Sitting of 28 February 1817

SOLDIERS SEDUCTION BILL.
Mr. Lushington brought up the report of the Bill, "to revive and make perpetual an act of the 37th of his majesty, for the better prevention and punishment of attempts to seduce persons serving in his majesty's forces by sea or land from their duty and allegiance to his majesty, or to incite them to mutiny or disobedience."
Sir F. Burdettobserved, that the measures that had been introduced by ministers were hurried through the House in such a manner, that it was scarcely possible to distinguish one from another, in its passage. He should therefore shortly say, that he was adverse to all the bills.
Mr. Calcraftwas in favour only of the bill for preventing the seduction of the military, and the bill for extending to the Prince Regent the provisions of the law for the security of his majesty's person.
Sir F. Burdettalso thought it proper that the same protection should be extended to the person of the Prince Regent as to that of the King, but objected to the innovations which were made.
Lord Folkestonethought that the least that could be said of the bill was, that it was unnecessary. All knew, that if any attempts had been made to seduce the soldiery, they had failed. The present mea-would throw a slur upon them; for it would make it appear, that they were so liable

781
to be seduced, that it was necessary that a little flirting with them should be made punishable by law. He approved of the measure which applied to the safety of the Prince Regent: but with respect to the others, he lamented that we should think and act so differently from our ancestors.
Lord Ossulstoninstanced the case of a person who had been committed upon a charge of attacking the Regent on his return from opening parliament, although no proof was exhibited of his having thrown the stone, and this person was subsequently exonerated from any participation in such attack by the evidence of all the witnesses examined. The law did not require to be drawn tighter. He was afraid there were already too many temptations to prefer accusations of this and other descriptions.
Sir G. Heathcotethought that the bill before the House was calculated to impress on the public the idea that we ought to have a large body of forces in time of peace. He objected to large standing armies as unconstitutional, and wished that more confidence were placed in the civil power. It did not appear to him that any serious disturbance was to be apprehended for he was perfectly certain that every man in the country who had any thing to lose, was attached to his majesty's government. Of the four bills, the only one which he could support was that for the better protection of the person of the Prince Regent.
The Report was agreed to.

YEOMANRY.
Mr. Addington, in presenting returns of the Yeomanry and Volunteer Cavalry in Great Britain, said, he should take that opportunity of adverting to the statement of an hon. member (Mr. Wynn) the other night, in which that hon. gentleman had seemed to convey an imputation against that branch of the government to which he belonged, that it was not properly disposed to entourage the yeomanry of the country. He was the more surprised, as he and his noble relation were known to entertain the most exalted opinion of that constitutional description of force; of the zeal, promptness, alacrity, and public spirit with which they had attended the summons of the civil magistrates, and on many occasions protected the peace of the country. He had to state that since the beginning of October every effort had been made by the home secre-
782
tary of state to increase the yeomanry in all parts of the country, especially where the spirit of disturbance prevailed. For several months past it had been determined to revive part of the allowances which were formerly made for that service. He had sorely regretted their reduction at the time when public economy had rendered it necessary, and he should be most happy to use his best efforts to have them restored. He was convinced that on the yeomanry, the constitutional force of the country, its tranquillity mainly depended.
Mr. Wynnsaid, he had stated, certainly, that there was a necessity for government to give more than mere encouragement to the training of the yeomanry forces at the present day, as it must be obvious that the class of society from which this force had always been collected, was now materially affected by the pressure of the times, and could not, therefore, provide and equip themselves, as in better times they freely had done. He then alluded to the case of a friend of his who had raised an additional troop in one of the most disturbed towns on a former occasion, and had made an application to have three years allowance in advance, but had met with a refusal, and had consequently advanced the money out of his own pocket. He was persuaded that the influence of the yeomanry in repressing cases of popular disturbance was much greater than that of the regular force. The people would in many instances be deterred from violence by seeing those arrayed against them to whom they were accustomed to look up as their masters. He was glad to hear that there was a probability of the increase of their allowances, for unless that were done it would be impossible for them to maintain themselves.
Mr. Cokewished for a constitutional description of force, rather than for one of another description. He had for forty years uniformly maintained those principles which he should continue to maintain to his death,—principles of decided hostility to those on which for that period the government of the country had been conducted. He very much feared that there existed a disposition and a settled intention to produce a state of things in England nothing short of despotism; and he was anxious to put the House on its guard on the subject. He uttered this as his unbiassed opinion. He had nothing to ask either of one side of the House or of

783
the other. He spoke merely as an honest I man representing a great and important county [Hear, hear!].

PETITIONS AGAINST THE SUSPENSION OF THE HABEAS CORPUS ACT.
Sir James Shawsaid, a petition had been put into his hands, which had been agreed to at a meeting of the livery of London that day assembled in Common Hall. He had been prevented from attending the meeting, but he understood that it had been very numerous, and that the petition had been agreed to unanimously, The petition was couched in decent and respectful language; the prayer of it was, that the bill for the suspension of the Habeas Corpus act should not pass into a law. With respect to the other measures before the House, he thought that circumstances rendered them necessary; but with regard to the suspension of the Habeas Corpus, he considered that it was uncalled for by the necessities of the case. He then moved that the petition be brought up.
Mr. Calvertcould not help congratulating his brother liverymen that they had found at last another representative to coincide in opinion with them, and to do justice to such petitions as they might think proper to present to the House. He had not been at the present meeting, but he agreed with them in thinking that the present measure was altogether uncalled for, and that the House, in depriving the people of their rights and liberties, were neither warranted by any thing contained in the report, nor by any thing that had fallen from his majesty's ministers.
Mr. Calcraftthought the speech of the hon. baronet who had presented the petition, most valuable. That hon. baronet had seen the terrible mob which had been the occasion of the suspension bill: he had been one of those by whom that mob had been dispersed, and if the best evidence had been wanted before the secret committee, none could have been better than that of the worthy alderman. It was now the only one before the House. He congratulated the city of London on the circumstance, that one of their representatives, after seeing all these mighty undertakings, which were to end in the seizing of the Tower, and the destruction of the bridges and barracks, and after taking such a prominent part in the crushing them, came forward and bore testi-
784
mony to the insignificance of these undertakings. It was not on such grounds as had yet been laid before the House, that the great charter of our liberties, the sheet-anchor of our constitution, ought to be suspended.
Mr. P. Moorecongratulated the House on the acquisition of evidence which superseded all the evidence hitherto given. If hon. gentlemen would abide by their own senses, and not by the ill-fangled report of the secret committee, they would come to the conclusion that that report was a libel on the country, and an attempt to impose evidence upon them. He wished that every member should be called upon in his place to declare what was the state of the part of the country which he represented, if this were not done, the country was condemned unheard. If the House did its duty by its constituents, it would set aside the report. Most of the petitions demanded the restoration of the rights of which the people had been deprived, but instead of doing that, the House proceeded, as often as it met, to deprive them of other rights. The constitution rested on two great pillars: property and liberty. The whole property of the country was now gone. It had been taken in taxes and wasted in wars, for the nefarious purpose of preventing reform. Now that the ministers had obtained all they could in point of money, they wished to take away the liberties of the country. It was a foul conspiracy against the people and the state for the purpose of establishing despotism. The question was, whether Englishmen were to remain free, or to become a nation of slaves.
Sir Samuel Romillytook this opportunity, while they were deliberating on a motion for bringing up a petition from the livery of London, to beg the House would take into its consideration how very large a number of the subjects of this country could not express their sentiments on the subject of this measure, and that those who could not possibly come to the bar of the House were precisely those who would be most affected by the measure. If by the suspension of the Habeas Corpus act the people of England would be placed in a miserable condition, the people of Scotland would be placed in a far more miserable condition. He did not know that there was any difference between the people of the two countries till he saw the clause of the act which related to Scotland. There was no difference between the two

785
countries in the act of 1794, though at that time the situation of Scotland was such as to give rise to great alarm, and a convention was actually held in Edinburgh. He doubted whether any persons but the law officers of the Crown knew what would be the situation of the people of Scotland Under this bill. The situation of the people of England was, that any person committed by a warrant signed by any of his majesty's secretaries of state, or by six privy counsellors, for high treason, suspicion of high treason, or treasonable practices, could not be bailed or brought to trial without the consent of six privy counsellors, until the 1st of July 1817. This was certainly a violent encroachment on the liberties of the people, but still in this part of the kingdom, there never was so wild an idea entertained as that the power of commitment under the act should be confided to any magistrate. But the situation of the people of Scotland under this act was this, that not only on the warrant of a secretary of state or six privy counsellors, but on the warrant of any subordinate magistrate, any sheriff substitute, or any justice of peace, could persons be committed on charges of high treason, suspicion of treason, or treasonable practices, but all judges were prohibited from holding them to bail or trying them, until they could obtain the consent of six privy counsellors. With the permission of the House he would read the clause of the bill relating to Scotland—"And be it further enacted by the authority aforesaid, that the act made in Scotland in the year of our lord 1701, intituled, 'An act for preventing wrongous imprisonment, and against undue delays in trials—(the great Habeas Corpus act of Scotland passed in the reign of king William)—in so far as the same may be construed to relate to the cases of treason and suspicion of treason, be suspended until the first day of July, 1817, and that until the first day of July, 1817, no judge, justice of peace, or other officer of the law, in Scotland, shall liberate, try, or admit to bail, any person or persons, that is, are, or shall be in prison within Scotland for such causes as aforesaid, without order front his said majesty's privy council, signed by six of the said privy council." So that any man who stood committed by any inferior magistrate, any sheriff substitute for instance, might be kept in prison under such commitment, and could not be brought to trial without the consent of six privy counsellors. He
786
really did not believe, that the members from that part of the country were aware how the liberties of Scotland were disposed of under this bill. The noble lord (Castlereagh) had told them the other day, that they need not be afraid, they knew into what hands this power was to be committed; but he did not then tell them that this power was also to be placed in the hands of the learned lord opposite, for whom had the greatest respect, though the learned lord had not yet been in such at public situation, as to afford him any opportunity of knowing whether he could safely place the liberties of all Scotland in his hands. But under this bill, the liberties of the people of Scotland were not only placed in his hands, but in the hands of all magistrates, of persons who were not responsible, like cabinet ministers, men who had the eyes of the public on them, but obscure magistrates. This was putting the whole of the people of Scotland, and more especially the lower ranks, in a situation in which their liberties must be taken away without remedy. How could any obscure individual, in that remote part of the empire, possibly have such interest with six privy counsellors, as to obtain an, order to be brought to trial? He could not bring himself to believe, that even his majesty's law officers, were aware of the situation of the people of Scotland under this bill, or that the members for Scotland knew of it. He was happy to have had it in his power to make this statement in presence of the first law officer of Scotland, that if he had fallen into any mistake on this subject it might be immediately corrected.
Mr. M. A. Taylor, after the statement which had been made by his learned friend, a statement of the correctness of which he was convinced, from its not having been disputed by the learned lord opposite, put it to the House—if they were resolved that this bill should pass into a law—whether they would allow it to pass with this blemish?
Sir S. Romillyrose to state, that though the same clause was not in the act of 1794, he was aware that it was in the act of 1798.
The Lord Advocateof Scotland said, he knew that it was competent to any member to make observations on the subject of petitions presented to the House, but he was not aware that any member was at liberty, in a discussion on the motion for bringing up a petition, to make observations on a clause in a bill which was not then under

