage of their sufferings; and to inspire them with an aversion to those who were disposed to alleviate their sufferings. There was a prayer which we were all in the habit of using, in which we desired not to be led into temptation. He had heard many speeches which had a tendency to drive the people into temptation, by advising them to dash aside the hand of charity. When such means were taken to inflame the public mind, it was necessary to resort to new means to check the multiplied devices of sedition. They had within their own time the warnings of the downfall of a government unmindful of its duties to itself and to its subjects, and the establishment of one founded on all the principles now propagated. With these scenes in their memory, it was needless to resort to the page of history. He
774
Was firmly convinced that nothing but the measure proposed could save the country from extreme danger.
Mr. Marryatsaid, the hon. and learned gentleman who had last spoken, had shown that there was a danger at present, but he had not shown how its effects would be obviated by a suspension of the Habeas Corpus. There might be very conscientious differences of opinion on the present question. If there was no choice between a surrender of the liberties of the country for a time, and a great danger of losing them for ever, he should have no hesitation in preferring the former alternative; but he believed, on the best consideration he could give the subject, that the danger had been much over-rated. The precaution in such cases should be commensurate with the danger. He remembered when once at sea the captain ordered the dead lights to be put up, to prevent the possibility of danger. When the women, who were passengers, heard the order, they were so frightened that the precaution was likely to produce upon them consequences as bad as those which it was intended to prevent. He thought we might ride out our present storm—if not without putting up the dead lights, at least without throwing away the sheet anchor. A measure so extraordinary as that which was proposed, would produce much unnecessary alarm on the public mind. Many persons would judge of the magnitude of the danger by the measures taken to avert it, and some loyal subjects would hardly sleep sound in their beds. Neither was it alarm only, but discontent which the measure was calculated to produce. Englishmen were accustomed to consider the Habeas Corpus act as the law which gave them privileges and distinction above all other nations; and to suspend it, could not but afford food for dissatisfaction, and it would, no doubt, be taken advantage of by the evil-disposed to increase the disaffection which unhappily was but too prevalent in the minds of the people. It was to be remembered also, that as yet the House had to sit probably several months, and the House would have it in its power, if the other measures had no avail, to grant the power which the executive now demanded. There would, indeed, have been much greater reason for passing the bill before them, if parliament had been on the eve of prorogation. At present he should think it his duty to vote against the measure.
The House then resolved itself into a committee. The blanks were filled up, the report was brought up, and the bill was ordered to be read a third time to-morrow.