787
the consideration of the House. When that bill came properly under the consideration of the House, he should be ready to answer the statement of the hon. and learned gentleman.
Mr. Broughamagreed with the learned lord that it was competent to any hon. member to make observations on the question for bringing up a petition, and the House did not want such high authority to convince them of their being in the possession of this right. If they doubted it, however, they now had it from high authority. They had it from the highest law authority of Scotland, the learned lord opposite, newly imported into the House from that country, that it was competent to every member to make observations on the question for bringing up a petition. He wished the learned lord to know, that this was a right with which the greater part of members of this part of the country had long been acquainted. He wished him to know, that it was to this right they were indebted for some of the most valuable privileges that ever were wrung from a reluctant government; and he trusted that this right would still enable them, acted on with proper spirit, to defend the liberties of the people against the encroachments of the enemies of these liberties. But this was the first time that he understood that it was not competent to any member to ask such explanation on the subject of a clause in a bill which would shortly afterwards be discussed for the last time in the House, as, if obtained, would enable the House to come properly prepared to that discussion, and to ask that explanation from the person who must be supposed best able to give it. He rather thought the reason why the learned lord did not meet the statement of his learned friend with any explanation, was, that he had no explanation to give.
The Attorney-Generalcould not help thinking that the hon. and learned gentleman had not correctly heard what fell from the learned lord. He merely stated that he would give the necessary information to the House at a more convenient season. The best reason why such statements should not be brought forward, except when the subject to which they referred was properly before the House, was, that the person to whom it belonged to give the proper information could not be supposed in his place to-give such information. He knew that when the subject came under the consideration of the House the state-
788
ment of the hon. and learned gentleman could be satisfactorily answered.
Mr. Madockshoped as a petition was now presented from the city of London against the suspension of the Habeas Corpus act, that time would be given for his constituents to send a petition from Boston. He hoped time would be given for the whole country to petition. He hoped the House would interpose to compel ministers to postpone the third reading for a week or ten days, to allow a fuller attendance of members, and to afford the other half of the House, now absent, most of them probably in the country, to attend in their places, and report on the several districts they reside in or represent, as to the actual condition of the people. Would the House suffer the measure to be precipitated in this manner? Would they allow the people to petition on a turnpike road that leads to the county town, and prohibit them from petitioning on a measure that leads to the county gaol, and that too on suspicion. And where was the road by which they were to return? Not through the avenues of justice, for they were closed, and the trial by jury denied them. And when? Who could predict the duration of their durance? Who could foresee the numberless pretences which the ingenuity of tottering power might invent for its continuance? The descent to the dungeons in the Tower was easy and certain; the return difficult and uncertain—
Facilis descensus averni,
Sed revocare gradum superasque evadere ad aurus,
Hic labor, hoc opus est.
The Lord Advocateasked sir Samuel Romilly, if he had not said the clause objected to was not in the act of 1794?
Sir S. Romillyanswered in the affirmative.
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, before the House proceeded further, he would read a clause in the act of 1794. [Here the right hon. gentleman read a clause, which was worded like the clause in the present bill.] He did not see how his hon. and learned friend could by any subtlety establish a difference between the two clauses of the act of 1794 and the present bill.
Sir S. Romillydisclaimed all pretensions to subtlety. When he made the statement he had expressly stated, that if he was wrong he should be happy to be corrected. He had looked over the bill of 1794 too hastily. However, the ques-

789
tion for this House was not whether the clause was ever before in the act, but whether they were to lay the people of Scotland prostrate at the feet of the learned lord and any magistrate in the county, and. upon that subject the learned lord had, as yet thought proper to give no explanation.
Mr. Ponsonbyasked, what it signified whether such a clause was in the acts of 1794 and 1798 or not? He would ask too those around the learned lord, whether they understood the clause? Would any of them get up and explain it to the House? Would they tell the House and the country, what they certainly had not understood, that by this measure they would place the liberties of Scotland at the mercy of the lord advocate, and every inferior magistrate of that country.
Mr. Bathurstsaid, that whatever might be the merits or demerits of the clause, there was no one at present to answer for them, as it had stood in other bills which had passed the scrutiny of as great acute-ness and talents as the House could now boast.
The petition was ordered to lie on the table.
Mr. Broughamsaid, he held in his hand another proof of the great advantage which would result from allowing the people of this country time to express their sentiments on the important measure now before the House. Although one half-day only had been allowed to the inhabitants of Liverpool, they had sent up the petition which he now held in his hand, couched in respectful language, praying the House not to pass the Habeas Corpus suspension bill into a law. When he looked to the names he found among them the greatest proportion of the wealthy, respectable, and distinguished inhabitants of that place, and in confirmation of this he would refer to the right hon. gentleman opposite, the member for that town. The petitioners said they did not venture to express any opinion on the subject of the allegations in the report of the secret committee, but they ventured to express a strong apprehension that whatever foundation there might be for the charges in the report, there was but too much reason to suspect that it would bring into activity designing and mischievous men, who, without knowing any thing against any body, would insinuate matters of accusation against their neighbours for the purpose of involving them in trouble.
Mr. Cokesaid, he took that opportunity to state a fact, which still further invalidated the report which had been presented to the House from the secret committee. He submitted to the House whether the authority of that report was not weakened day by day; and even by the statement of the lord advocate respecting the arrests in Scotland, which proved the efficacy of the existing law. He held in his hand a letter from a gentleman of great respectability residing at Norwich, who was a member of the societies which had been aspersed in the report, called Union Societies. This gentleman, Mr. Edward Taylor was a member of the Norwich Union Society. His letter he should read to the House. [Mr. Coke then read the letter, which stated, that the writer had seen in the report of the secret committee in the newspapers, the Union Society of Norwich, in common with other Societies of the same description, charged with taking secret oaths? with being affiliated with other societies, and holding midnight orgies, in which the scriptures were ridiculed, and plots discussed for overturning the government of the country. Having been a member of that society from its first formation, he was able to give, from his own knowledge, an unqualified denial of every part of that accusation. The sole object of the society was parliamentary reform, of the necessity of which he had, from his first being able to form an opinion, been convinced: and to endeavour to obtain which, by all lawful means, he felt a duty incumbent upon him. The Society never held correspondence with any other society. It neither desired nor courted secrecy, but had printed and published the declaration of its sentiments. It had no oaths of any kind: it had brought no arms, nor had ever intended to use any weapons but truth and reason; whatever the religious opinions of any of the members were, they were never made the subject of discussion—much less was religion scoffed at or ridiculed. He therefore imagined that the report must have been founded upon evidence suspicious, because, as far as regarded Norwich, it was utterly unfounded. He therefore hoped it would not be; made the ground of subjecting every Englishman to the danger of a Bastile; and he was ready to give proof of his assertions either to any member of the administration, or to Mr. Coke if he required it]. The hon. member then observed, that it was certainly surprising that the

791
committee had proceeded upon evidence which had turned out to be so erroneous. As to the character of the gentleman who gave the information, his hon. friend (Mr. W. Smith), and the other member for Norwich, if he had been present, would be ready to give the most satisfactory testimony.
Mr. William Smithrose exactly to the same point as that to which his hon. friend had spoken. To the character of the gentleman whom his hon. friend had referred to be could bear testimony, but he wished his hon. colleague had been present, who though he differed from him in political opinions, would speak equally favourable of the character of Mr. Taylor. He felt it necessary to say, that when he saw the report (which was that of the committee of the other House, which alone referred to Union Clubs) he had never imagined that the accusation against these societies could at all refer to that at Norwich. Being in the habit of communicating continually with the citizens of Norwich of all descriptions, as well those who agreed with him in political opinions as those who were of a very different persuasion, he could say that he never heard one imputation on the motives or conduct of that society, even from those who were not at all friendly to its objects. As to the individual whose letter had been read, there could not be a man of greater respectability, or less likely to be concerned in any improper practices. The letter which he had received from that individual differed from that which his hon. friend had read, in a postscript, which stated that the declaration of the Union Society was inclosed to him, which declaration the writer had thought of sending to lord Sid-mouth. At a meeting held at Norwich for the purpose of obtaining parliamentary reform, at which he (Mr. S) had been present, he had not the slightest hesitation in saying, in full hall, that it was of no importance what reform took place in parliament, unless the electors reformed themselves: and that any man who suffered himself to be influenced in his vote by any private consideration, was not entitled to petition for parliamentary reform. It was obvious that men who received favourably such a declaration, were not of those wild and intemperate persons who were unfit to judge on any political question. That meeting was perfectly quiet, and showed no disposition to interfere with the peace of the city or the country at large; and
792
though at that meeting, as before the august assembly which he then addressed, he was ready to state that universal suffrage and annual parliaments formed no part of his creed, he was not in any fear of losing the confidence of the people of Norwich on that account.
Mr. Bathurstobserved, that the report before the House could by no possibility be construed to extend to the Norwich Union Society, neither did he think that a candid perusal of the report of the other House would lead to the supposition that this society was implicated in the improper practices. The declaration of the Norwich society had been before the committee of that House, and it was not thought that it would justify any allusion to it in the report—that declaration was in favour of annual parliaments and universal suffrage. If it found its way into the report of the other House, it was coupled with other societies, but it could not be supposed that the mischievous designs alluded to were to be attributed to every one of those societies, much less to every member of them.
Mr. Harveysaid, that as he had recently come into the House, a letter had been put into his hand by his hon. colleague from a respectable gentleman of Norwich. He was ignorant of the question before the House. If it related to the Union Club, he could say he knew nothing of it. If to the writer of that letter, Mr. Edward Taylor, he knew him to be a man of considerable respectability, a person for whom, (though he differed from him in political questions) he had the greatest respect, and who he was convinced would never be connected with any club or society whatever, which had for its object to subvert the constitution.
Mr. Tierneysaid, the facts which were continually coming out proved the use of having the report which had been laid before the other House and the necessity of some delay to examine the foundation of those reports. That evening, for the, second time, it had been proved, that the Lords committee had been mistaken in matters of fact. The Lords committee had proceeded upon the same evidence as the Commons, but had drawn different conclusions from it. It was very necessary to ascertain in what the Lords had been mistaken, for as two mistakes had already been discovered it was possible they might find out ten more. It appeared, from what had been said that night, that

793
the Commons committee had before it the declaration of the Norwich society, but had not thought it necessary to mention it. There was only this same declaration before the Lords committee, and yet on that slight foundation they had thought fit to impute to the society practices leading to revolution. Now, if they were to suffer these unfounded assertions to pass without inquiry, there was an end of security for the character of any man, however innocent; and, what was more, there was an end of all respect for that House in the country, if they could consent to pass a law founded in great part on such misstatements.
Sir James Mackintoshspoke shortly in the highest terms, as to the respectability of Mr. Taylor, the gentleman from whom the letter came, which had been read to the House.
Mr. John Smithconsidered it very improper not to give the people time to contradict the imputations that had been flung on them in the report of the secret committee, which he denied was founded on facts. The report began with an allusion to a society called the Spenceans, which, it said, had openly existed. Now, he was member of a committee for inquiring into the distresses in Spital-fields, where he had found an excess of misery, that would have induced compassion, even to the errors of the sufferers; but although he had gone from house to house, and from room to room, he could not, in all is visits, discover any traces of its existence. And after all that had been said upon the subject, both in the report and in the newspapers, he was inclined to believe the entire Spencean society to be what was vulgarly called a humbug. It was indeed very possible that many persons in the country might entertain wild and chimerical doctrines, but the report applied this character to the whole country. With respect to the riots on the 2nd of December, he allowed that he had felt a considerable alarm on that occasion, but the whole proceeding could not justify the application to it of the term insurrection. An insurrection at 12 o'clock, in the middle of the day, and in the city of London! If, indeed, it had burst out at 12 at night, or even at five in the evening, it might have been so designated, but all he could say was, to express a hope that proper precautions would be taken against the recurrence of such excesses, but by other means than the suspension of the Habeas
§
794
Corpus act. If this suspension were put in force in the east end of the town, in Spital-fields, it might be almost considered as a blessing, for there were thousands of persons there who would gladly barter their liberty for food and clothing. As to the imputation of irreligion, he thought it a gross: libel on the people of England, though there might be some individuals who were tainted with improper principles, the great body of the people was more religious than before the revolution. He could answer for this in the district with which he was connected. He thought it also threw a discredit on the report, that it did not allude to the Luddites who had very recently committed outrageous breaches of the peace. The hon. member stated, that a short time since he had been in France, when, in the pride of English liberty, he had, in the presence of a Frenchman, censured the power of arbitrary imprisonment in that country; but the Frenchman taunted him with the frequent suspensions of the Habeas Corpus act, and said, that all the boast of English freedom was a mockery, as it might be at any moment suspended at the desire of the ministry. This the hon. member denied, saying that no minister would dare propose the suspension of the Habeas Corpus act, unless the cause was manifest to the whole nation, and approved by the majority of the people. "I now," said Mr. Smith "blush to find that the Frenchman judged more correctly than I did of the presumption of an English minister, and of the constitution of an English House of Commons."
Mr. Long Wellesleysaid, he differed materially from the hon. gentleman who spoke last, as to what was the general opinion in the country concerning the bill before the House, for he believed that the public opinion was strongly in favour of the bill. That hon. gentleman had said, that among the inhabitants of Spital-fields he had found no Spenceans; but the fact was, that none of those who professed the Spencean principles would be willing to avow them, so that there was no good argument to be deduced from the hon. gentleman's inquiries as to that point.
Lord Cochranesaid he had received a letter from Mr. Chapman, a member of a club for parliamentary reform, at Loughborough, denying all the charges against those societies in the reports of the secret committees.—He took that occasion to ask the lord advocate, whether it was true

795
that the persons arrested in Scotland were of the lowest orders with the exception of a schoolmaster and lawyer's clerk? It was said, that it was a meeting of poor persons to obtain some parochial relief. He was confirmed in the belief that it was so, by a letter from Glasgow, dated so far back as Feb. 8, in which it was said, that at a meeting in the neighbourhood of Glasgow, a dignitary of the law, who received a pension from the public, had asserted that the heritors were not bound to assist the poor. The Sheriff had decided, however, in favour of the people, but the appeal was carried to the court of session to teach them patience. This letter was signed J. M'Arthur, which was the name of the gentleman who had transmitted to him the petition frm Glasgow.
Sir F. Burdettpresented a petition from the chairman of the Leicester Hampden club who felt himself aggrieved, in common with many other individuals, by the report presented to both Houses of Parliament. He wished to vindicate the club from the imputations cast upon it, and was ready to prove at their bar, that its meetings were held for the laudable purpose only of seeking to obtain such a reformation of that House as would restore the people to their just rights and privileges.
The petitions were ordered to lie on the table.

HABEAS CORPUS SUSPENSION BILL.
On the order of the day for the third reading of this Bill,
Mr. M. A. Taylorrose and said, he did not mean to trouble the House at any great length, but he wished to have those sentiments recorded which, for a series of years, he had always expressed upon the subject of suspending the Habeas Corpus, and which would die with him. As to the doctrines professed by a set of men calling themselves Spenceans, he felt no alarm at them; they had slept for twenty years, and if now revived, he did not think it likely they would have many converts. If any person imagined that there was an insurrection now upon the eve of bursting forth, nothing which he could offer would be calculated to remove that suspicion from their minds; but with regard to that which took place on the 2nd December, it had been crushed by the existing laws. Those laws also had since been found sufficient to put down a conspiracy in another part of the island, according to the declaration of a learned lord upon a for-
796
mer evening. He did not, therefore, see any adequate necessity for the present measure, and without a case of extreme and positive danger no power on earth should induce him to sanction a law by which any man might be imprisoned for an offence that in other circumstances would not send him to trial. He would trust no individual with such an authority he would not even trust himself. The worst feature of it was, that it placed every man's personal safety within the reach of insidious, malignant whispers against his character. He would put a case that happened to himself, and he hoped he was not suspected of treasonable intentions. He loved his country too well, and the comforts he enjoyed in it. When Mr. O'Connor was forced to leave Ireland in consequence of being a United Irishman, he brought letters of introduction to several persons in this country, and among others, to himself (Mr. T.) He was ready to declare, that while he visited at his house, there was nothing in his conduct that would have led him to suspect he was a United Irishman. It happened, however, that before he was apprehended, he was traced from his house to several places where United Irishmen assembled. Now, suppose his (Mr. T.'s) character had not been what it was, what might have been his situation? Upon mere suspicion he might have been torn from his family and thrown into prison, without the means of exculpation, without being permitted to tell how he became acquainted with Mr. O'Connor, without the power of demanding his trial that he might prove his innocence. A similar occurrence might happen to a man in a lower situation of life, and how was he to protect himself against its consequences. And yet it was the boast and glory of Englishmen, that every person, whatever his station in society, found equal protection in the eye of the law. It was because such evils might happen, that he would never consent to suspend the bulwark of British freedom. If the law, as it now stood, was insufficient to punish those libellers who strove to undermine the very basis upon which the well-being of society rested, he would arm the executive with greater power, but he would not give it arbitrary power. He had opposed the suspension of the Habeas Corpus in 1794, and was one of a very small minority; because many went over to the other side of the House at that time, whose names, he believed, might now be

797
found upon the pension list. In 1797, he remembered the same question was discussed in that House, in the presence of not more than seventy members: such was the fatal consequence of men's minds becoming habituated to such a proceeding. With respect to the question of parliamentary reform, though he was not prepared to go the length of some persons, yet he had no hesitation in declaring that he was s small reformer [a laugh]. Yes, a small reformer, for there were several things which he wished to see reformed. Who would say, for instance, that Scotland ought not to be differently represented. Or that some boroughs should not be disfranchised? Boroughs which he believed the ministers themselves would be glad to get rid of, if they could. He did not desire to pry into the secrets of the cabinet, he never had been, nor he supposed he never should be, a minister; but he would rather live under any tyranny than the tyranny of certain borough-mongers. He did not allude merely to those who were now in power; if his hon. friends on that side of the House were in place to-morrow, they must submit to the same tyranny, unless the constitution of that House were altered. He was of opinion, however, that sooner or later some species of reform must be carried. He might not live to see it; but when any one considered reform and revolution as synonimous, they confounded two things that were totally distinct.
Mr. Windham Quindid not think the active participation of men of note in a general conspiracy was essential to the existence of great danger. The lower classes were the instruments necessarily employed in all insurrectionary movements; and if they were divided into clubs and societies, the work of insurrection might easily be commenced. It was not conclusive to say, that because the lord advocate of Scotland had arrested some individuals, he had therefore sufficient legal powers to put down the mischief, and take into custody all who might be proper objects of suspicion. He had understood the learned lord to state, that there were persons against whom it was desirable to proceed, if the law would enable him to do so. It was useless to talk of precautionary measures after the danger had actually arrived; the object of the present bill was to guard against contingencies, and the recurrence of the evils which had already taken place. In committing these
798
additional powers to ministers, it was not to be forgotten, that they were at all times responsible to parliament for their exercise of them.
Mr. Protheroesaid, that though he was as unwilling as any man to give up what was justly called the great bulwark of the constitution, yet, from the intimate conviction he had, that in certain manufacturing districts the most extensive combinations existed, for the worst purposes, which were carried on with a degree of system, of method, and of caution, which the existing laws could not reach, he should support the present measure.
Mr. Lytteltonsaid, that if the question now at issue were not of the greatest importance, and that the voice of the humblest individual ought to be raised against it, he should not have ventured to present himself to the notice of the House. He was the more anxious, however, to clear himself from the imputation that had been cast upon those who sat on his side, that if they did not encourage the violent proceedings which had taken place, they at least supported them by the arguments they had held, and the vote which they had given on this occasion. [Cries of No, no! from the Ministerial benches.] He was glad to hear that such imputation was to be removed. This was a measure which could be justified only by the most imperious necessity. The noble secretary of state, in one of those insidious panegyrics on the constitution, which always preceded or accompanied some attack on it, had endeavoured to convince the House that the country was in the utmost danger; but the evidence which had been that day produced must have considerably shaken the report of the committee. It had been said, that great disturbances existed in the manufacturing districts; and certainly we wanted no report to satisfy ourselves of that fact; but the peace of the metropolis had riot been disturbed to the extent that was stated. It was necessary, perhaps, to go through the form of a secret committee; but the government must have had violent proceedings. He must now inquire what the officers of the Crown had done to punish or prevent such persons as had been suspected. They ought immediately to have had recourse to constitutional measures. Ministers, however, should have assembled parliament at an earlier period; whereas they had put it off till a period unusually long, and had suf-

799
fered the laws to lie dormant. Thus had they brought parliament into contempt, and the laws into disrepute. They wished the nation to look to government rather than to parliament; to despotic law rather than to the common law. How had ministers met the wishes of the nation by adopting a system of economy and retrenchment? They had done nothing I that had not been extorted from them; they had done nothing to alleviate the distresses of the people; and what they were now about to do was as despotic as it was cowardly. Not a single word had been advanced in that House to overcome the force of precedent: unless they could make good the precedent of 1794 as applicable to the present times, their argument must fall to the ground. At that time there was this essential difference, that we were at war with France, who might threaten us with invasion, which, if successful, might have induced many persons here to join her. The only precedent, therefore, which they had adduced was a mere phantom. He asserted, that the greatest abuses had been committed respecting the alien act, and that the noble secretary of state for the home department, had been induced, by false evidence, to injure several miserable foreigners in this country. If, then, we had now a person at the head of the home department who had abused that power to his own disgrace, to the disgrace of the office which he held, and of the nation, was not this an additional argument against the passing of this act, under which men's passions were more likely to operate than their judgment? In examining precedents, he would merely look to the conduct of our ancestors; and would then ask, whether there was any difference between the law relative to suspected persons in France passed last year, and that which we were about to adopt. Circumstances might justify it in that miserable country which would not justify it here. He should have been ashamed of himself, if he had not expressed his sentiments on this most important occasion. He should not have discharged his duty to the House, or to the county, without saying a few words against an act which he considered to be as unconstitutional and unnecessary as was ever proposed by any set of ministers.
Mr. Lamb, as a member of the secret committee, thought that whatever information they might have, it was impossible not to feel that the general situation of the country ought to have led ministers
800
to take the constitutional course of calling parliament together at an earlier period. He thought they would have done better to have followed the precedent of Mr. Pitt in 1800, when there was great distress and rumours of the same nature as at present. He caused parliament to be assembled on the 11th of November, and put these words into his majesty's mouth: "My tender concern for the welfare of my subjects, and the sense of the difficulties with which the poorer classes particularly have to struggle, from the present high price of provisions, have induced me to call you together at an earlier period than I had otherwise intended. No object can be nearer my heart, than that by your care and wisdom, all such measures may be adopted, as may, upon full consideration, appear best calculated to alleviate this severe pressure, and to prevent the danger of its recurrence." He was not a very old person; but it had been his lot to see war upon war, revolution upon revolution, and change upon change, and he had observed that the liberties of Europe came impaired out of every struggle. It was with pain that he found himself called on to support the bill, which, notwithstanding all that had been urged against it, appeared to him to be necessary, in the present situation of the kingdom. For did not the situation of that country require something of a remedial nature where public meetings were every day held, and a military force was kept up for the purpose of preserving the public peace? An hon. baronet (sir F. Burdett) had adverted to the plan of sit William Jones for keeping the peace. Why, that was a plan to be executed by force as well as this; for it was nothing else than to make the physical force of the governors equal to that of the governed. When the grievances were pressing, and the minds of the people disturbed, he must say that it was the duty of ministers to look at the question in the most serious light, and to resort to every measure that might have the effect of tranquillizing the public mind. What benefit, then, could be bestowed that would have this effect. The hon. baronet would say, "call the people together, and grant them reform." Would any man stand up and say that parliamentary reform would now satisfy the people? It was impossible. If he could be shown any measure that would tranquillize their minds, he would subscribe to it. It was

801
a delusion to expect that any system of economy could relieve the distress that now existed. We could only look forward to a return of the resources and energies of the country, which would work its own restoration. With respect to the report, which had been so much criticised, he thought those who framed it were not bound to enter into a minute defence of it; but when they were charged with putting absurdities into it, it ought to be known on what ground such a charge rested. Those who undertook to state evidence, were surely bound not to garble it. Thus, if the facts about the intention of seizing the Bank, burning the barracks, and destroying the bridges had been withheld, and it had afterwards been found necessary to allude to it, it might have been said, "This is not the plot of the conspirators; you must have made it, or you would have introduced it into the report." But it was not on this part of the report, nor on any plot, or conspiracy, or design, that he should found the vote he meant to give, but on the general situation of the country. One gentleman defended the Hampden, another the Spencean Clubs, and he had no doubt there were many well-meaning men among them—he could not, however, blink the fact, that a disposition generally prevailed among these clubs to carry their designs into effect by physical force. It was impossible to overlook the activity of the delegates who went from part to part, dispersing seditious tracts an exciting disturbances. He believed that the measure before the House was of the highest possible consequence, to prevent and intimidate those persons from coming forward, to put themselves at the head of the disaffected. The ordinary course of the law might be sufficient, if the law were suffered to take its course; but he believed it to be stopped and arrested, by the system of threats and menaces which intimidated jurors and witnesses, which those persons knew, by former occurrences, were not idle and vain, but would be carried into certain and bloody execution. After the bill had passed, he trusted we should hear very little more of treasonable practices; but it was his opinion that it would tend to the peace and prosperity of the country, and he should be very happy to bear his share of any odium that might result from it.
Lord Folkestonecould not but express his astonishment at the observation of the
802
hon. member who had just sat down, that the existing laws were not at this moment in full operation. He had been in the habit of conversing with gentlemen from every part of the country: he had seen many of them even that day; and he had never yet heard of that dreadful and portentous state of the country which the hon. member had described. If the hon. member meant to rely on this as a reason for supporting the suspension of the Habeas Corpus act, why had he not told them that in the report of the committee? But how was the suspension of that great bulwark of English liberty to remove this dreadful difficulty? He protested against what the hon. member had stated to be so necessary—the intimidation of the people. If ministers intended nothing more than this, they dealt most unfairly with the country. Why were the whole people of England to be deprived of the benefits of the constitution. He believed, however, that this was the secret reason for bringing in the present bill. From all that he had been able to learn on this subject, the prisoners themselves could not force on their trial for two months to come, and therefore it was only for the purpose of intimidation that ministers had ventured to propose this measure. He hoped that the House would interfere, and prevent the passing of this bill for this very reason. He begged them to pause, and not to hurry on the bill in this indecent way, in order that the lord advocate might come forward with some explanation, which he had not yet done. It was no reason, because we had consented to the precedent of 1794, that we were to do so in 1817. As to the effect of renewals of the bill, it was pretty well explained by his hon. friend near him, that people got so callous, and the House became so indifferent, that the subject was discussed in empty benches. He did hope that the House would stop the progress of the bill on that ground; and on the ground, that it could not be useful for two months to come. He had not heard of any meeting for discussing the subject of parliamentary reform at which any disturbance had taken place. The riot, at Spa-fields was not occasioned by the meeting itself, though it arose out of it. The people had not set themselves in defiance of that House, could it be said that any popular tumult had arisen respecting parliamentary reform? He had seen the people going up with petitions to the Prince Re-

803
gent to call the parliament together; but ministers had put off the parliament; and why? All they wanted was money. They gave the people no relief for their distresses; they scouted them; and then they brought forward their bill for the suspension of the Habeas Corpus act. What was the report of the committee? It was a history of what passed under the eyes of his majesty's ministers two or three months ago. Where was their vigilance to prevent the blowing up of the bridges, the taking of the bank and of the Tower? Why did they not call parliament together at that time, when they knew of the danger? If he mistook not, the right hon. gentleman opposite (Mr. Canning) was taking his pleasure in Prance; and the noble lord (Castlereagh) now his noble friend, was making speeches at convivial meetings in Ireland. Another noble lord (Sidmouth), it was true, was very vigilant; but how had the right hon. gentleman been induced to rely on him? He remembered the time when he did not treat his worthy colleagues, now his friends, with so much confidence; and thought that the whole of the cabinet were not adequate to the management of the public business. The right hon. gentleman, however, had since taken his place amongst them, and was now perfectly satisfied with those whom he formerly despised. The hon. and learned solicitor-general had misstated the periods of the suspension of the Habeas Corpus and the continuation of that act. The hon. and learned gentleman had made a great mistake; for he said, there was no law now in force which was not in force before. If he (lord F.) had not read the statute-book incorrectly, five years ago a strong act was passed for the punishment of unlawful societies, and unlawful oaths. That statute made an oath for murder, treason, &c. punishable by death; and compulsion was no excuse, unless declared within fourteen days. Why, then, had not this law been put in execution before they called upon the House to deprive the people of one of their most valuable liberties? He was not one who thought parliamentary reform a panacea for all the grievances of the people; but was that a reason why nothing should be done for the country? It appeared to him that this measure was most unwarrantable and most uncalled for, more especially as a matter of intimidation. As such, it was impossible that it could have a good
804
effect: on the contrary, for the last twenty-five years, we had in vain tried by compulsion to get rid of those feelings which were now said to agitate the minds of the people. He besought the House to tread in that path no longer, but to retrace their steps; to endeavour to conciliate the minds of the people; to listen to their petitions; to alleviate their distresses; to adopt every possible economy and retrenchment; and not to put the whole population of the country out of the pale of the law. This, and this only, could secure the affections of the people, and induce them to bear their burthens with fortitude and patience.
The Lord Advocateof Scotland said, that in all the preceding acts for the suspension of the Habeas Corpus, from the time of the Union of England with Scotland, a clause was introduced in the very same terms as was to be found in the present bill. In 1715, 1722, and 1745, the law officers who then sat in that House meant to put the people of Scotland out of the pale of the law as much as the people of England. The lord advocate then referred to the letter of Mr. M'Arthur, reflecting upon an eminent lawyer in Scotland which was quoted by a noble lord opposite. Of the learned lawyer who was so maligned, he would say nothing, but refer to the character given of him by a dear friend, now no more (Mr. Horner). With that estimable friend he had often politically differed in his life-time; but now that he was unhappily no more, and the country for ever deprived of his invaluable services, he over looked all shades of political difference that had subsisted between them, and only retained the most affectionate recollection of him whom he ! so highly esteemed while living, and whose loss he now deplored when dead [Hear hear!]. That hon. friend had said of the personage, whom Mr. M'Arthur had attacked, that he had for eighteen years administered an important branch of the law in Scotland, with credit to himself and advantage to the public.
Sir S. Romillyrose merely to make one or two observations on what had fallen from the learned lord, from whom he had the misfortune to differ with respect to the acts which included Scotland. He had said, on a former night, that the clause in question was not to be found in the act of 1794: he had never said that it was not to be found in any of the preceding acts. It was certainly not to be

805
found in the act of 1745. This, however, was a matter of very slight importance: the question was not what was done in former times, but what was to be done now. He entreated the House to pause, and not to suffer any judge or magistrate to take any man into custody without the order of his majesty's privy council, signed by six privy counsellors. This clause only referred to such as had been committed under a warrant from the secretary of state.
Mr. Ponsonbyobserved, that the learned lord could have no objection to clearing up the difficulty, which did not prevail with regard to the Scotch acts of 1701 and 1744, against wrongous imprisonment. As the clause was at present worded, it would bear many constructions directly opposed to each other, which could not be decided upon after the passing of the bill but by a court of justice.
Sir A. Piggottalso reprobated the obscurity and ambiguity with which the clause was framed. If this law was to be inflicted upon the people, they had at least a right to expect that it should be clear and precise. In order that the difficulty might be removed, he recommended that the bill should be recommitted.
The Speakerremarked, that in the present stage the bill could not be recommitted. Any amendment might be introduced after the third reading.
Sir Arthur Piggottsaid, that the report of the secret committee had his hearty and entire concurrence. He had listened attentively to the taunts and sneers which it had called forth; but the opinion he had originally formed was the more confirmed, the more he reflected on the nature of the evidence on which it was grounded. From this declaration he would not shrink as it was drawn from him by a sense of public duty; and he would further say, that in his opinion the government would have merited severe censure, if they had failed to make that communication to parliament which had led to the formation of the committee. The report was so far from exaggerating the dangers of the country that he was inclined to think it did not go so far as the evidence would have warranted the committee in going, and he therefore considered the strictures which had been made upon it to be wholly uncalled for by the occasion.
Some honourable members had objected to the report, because the evidence on
806
which it had been founded, had been kept back by the committee. That evidence he was of opinion had been properly withheld, and satisfactory grounds had, he thought, been shown to exist for the course which had been pursued; and, after all that had been said, it was to be remembered, that the House would be at all times competent to call for it, if its production should be thought necessary. When it was said the inquiry which had taken place was an ex parte proceeding, he considered the objection to be improperly urged. It was true, in conducting the investigation, they had not all the advantages, nor all the guards which were secured to proceedings in judicial matters; but if these could not be obtained, what remained for the committee but to go on with such powers as they had? It was known what these were, and with them it was their duty to work as well as they could. If the objections thus brought forward were good for any thing, they ought to have been urged against the appointment of the committee. They might furnish arguments against the formation of such a committee, but ought not to be opposed to the report which had been made. Whether a committee ought to be appointed on such an occasion, might be made a question; but he apprehended the House would always be inclined to decide in its favour. They could not give up this without giving up some of their most important rights. Were they prepared to do this?—Would they, for instance, be content to give up the right of impeachment, which could only be exercised in this way? It was true, such evidence might be given before a committee as could not be received in a court of justice, but he owed it to the secret committee to say, that all the members of it had most sedulously attended to their duty, and he had never seen any one of its members disposed to press evidence unfairly. Having this report, he thought the House ought to be satisfied to stand or fall by it. It had been the object of those who framed it to state to parliament, as well as they were able, what was the real situation of the country. Doing this they had performed their duty, and it would be for parliament to give to the public the evidence on which their report had been founded whenever this should be held to be wise or expedient.—With respect to the bills which had been brought in, substantially he approved of

807
most of them, as being well applied to the evils they were intended to cure. That which was against the administration of unlawful oaths, was in his opinion necessary, as it might be doubtful whether the law passed in 1795 applied to those proceedings which it had now become necessary to check. On others of the bills he thought there could be no serious difference of opinion. It was certainly necessary to renew the act making it felony to seduce soldiers and sailors from their duty, which had expired on the first of August 1816, as it might reasonably be supposed there were not wanting persons among those who entertained the most criminal designs, sufficiently intelligent to know that the law which had existed to punish such an offence was no more. Carrying into execution the provisions of this bill when it should be passed into a law, he doubted not, with the other measures which were not much opposed, ministers would be able to reach and to correct the evil which it was intended to meet. But besides proposing laws which were to cure the present evils, it was now proposed to deprive the people of the Habeas Corpus act. It was proposed to place no particular district in which disorders had occurred out of the protection of the law but it was intended to take from the population of Great Britain the protection of the Habeas Corpus act till the 1st of July. This he must object to; for this he could not but consider to be quite unnecessary, in the present situation of the country. Though such a measure had been resorted to in other times, he thought enough of the circumstances of the nation were known, to prove it was not at all wanted now. War we had none. Rebellion we had none; and what persons of property, he would ask, were engaged in the conspiracy which had been discovered? The answer to this question must be—"none at all." These things, then, constituted serious objection to the bill for the suspension of the Habeas Corpus act. At present we had no reason to believe that there were, any foreign agents in the country, hostile at once both to the constitution and the government. There was no foreign war—no rebellion—no insurrection;—and why, under these circumstances, should any one doubt that such a measure was quite unnecessary. If it had been necessary before the other bills were brought in, now at least it might be done without,
808
till the effect of the new laws had been tried. Among whom was it that this plot had originated? who were the parties to it? Were they not persons in the lowest walks of life—a set of miserable brings without property or influence to assist them in carrying their criminal designs into effect. The report distinctly stated, that "few, if any of the higher orders, or even of the middle classes of society, and scarcely any of the agricultural population had lent themselves to the more violent of the projects which had been formed." These words had been inserted that no mistaken idea should be taken up as to the quality of the persons who had been induced to countenance the plans of the disaffected.
An hon. gentleman who had spoken in the present debate (Mr. Lamb) had taken up a ground for defending the suspension of the Habeas Corpus act, which had surprised him. His hon. friend had defended the bill on the ground, that the country was at present in such a state that the operation of the existing laws was arrested, and it was found impracticable to carry them into execution. If such were, indeed, the state of the country, a fact so important ought to be established on evidence very different from that which had been afforded to the committee of secrecy; and on which their report was founded. Where, he wished to know, was the state of the country such that the laws could not be carried into execution? Before the House proceeded to decide that such was our present situation, other means ought to be taken for ascertaining the fact, than had yet been made use of. This ought not to be assumed till stronger proof was before them than any that had yet been furnished in support of the allegation of his hon. friend. How, he could wish to know, had the hon. gentleman been satisfied that the situation of the country was such as he had described it to be; had he discovered this from the evidence given to the committee. If so, he would ask, how had it happened that it escaped the observation of all the other members of it? If the country were really in such a state, that the laws could not be executed, our situation was indeed alarming. God forbid that this country should be found to be in such a state! Ere a statement like that which had been advanced should prove to be well founded; he hoped his eyes would be closed for ever; that he might not be reproached with having done any thing

809
that could have a tendency to place the country in such a situation, he would not vote for a measure that was attempted to be justified on the presumption that the laws already in force could not be carried into effect. Had it appeared to the committee that such was the awful fact, they could not have closed their report without mentioning it consistently with their duty to their sovereign, and their county. On reflection he could discover nothing in the conduct of the committee, that appeared to him to be a matter of regret. He, however, could not have felt thus, had the statement of his hon. friend been well formed. Had the situation of the country been any thing like what he had supposed it to be, to him (sir A. Piggott) it would unquestionably have seemed necessary to say something more than they had said; for what had they concluded with? Why, the termination of the report ran thus:
"On a review of the whole it is a great satisfaction to your committee to observe, that notwithstanding, the alarming progress which has been made in the system of extending dissatisfaction and secret societies; its success has been confined to the principal manufacturing districts, where the distress is more prevalent, and numbers more easily collected, and that even in many of these districts privations have been borne with exemplary patience and resignation, and the attempts of the disaffected have been disappointed; that few, if any of the higher orders, or even of the middle class of society, and scarcely any of the agricultural population have lent themselves to the more violent of these projects. Great allowance must be made for those who, under the pressure of urgent distress, have been led to listen to plausible and confident demagogues in the expectation of immediate relief. It is to be hoped that many of those who have engaged to a certain extent in the projects of the disaffected, but in whom the principles of moral and religious duty have not been extinguished or perverted by the most profane and miserable sophistry would withdraw themselves before those projects were pushed to actual insurrection."
He appealed to the House if the state of the country here described, was one in which the law could not be carried into execution. Who, he wished to know, were at present charged with the administration of justice? Was it not confided to the judges, magistrates, and juries of the
810
country? Did not persons taken from the agricultural classes, and middling ranks in society, form those juries? The great body of the disaffected consisted of poor people, who had been worked upon by artful emissaries sent among them for that purpose. But for these ought the whole nation to be punished? What was to become of Middlesex, Surrey, Sussex, and other counties? Were all these to be put out of the law, because some disturbances had occurred in various parts of the country? He should have been better satisfied had such a course been taken with the disturbed districts. An act that was to take from the whole people of England the benefit of the Habeas Corpus act, he held to be quite uncalled for by the occasion. He did not say such a measure was likely to be abused by those now in power. He had no wish to suppose this was at all likely; but it was sufficient for his argument, that powers like those called for, might be abused. He by no means wished to treat this as a mere party question. He did not object to the arming of any particular government with such an act; to no set of ministers would he willingly give such a law. The question now before the House was this, did any case exist at present in which the present or any administration ought to call upon parliament to grant powers like those which had been demanded? He was decidedly of opinion no such case had been made out. what would ministers do with the act when they had got it? Would they take up under it those miserable persons of whom he had had occasion to speak? Was that the use to which they would put the Habeas Corpus suspension act? If it were not thus to be used, where he would ask was there one man of property, influence, or importance, that they intended to commit to the Tower. None such could be pointed out: and for other offenders, they might be punished without this law, and speedily too; for did not the assizes begin in march? Would any man pronounce the bold libel, that the attorney-general would not proceed against such persons under the present law; that the judges did not intend to go the circuit, and that justice could not be administered, as all the juries of the country were tainted with disaffection r Surely his hon. friend would not say such were his sentiments. Why then was the power of taking up a suspected person and detaining him till the 1st of July to be given. The hon. gentleman would not wish to take up persons

811
without having evidence against them; and having evidence, what was the use of this act?
Hitherto the Habeas Corpus act had only been suspended when the country was engaged in a foreign war, when there was a rebellion at home, or a pretender to the Crown. When such a measure was resorted to, we had always before been at war with some foreign power bent on the destruction of the government and constitution of this country. None of the circumstances to which he had just adverted, could now be urged in defence of the Habeas Corpus suspension bill, and was it at a time when unexampled distress pervaded every part of the country, that such a law ought to be passed, if it were not proved to be demanded by stern necessity? At such a period every one, from the highest to the lowest, ought, if possible, to be left in the full enjoyment of his constitutional rights. He would repeat it was his earnest wish, that the bill might not, as it was his conscientious opinion such a measure ought not, to pass into a law. For the honour of parliament, he hoped other means would be found for averting the danger. The more vigorous the measures were which were now actually required to check the evil, the more important was it that the great body of the people should feel their rights and liberties had not been invaded by parliament: that the constitution of which they were so justly proud, remained Unshaken.
The Attorney-Generalhaving been many hours engaged in the discharge of his public duty, in which it might be satisfactory for the House to hear, as it was for him to say it, he had been the humble instrument of procuring the first conviction for an infraction of the law against the slave trade, having been already occupied sixteen hours in the service of the public, he was sure the House would readily believe when he had stated this, that nothing but a sense of the importance of the present question could induce him to rise, and that having risen, it would be his object to trespass on their time as shortly as possible. If on a former night he had abstained from offering his opinions, it was because at that time but a part of that subject was under discussion, the whole of which was now before the House. He begged to say that among the gentlemen opposed to the measure now under consideration, there could not be one who felt more veneration for the constitution of England than himself, nor
812
one more sensible of the importance of the Habeas Corpus act to that constitution. But when gentlemen went so far as to say that at no time, and under no circumstances of danger would they confide to any ministers those powers now called for under the law which it was proposed they should pass, he could not but feel surprised at hearing such language. Our ancestors, jealous as they were of the constitutional rights of the people, did not feel thus. They did not refuse to suspend the Habeas Corpus act in times of extraordinary peril. Though not less anxious to preserve the liberties of the country than the hon. gentleman opposite, they had consented, if his memory failed him not, to the suspension of the Habeas Corpus act, not fewer than nine times. If a doubt were entertained whether the Habeas Corpus act ought under any circumstances to be suspended, he thought a reference to the cases he had alluded to would put an end to it; and the question which it remained for the House to decide upon was this, whether such a course would now be justifiable—whether the government ought to be entrusted at a time like the present with the power of imprisoning suspected persons for a certain limited time without bringing them to trial? This was the question; and in his opinion, such was the awful state of things at present, that the House was imperiously called upon to grant the powers required. A more awful case had never occurred to demand the application of such a measure. He was relieved from the necessity of going over those topics at length which were started in the early part of the debate by the sort of manner in which some gentlemen had been pleased to treat the dangers of the present day. He understood, that they professed to regard the whole of that plot which had been alleged to exist as a contrivance on the part of the government. They had maintained, that if there were any conspiracy—if there were any plot—if there were any combination, it was all the doing of ministers. He begged that it might be recollected, that if the conspiracy was a trick—a mere humbug— as it had been called on the part of government; in order to give effect to it, they had had the address to deprive honorable, intelligent, and acute gentlemen who were opposed to them in politics of their intellects, and to make them the dupes of the humbug plot and conspiracy, which they were supposed to have formed. This extravagant idea had been already so ably refuted, that

813
nothing remained for him but to admire the ability with which it had been put down. He saw in his place a right hon. gentleman (Mr. Ponsonby), whom he always heard with great satisfaction, though he had frequently the misfortune to differ from him, who had been a member of the committee, and who had come out of it with his powers and understanding unimpaired. That right hon. gentleman had gone into the committee with a mind open to conviction, but not more likely to be imposed upon than that of any other member of that House; and certainly he had entered the committee with a mind not unfairly disposed to second the views of ministers. He (the attorney-general) had seen the right hon. gentleman regularly attending in the committee day after day, giving the matters before it all the attention that was due to their great importance, and the result was, he had come out of it a party to the report; on which, indeed, there had been no difference of opinion in the committee, but on the mere wording of some parts of it, and respecting which there had been but one feeling arising from a wish to keep it down as much as possible, that unnecessary alarm should not be excited. Had any thing been wanting to satisfy the House and the country that such was the course pursued, abundant proof had been afforded in the recent debates. Had the committee been among those who wished to create a sensation in the nation not warranted by the occasion, that infamous, dangerous and blasphemous oath, which a learned lord (the lord advocate of Scotland) had produced to the House, would certainly have formed a part of the report; for what could be better calculated to produce feelings of alarm than the publication of such a document? An hon. member had asked of the learned lord, why he had communicated that oath to the House, seeing the committee had not thought it right to include it in their report? He believed that hon. member had been satisfied with the explanation given in answer to his question. He (the attorney-general) however wished it to be known (for this would go a great way towards showing what were the feelings of the committee), that originally it had made a part of the report and had only been prevented from coming in that shape before the House, by the House not happening to sit on the day when the report was to have been brought up. It occurred to the committee in the interval which followed be-
‡
814
fore the House next met, that if the oath were thus made public, these consequences must in all probability have followed: some of the individuals whose testimony was nesessary to prove the delinquency of the parties now in custody, would have lost their lives; and those persons who had been secured at Glasgow, would not have been arrested: for when they had seen that government were in possession of information which could only be obtained from certain quarters, they would have withdrawn themselves from the danger of apprehension and most likely have sacrificed the informers [Cries of No, no! and coughing].
He was never more ready in his life to take a hint to sit down, as he was most painfully to himself discharging what he conceived to be a public duty. But there were some further remarks which he felt himself called upon to offer before he could resume his seat; if any thing could, in his opinion, add to the value which the report derived from the unanimity of the committee, it was, the admission of the hon. gentlemen opposed to it, that they held the country to be in great and imminent danger. If then it was agreed, that the country was in danger, was it to be contended that the ordinary laws were sufficient, and that the government could do without new ones? In common times, the ordinary laws against high treason were deemed to be sufficient. Now it was admitted that a new law was necessary for the protection of the person of the Prince Regent, not against acts that could only be comprehended by laws framed to punish constructive treason; not against secret plots to levy war against his government,—but against direct attempts at assassination [Cries of No, no!] He would ask if there was not such a bill on the table. [Here the learned gentleman read the title of the bill for the extension of the provisions of the law, for the protection of the king's person to the Prince Regent]. It was agreed that such a bill was necessary; and was it in ordinary times that such an admission would be made? Were such the characteristics of the people of this country, that acts like those which this law was intended to meet, were necessary thus to be guarded against when men's minds were not disturbed by agitators who sought to destroy every thing that was valuable in the morals, the government, and the constitution of the nation. It was thought necessary to revive a law

815
which had expired in August 1816, to prevent soldiers and sailors from being seduced from their duty. And why was this thought to be necessary?—because those soldiers and sailors who might be induced to unite with the disaffected, had it in their power to carry to them a most important addition of physical strength. The House considering this had entertained a bill for making that felony, against which there had been no such law since August 1816? Were these he would ask, ordinary times, when it was universally acknowledged to be necessary, that laws should be enacted to suppress seditious meetings; to prevent the defenders of their country from being seduced from their duty, and to guard against attempts upon the life of the Prince Regent?
Some gentlemen had spoken of the bill now before the House, as if it went to subject any person taken up to be imprisoned at pleasure for any period, not exceeding the first of July. If they looked at the provisions of the bill they would find this was not the fact:—they would find that all persons detained, unless such representations were made of their being engaged in treasonable practices, as should obtain credit with six privy counsellors, or with one of his majesty's principal secretaries of state, would not be exposed to the operation of the act, and might claim to be brought to trial or discharged. Such was the character of that law which some gentlemen went so far as to say, ought at no time and in no case to be granted to any government [Cries of "No," "No!"]. I He thought it would not be denied that such language bad been used [Cries of No, no! repeated]. Since it was thus denied, he must suppose that he was mistaken: but he was sure he had understood this to have been, stated in some of their debates.
He would drop this then, and appeal to the House if it were not proper now, when danger was confessed to be at the door, to suspend that law which in times of peril had been suspended by our ancestors, as he had already stated, not fewer than nine times? Ought he to be told when he re-commended the measure now before the House to their adoption, that if he were to be locked up for a fortnight, and taught to know from his own feelings what imprisonment was, it was probable he would take a different view of the subject? There needed not such practical lessons on the subject, to teach him or those
816
with whom he acted, that imprisonment was at all times painful, and that he must be a bad man, who would wilfully and without just cause, confine any fellow-creature even for a single hour. But, for the purposes of justice imprisonment was sometimes absolutely necessary, and he wished it to be observed how far the measure now proposed went beyond the law as it was enforced in ordinary times. It went to detain a suspected person without bringing him immediately to trial. This was certainly an evil, but it was one that could not always be avoided in ordinary cases. When a person was charged with felony or murder, he was detained to take his deliverance at the next sessions; but it often happened that from a witness being out of the way, or from some other circumstance, the trial was put off, and the accused kept in custody, as long as those persons could be detained, who might be taken up under this bill. The law of treason as a safeguard for the subject, interposed various delays, which in other cases did not occur; it required two witnessess to an overt act; it also required the prosecutor to collect the names of all his witnesses, and to furnish the prisoner with a list of them a certain number of days before the trial. These were wise and proper regulations; he had nothing to say against them, but the observance of them usually interposed more delay in such cases than in. any other. He did not say that this depended upon this or that government; he did not say that one administration differed from another in its conduct on such occasions; but he had a right to assume, that the present ministers were as anxious to avoid committing an act of injustice as any other set of men could be. He did not claim for the present law officers of the Crown greater credit for a desire to act fairly by the king's subjects, than was due to those who had preceded them. It was enough for them if they could successfully tread in the steps of those who had gone before them: correctly to follow the bright examples which had been set them, was the utmost to which their ambition could aspire.
For the act now under the consideration of the House, all that it went to do was, to detain suspected persons in safe custody for a limited time, whom it might not be convenient to bring to trial. But it had been supposed that after the arrests that had taken place at Glasgow, nothing more could be necessary. "Why," it had

817
been said in some of the speeches made, not in the debates, but on the petitions which had been presented,—(what passed on the subject of these petitions was some times forgotten when gentlemen were speaking of what had, or had not occurred in the discussions of that House) "why," it had been said, "what more can be wanting, since the lord advocate has already got all his traitors? How, he could wish to inquire, was it known that the lord advocate had got all his traitors? Were those who spoke thus, sure, that at this moment the lord advocate, though he had had the good fortune to secure those persons in their conclave who had been arrested;—were they quite certain that no arch traitor had escaped, who, if these persons were forthwith brought to trial, might learn from the evidence given against them, what information government had that would affect him, and take his measures accordingly? He knew from what had passed at Glasgow, that it might be necessary to delay for a season the proceedings against the persons there arrested. He was however satisfied, that if inquiry were made, it would be found that he had not been the least anxious of the twenty-one persons who had formed the committee of secrecy, to guard against one word being suffered to escape, that might operate to the prejudice of those persons before they were put on their trial. In the particular cases of those individuals who were confined in London, he did not think it would be found necessary to interpose any long or indeed any unusual delay, before bringing them to trial. He begged to add with respect to those arrested at Glasgow, his most solemn pledge that not a single half hour should unnecessarily intervene between them and their deliverance.
He had now to address the House on another subject, on which he had had no opportunity of speaking before. It had been said, at least he thought it had been said, by some hon. gentleman, that the law officers of the Crown were afraid to do their duty. This charge had been already treated with proper scorn and disdain; he should only answer it by saying there were circumstances frequently attending the discharge of his official duties, which made him afraid. He feared lest he might not take that course which in particular cases might turn out to be the best that could be taken;—he feared lest he should prove unable to do his duty as
818
he ought but he knew no other fears while acting in his official capacity. In proceeding against seditious societies, there were certain forms to be observed, before the law officers of the Crown could act. They could not carry a case into court without evidence. He never acted but on such evidence as a grand jury would receive, given on oath. He would file no information on a whisper,—a conjecture,—a suspicion: till the facts charged seemed to be made out by evidence, he dared not to proceed against any of his majesty's subjects. That he had been unable to proceed against such societies, proved the necessity of making some alteration in the law, as the plans of the disaffected had been varied to evade the law as it stood at present. Their proceedings were no longer the same as formerly. They no longer openly appeared to stand in their relations with each other, as parents and affiliated societies. A more dangerous character now belonged to them, and their connexion was not easily to be proved, being sustained by means of delegates and missionaries. To meet the evil it was necessary that new laws should be resorted to. These tried for a time, should they prove ineffectual it might become necessary again to have recourse to new ones.
He had now to notice the complaints made that other prosecutions of a different nature had not taken place. He could not be surprised that gentlemen should view with abhorrence and disgust the publications which for some weeks past had been industriously circulated in every part of the country, and which were unquestionably of a tendency that must prove most destructive to the best interests of the country. Nothing had pressed more on the anxious attention of the government than these publications, and nothing could have been more zealously pursued than they had been by the humble instruments for punishing such offences, the law officers of the crown. It had been said, that he had not prosecuted these tracts, because they were so numerous. Ultimately it would be found it was not their numbers that could prevent him from proceeding against them. He had then in his pocket a most shocking and blasphemous parody on the Creed, which he had that day received in a letter from a gentleman at Norwich [Cries of Read, read!] He owed to the dignity of that House to resist the call made upon him to read so infamous a production from whatever quarter such call

819
might come; and he would assure the House, that when it became his duty to expose it in a court of justice, it should be read but once (and then only for the purpose of comparing it with the record), that he might not be the means of publishing it more than was absolutely necessary in order to punish those who had sent it forth to the world. If, however, any hon. member wished to read it, he would leave it sealed on the table of that House, that he might indulge his curiosity. Though the publications which had lately issued from the press might be sufficiently numerous to fill Westminster-hall, he had to observe, that many of them were but the growth of a few weeks. Many, he begged to add, were already in a course of prosecution, and many more should be proceeded against with the least possible delay. No time had been negligently lost, for it would have been impossible for him to have brought one case to judgment up to that moment.
This stated, he would ask, could he have prevented, or ought he to be blamed for any of the events which had recently occurred? No efforts that it was in his power to make, could have prevented the meetings in Spa-fields, or the transactions connected with them. All that he could be required to do, had been done. Those cases in which he thought it right to prosecute were as forward as they could have been in the time for trial; and when he had performed his duty, he doubted not the juries of the country would do theirs, as well in cases of sedition as in those of blasphemy. Much ridicule had been thrown on the preparations which had been made for an insurrection in the city. While speaking on this subject, he was most anxious to abstain from saying any thing that could in the remotest degree prejudge the cases of those persons now in custody, who had not yet been brought to trial, but he thought lie might be allowed to contend (though he should say nothing of the report of the committee), that the state into which the country was thrown on the occasion of the Spa-fields meeting was that which, consistently with public security, could not be permitted frequently to occur. If meetings of a tumultuary nature continued to take place,—if on such occasions it was necessary to call out extra constables under the superintendance of the police,—and to have the military in readiness to put down any effort at rebellion; this was surely a state of things
820
which ought not to be suffered to exist, and which demanded new laws to prevent its continuance. But it had been said, what was to be apprehended from a set of wretched conspirators with one waggon in their train, and but an old stocking-full of ammunition? How, it had been asked, were such persons to possess themselves of the Tower of London, and how blow up the Waterloo bridge, unprovided as they were with arms and combustibles and unaccompanied by sappers and miners? Who had pretended that these things could really be done by the persons who had attended the Spa-fields meeting? Nobody, that he was at all aware. He, however, wished it to be recollected, that some of the party had been found with ammunition sufficient to arm the leaders in the riot. Loaded pistols and other arms were prepared for the commencement of the enterprise, and orders had been given that on leaving Spa-fields, the conspirators should proceed by physical strength to possess themselves of greater means for the accomplishment of their designs, by breaking into gunsmiths shops, warehouses, and pawn-brokers shops, where they had reason to suppose arms had been deposited. From these places they had hoped to procure such a supply as would suffice to arm the multitude, and enable them to go on with the work of rebellion. It was true, he did not think they had ever had any chance of accomplishing their design. Nobody but themselves believed that by such means this mighty empire could be overturned. He should be unfit for the office he had the honour to hold, and indeed unfit for every thing, could he believe that such an attempt was likely to succeed. But was there nothing short of the complete success of such a conspiracy, against which it was the duty of parliament to guard? What mischief might not have occurred had not rashness precipitated that attempt at noon, which it was intended to make later in the day of the 2nd of December? What might not have been the consequences had the attack been deferred till it was dark, and then made when the good citizens of London were retiring to rest from the fatigues of the day? It could not be denied that in such a case much mischief, much bloodshed might have ensued, and it was not easy to define the extent of the calamity which the country might have had to mourn.
With these feelings, and for the reasons

821
he had assigned, he should vote for the passing of this bill. When the law should be passed, he was satisfied that no honest man would be more afraid of being forced out of his bed in consequence of the suspension of the Habeas Corpus act, than he was of being so dealt with, under the present laws. The bill would only inspire fear in those who entertained traitorous designs: on these he trusted it would be beneficially operative, and tend effectually to put down the spirit of disaffection.
Lord George Cavendishbegan by saying, that though he felt the utmost abhorrence at the attack made upon the Prince Regent, yet he did not believe that the outrage, audacious as it was, had murder for its object. The learned gentleman had adverted to what had fallen from some gentleman of the committee: he himself had not been on that committee: but he knew that much misinformation had been transmitted to it. The intentions of the persons who sent it were, doubtless, good: but their intelligence was not correct. From what he knew of one district, he thought he might say generally, that the committee had not had before it a true picture of the country For his own part, he must complain of that committee. He knew of no reason why the county of Derby had been singled out for reprobation; he knew that what was said of that county was not the fact. There had, indeed, been a Hampden Club in Derby; but its members were very few. It was true, also, that a great many persons in Derby and its vicinity had petitioned for reform in parliament; but they were most of them men of respectability. He must say, therefore, that he thought Derby wrongly accused; and he thought the same was probably the case with Staffordshire and Cheshire. He thought the magistrates of Derby, from the specimens he had seen of their activity and vigour, were quite competent to maintain the peace of the county. He had himself seen an instance, where a gang of Luddites, who had committed all sorts of depredations, had been speedily brought to justice, and the county had been tranquil ever since. What these magistrates had done before, they would do again; and certain he was, as far as related to that county, there was no reason for suspending the Habeas Corpus act.
Mr. Bankessaid, that the bill was opposed by some gentlemen on the ground that no danger existed: and others who
822
objected to it contended, that though there was a disposition to excite disturbances in the country, yet this was not the remedy which ought to be applied. From these gentlemen he differed, and was decidedly of opinion, that without such a law as was now proposed, the country would not be safe. He should vote for it, considering it to be one that would be likely to prevent much confusion, and save the lives of many individuals.
The House divided:

For the third reading.

265

Against it.

103

Majority.

—162

List of the Minority.

Abercrombie, hon. J.

Lyttelton, hon. W.

Anson, hon. sir G.

Marryat, Jos.

Atherley, Arthur

Methuen, Paul

Aubrey, sir John

Macdonald, James

Baillie, James E.

Mackintosh, sir J.

Baring, Alex.

Madocks, W. A.

Brand, hon. T.

Maitland, hon. A.

Brougham, H.

Martin, John

Burdett, sir F.

Molyneux, H. H.

Burrell, hon. P. D.

Monck, sir C.

Browne, D.

Moore, Peter

Calcraft, John

Moseley, sir O.

Calley, Thomas

Newman, R. W.

Calvert, C.

Neville, hon. R.

Calvert, Nic.

North, Dudley

Carew, R. S.

Nugent, lord

Carter, John

Ord, Wm.

Cavendish, Lord G.

Ossulston, lord

Chaloner, Robert

Osborne, lord F

Cochrane, lord

Peirse, H.

Coke, Thos. W.

Pelham, hon. C. A

Duncannon, visc.

Pelham, hon. G. A.

Dundas, hon. L.

Philips, George

Dundas, Charles

Piggott, sir A.

Ebrington, visc.

Ponsonby, rt. hon. G.

Fazakerley, J. N.

Power, Richard

Fergusson, sir R. C.

Prittie, hon. F. A.

Fitzgerald, lord W.

Portman, E. B.

Fitzgerald, rt. hon. M.

Preston, R.

Fitzroy, lord John

Pym, Francis

Folkestone, visc

Ramsden, J. C.

Fellowes, hon. N.

Rancliffe, lord

Gaskell, Ben.

Ridley, sir M. W

Grosvenor, gen. T.

Romilly, sir S.

Gordon, Robt.

Rowley, sir W.

Guise, sir Wm.

Russell, lord Wm.

Hamilton, lord A.

Russell, lord G. W.

Heathcote, sir G.

Russell, lord John

Heron, sir Robt.

Russell, R. G.

Hughes, W. L.

Scudamore, R.

Hornby, Ed.

Sefton, earl of

Hurst, Robt.

Smith, John.

Jervoise, G. P.

Smith, Robt.

Lambton, J. G.

Smyth, J. H.

Langton, W. Gore

Stanley, lord

Latouche, Robt. jun.

Spiers, Arch.

Lemon, sir W.

Shaw, sir James

Lloyd, James M.

Tavistock, marquess

823

Taylor, C. W.

Cavendish, hon. C.

Taylor, C. V.

Curwen, J. C.

Tierney, rt. hon. G.

Foley, Thos.

Vaughan, hon. J.

Markham, adm.

Walpole, hon. G.

Martin, A.

Waldegrave, hon. W.

Newport, sir John

Wilkins, Walter

Ponsonby, hon. F. C.

TELLERS.

Powlett, hon. W. V.

Bennet, hon. H. G.

Sharp, Richard

Smith, Wm.

Townshend, lord J.

PAIRED OFF.

Webb, E.

Althorp, visc.

Weston, C. C.

Birch, Joseph

Wharton, John

Cavendish, hon. H.

After the bill had been read a third time, sir Francis Burdett proposed the following clause:—"And be it further enacted, that no person detained under this act shall be shut up in any dungeon, or any damp unwholesome place, but shall have all the means of receiving air, warmth and exercise, that are necessary to the preservation of life and health; nor shall any person detained under this act be loaded with irons, or be deprived of the means of petitioning the King, or either House of Parliament, or shall be refused to see his wife or children, upon application made by him or them for that purpose, to the keeper of the prison, or to the secretary of state, for the home department."—Which was negatived without a division.
Mr. William Smith moved also a clause securing the right of action against the persons who should issue warrants of commitment under the act, if the persons committed should be dismissed without trial, provided the action were brought within a month after the expiration of the act; which was also negatived without a division.
Mr. Ponsonby proposed a clause fixing the 20th of May for the expiration of the bill, instead of the 1st of July, on which the House divided—for the clause, 97—against it, 239.
While strangers were excluded from the gallery an amendment was, upon the motion of sir Samuel Romilly, made in the bill, the effect of which is to limit the operation of the bill in Scotland as well as in England to persons committed to prison for treason, or suspicion of treason, upon a warrant signed by six privy counsellors, or one of the principle secretaries of state. As the bill stood originally, it extended to persons committed by any subordinate magistrate. The bill, as it now stands, is in these words:—"That the act made in Scotland, intituled, 'An
824
act for preventing wrongous imprisonment, and against undue delays in trials, in so far as the same may be construed to relate to the cases of treason and suspicion of treason, with respect to persons so committed as aforesaid, be suspended until the 1st day of July, 1817; and that until the 1st day of July 1817, no judge, justice of peace, or other officer of the law, in Scotland, shall liberate, try, or admit to bail, any person or persons, that is, are or shall be in prison, within Scotland, under a warrant or warrants so signed as aforesaid, for such causes as aforesaid, without order from his majesty's privy council, signed by six of the said privy council." The words printed in italics were added by amendment.
A short conversation took place on the clause of the bill which authorizes the removal of prisoners from one gaol to another, and the expunging of which had been moved.
The Solicitor-Generalcontended, that it was necessary that the power of removal should be given, as cases might occur in which, from the number of the prisoners, or from their combining together, it would be very inconvenient to retain them together in one gaol. In such cases it might be proper to remove prisoners from Gloucester to Hereford, or vice versa; but care was taken that they should suffer no disadvantage by these removals; for, if brought to trial, it was provided that the proceedings should take place in the county in which they were originally committed.
Mr. Ponsonbycould not understand why a man taken up for treasonable practices in the county of Hereford should be imprisoned in Gloucester. Were not the gaols in the county sufficient, or were they destitute of keepers. If there were no gaols in a particular county, or no persons to guard them, he could comprehend why a prisoner should be sent to another county; but unless some such reason as that he had stated existed, the removal was a measure of unnecessary cruelty.
Mr. Bennetstated, that cases of great hardship had occurred under the former suspensions of the Habeas Corpus act, in consequence of imprisoning persons in distant gaols.
The clause was ordered to stand part of the bill. On the motion, that the bill do pass,
Mr. Broughamwished the House to understand, that a right hon. gentleman

825
had pledged himself, that unless this subject was brought before the House in the month of May, no proposition would be made for a renewal of the bill [No! from Mr. Bathurst]. The right hon. gentleman had said "many weeks before the expiration;" now many weeks before the 1st of July, must mean in the month of May. If one week more had been allowed, from the petitions which would have flowed in from all parts of the country, and from the disposition of the House, he was convinced the bill could not have passed.
Mr. Canningsaid, the present bill had been longer in passing than any former bill of the same description.
Mr. Bathurstdisclaimed having said any thing of the month of May. He had said, that as the bill would expire in the month or July, the subject would probably come before the House some time before, if the renewal were to be proposed.
Lord Stanleysaid, he had heard the right hon. gentleman expressly use the words "many weeks."
Mr. Bathurstdenied, if he had used these words, that they were to be considered as any pledge; he had only stated it as a probable circumstance, that the subject might he many weeks, before the 1st of July, under the consideration of the House, if a renewal were to be contemplated.
Mr. Broughamsaid the House must recollect that they went to a division on the statement of the right hon. gentleman.
Mr. Calvertprotested against the indiscreet haste in which the bill was hurried through, and which had deprived his constituents, who were to have a meeting on the subject of the bill on Monday next, of any opportunity of expressing their sentiments.
Sir C. Monck,wished to observe, that if this bill had been a longer time passing through the House, it would have been opposed by three times as many members as ever divided against any former bill.
The bill was then passed, after which the House adjourned at half past two o'clock.

MALT AND PENSIONS DUTIES BILL.
The House having resolved itself into a Committee on this Bill,
Lord Redesdalerose, pursuant to notice, to propose an amendment. The bill he said, contained a clause of a very peculiar description, stating, that whereas his royal highness the Prince Regent, and many persons holding public offices, were desirous of contributing a certain proportion of the incomes derived from these offices, towards the public service, it was enacted, that it should be lawful to give the proper instructions to the officers of the exchequer to receive such contributions, &c.* The clause purported to legalize the receiving of voluntary contributions from persons holding offices and pensions, &c* The words were extensive, and not so precise as If this were an enactment on which it might be necessary to issue exchequer process. The contributions were to be voluntary; but then they would be voluntary only in the sense in which the contribution for beer-money was formerly raised among their lordships servants. If any one refused he was hooted, and it was by this process of hooting that the present tax was to be levied. If there had been no other objection but that which he had just mentioned to this partial tax, he would oppose it. For his own part, when it was proposed to continue the property-tax he had voted for its continuance, and would cheerfully have paid his proportion; but he would not be taxed in this way out of a part of his income— he would not be hooted out of his money: and he trusted that others would not be induced to be taxed in this way under pretence of a voluntary contribution, The description would include those who had pensions for the most meritorious services—the Marlboroughs, Nelsons, and St. Vincents. Were these to be held out as ill-disposed persons in case they did not choose to contribute to this forced loan? The description would extend to many others. Mr. Palmer, for instance, had an
* See the Clause at p. 441.
776
allowance for services in the post office, and was he to be thus taxed? If the words were to be taken in their fullest sense, they would include every sort of emolument derived from the public. They would extend to the fundholder, to the loan-contractor, and every other description of public contractor. It was neither more nor less than a partial property-tax. A general property-tax he had supported; but he would resist this tax, and would not yield to the only way in which it could be enforced. It might be said, that the words were to be understood more strictly; but though this were admitted they who were clearly comprehended were most unjustly dealt by. What were these salaries?—the property of the holders: and why should those who were employed in the public service be taxed more than others? A cotton manufacturer, devoting his exertions to his own individual advantage, might perhaps realize a property to the extent of a million, while the person who held the situation of first minister of the country could not save a shilling. Had the duke of Newcastle, who had for some time served the public, whether well or ill was not the question, realized a fortune. by such service? He had, on the contrary, sacrificed, or materially injured, a princely fortune. Did lord Chatham make a fortune by his public services? Did lord North save money while in office? He happened to know something of lord North's private circumstances, and knew that he had injured his fortune. The late Mr. Pitt, when he accepted office, was rising in the law. He (lord Redesdale) remonstrated with him on that occasion, and advised him not to abandon his profession, in which he was sure to realize as much as would make him perfectly independent. His answer was, that the advice was too late. He accepted office, ruined himself, and died a beggar, and all that the public gave him was a public funeral. He had himself been in laborious offices for thirteen years, and had rather lost money than gained by his services. A noble lord (Erskine) not now in his place, had given up a very lucrative practice, and accepted the chancellorship, and held the office for twelve months, and then retired upon an annuity not equal to one-half of the sum which he derived from his practice; and yet this annuity was to be taxed in this way. But then it might be said that the tax was voluntary. Be it so; still this was a method of putting persons in this situation under a difficulty to

777
which they ought not to be subjected. The public expectation would require a contribution, and this was altogether the most abominable tax that ever was imposed. Why should masters in chancery, why should his noble friend on the woolsack, be taxed more than others who had a large property in the country? As for the emoluments of the chancellorship, he would not hold the office, if he could do it, one minute on that account; and he was persuaded, that nothing but a sense of duty, under particular circumstances, induced his noble friend to continue in the office. The sum which the public would gain by this measure was not worth consideration. In another place it had been said, that this was a measure produced by clamour; but if they yielded to clamour, was not that the first step towards confiscation? It was precisely the course pursued in another country. They began by voluntary contributions: then went on to compulsory measures; and, from one thing to another, till all Crown grants of every description were resumed. One man stated, that the estate derived from the Crown had been in his family four hundred years, upon which they told him that they ought to take the more from him on that account. It appeared from the proceedings in another place, as stated in the public papers, that a noble marquess (Camden) had generously given up the greater part of his public salary. But what said the Palace-yard orators to that? They said, that so much was given up from fear, and that the sacrifice was not sufficient, for that the whole ought to be given up. That was not all: these orators were worse than the French Convention, for the Convention was satisfied with taking thee state, but the Palace-yard orators insisted that the noble marquess should not only give up the salary, but that he should "disgorge," or give up all that he had received. He disapproved of the whole of the clause; but their lordships might perhaps wish to legalize voluntary contributions. He should first therefore, propose an amendment, legalizing the receiving of voluntary contributions generally, without confining the measure to any particular description of persons, and then he should move, that the clause be left out altogether. His reason for not moving, first, that the clause be omitted was, that in case that should be carried against him he could not afterwards qualify the clause.
The Earl of Liverpoolwould say nothing as to the general question, whether
778
efficient officers were or were not sufficiently paid. They would have another opportunity for that, when the whole subject should be brought before them. His noble friend objected to the principle of this measure, and in some instances and in ordinary circumstances, it might be objectionable. This, however, was no new principle, but one which had been recognized, and acted upon, in almost all critical circumstances since the Revolution. In the war which existed at the time of the rebellion in 1745, the principle was recognized as constitutional, and acted on under a judicial opinion as to its legality given by lord Hardwicke. In the seven years war a tax of 5 per cent, was imposed on these offices and pensions, which was a stronger measure than that of a voluntary contribution. In the American war, and even at one period of the last war, during the administration of Mr. Pitt, the receiving such contributions was legalized. The measure, therefore, was new, neither in principle nor in practice. It was one of the most valuable qualities in these general principles, applicable to ordinary circumstances, that they admitted of qualification or exceptions in particular circumstances. He certainly was not able to contend with his noble friend in the construction of the particular terms of an act of parliament; but, with all due deference to him, he conceived that in no sense could the words extend to the funds. There was no intention, certainly, to include property of that description; and, with respect to those persons who were included, they were left to act under the permission as they might think proper. But the Prince Regent had voluntarily given up a large sum out of that part of the civil list particularly applicable to his personal expenses; and it was within his perfect knowledge, that his royal highness had, in giving up the sum in question, made a very great personal sacrifice. He thought that this sacrifice, under the particular circumstances of the country, was properly made; he believed it was gratefully accepted by the public; and it was desirable that others should have the opportunity of making similar sacrifices. He admitted, that the relief to the country would be inconsiderable: but it was a manifestation of the feelings of public officers which it was very proper to make in the special circumstances of the country.
Lord Hollandsaid, it was true that this measure was not new in principle; but this

779
clause was a foolish application of the principle, and might be mischievous as well as foolish. Contributions from those who were efficient servants of the public were not wanted, unless their services were overpaid. But what was wanted was, the reduction and regulation of those salaries which were given for no services at all; unless such salaries were actual property. He could not agree with the noble lord opposite that economy was the first step to confiscation. But the present measure was a delusion upon the public. The proper mode of proceeding was, not to accept contributions from the salaries of efficient offices, unless they were over-paid, which in some instances might be the case; but to do away those salaries which were given for no services at all, by a compulsory clause, instead of adopting this mode of voluntary contribution, and rendering those odious who did not contribute. When he spoke of useless places, he did not mean sinecures, which would come afterwards under consideration, but such places as many of those in the household, and at court. The contribution, as applied to such places, was too small; as applied to efficient offices it was too large. The places to which he alluded had been described thirty years ago in terms so uncourtly, that he would not mention them at present; and many arguments had been then urged for their continuance: but they were arguments which applied to the continuation of the places, and not of the salaries. When his royal highness, before he became regent, laboured under a temporary embarrassment several of his officers served without salary; and he maintained, that such officers in the court as held the places to which he alluded, ought to serve without salary until the revenue of the country was equal to its expenditure. But as to the efficient officers of the country it was unworthy of the country to pay them first, and then to go with this begging-box to solicit a part of the pay back again in the shape of alms. The proper plan was, to pay the efficient offices justly and frugally, and to put an end to the salaries of those from whom the public derived no service in return. The noble lord had said, that the relief to the public would be trifling, and in that he agreed. But then the question was not, what the saving would be, but what was the public feeling; and unquestionably it must be extremely galling to the public to see that, in the general distress of the country, those who held places
780
which were not necessary for the public service, were receiving the same salaries as they drew in seasons of prosperity, it had been the fashion to talk of the sacred-ness of this description of property: but there was no property so sacred as to exempt it from taxation. The owner of salt had as sacred a property in that salt as the holders of these places had in their offices. There were a number of places, of which the salaries ought to be done away entirely, or greatly reduced, and this ought to be done by a compulsory clause: but to hold out this begging-box to receive contributions or alms from efficient offices, was consistent neither with policy nor justice. He should therefore, though on different principles from those stated by the noble lord, vote for both his amendments.
Lord Redesdale then moved his amendments, which were both negatived without a division.