Sitting of 11 June 1817

PERSONS IN ONFINEMENT UNDER THE HABEAS CORPS SUSPENSION BILL.—
Lord Folkestone, adverting to his motion on Thursday last, for an instruction to the secret committee, that they should obtain information with respect to the number of persons confined in consequence of the suspension of the Habeas Corpus, observed, that the motion which he was about to submit to the House was similar in substance, but did not contain every thing comprehended in his former motion. It appeared to him to be most important to obtain the information to which he alluded before any proceeding took place, such as it was apprehended might be proposed, for the renewal of the suspension. On the former occasion the noble lord objected to give the instruction to the committee, on the ground, first, that it would be putting the secretary of state on his trial; and, secondly, that it would tend to divulge circumstances which ought not it present to be made public. He conceived that the adoption of that proposition would not have occasioned any inconvenience to the secretary of state, or any danger to the country. However, the Home thought proper to reject it. He should now confine his motion to a return of he persons in confinement, without any inquiry into the cause of their apprehension. His motion, however, would compise several objects; and first, the numler of such persons. It was most desirabe to know how many persons had been confined under the suspension. Whether that number, however, should turn out to be large or small, he should equally mainain that the suspension was reprehensible. If small, he contended that the suspension ought not to have taken place or such slight grounds; if large, he reprobaed confiding powers so important to those who used them so extensively. Next, he wished to know the circumstances and occupations in life of any persons who were confined, before they were found out to be traitors. Never, in any former case, he the Habeas Corpus been suspended unless when persons of some opulence and consequence were implicated in seditious proceedings. In the present instance it was notorious that directly the contrary was the fact.— He had gone yesterday to leading gaol, but found that, by an order from the secretary of state he was prevented from seeing the prisoners confined there. He had, however, made some inquires with respect to them. He learnt that ne—a man of the name of Knight—was circumstances so extremely needy as to be hardly able
940
to procure the necessaries of life. This person was represented as being most troublesome, because he had written some letters stating the misery of his situation. He (lord F.) believed, that if he was not actually a lunatic, he was in a fair way of being made so. Among other applications, he had, it seemed, transmitted a petition to an hon. and learned friend of his in that House, but being found too weighty for the post, it had been returned to him, and he could not afford to pay the postage. As to the other prisoners, they were described by the gaoler to be the most harmless, quiet, inoffensive creatures he had ever met with in his life. One was a journeyman cutler, another was a journeyman tailor, who could neither read nor write. Were these the formidable people, the apprehension of whom was about to cause the renewed suspension of the liberties of a whole nation? If so, it was of great importance that it should be known to parliament before the discussion should take place on that proposition. The last subject on which be desired to obtain information was, the place in which those persons were arrested, and the place in which they were confined. It was evident, that the severity of the punishment which these individuals endured, must be greatly aggravated by their removal to a distance from their homes. He understood that the persons who were lodged in Reading gaol, were brought from Manchester. Why was this? He repeated, that it must be a great aggravation of their distress, to be removed 200 miles from their friends, and to be deprived of the opportunity of receiving a supply of food, clothes, wine, or any thing necessary for their support and comfort. Under this impression, he would move, "That an humble Address be presented to his royal highness the Prince Regent, that he will be graciously pleased to give directions that there be laid before this House, a list of all persons now in confinement in Great Britain, by warrant of either of the secretaries of state, or of six privy-councillors, detained under the provisions of an act, passed in this present session of parliament, 'for enabling his majesty to secure and detain such persons as his majesty shall suspect are conspiring against his person and government;' specifying the names of the persons so confined, their trades, professions or occupations, their ages, the places of their confinement, the places where arrested, and the dates of their arrest and

941
commitment; and also the name or names that the only persons who had broken the of the persons who signed the commitment."
Mr. Addington, in the absence of the noble secretary of state, said, he had no objection to agree to a motion for the numbers, ages, and places of confinement of the parties who had been committed; but he submitted, whether any object would be attained, and whether it would not be detrimental to the parties themselves, to give their names as required. As to the letters written by Knight, in Reading gaol, the letter which had been sent to his wife containing a petition, but of which she was unable to pay the postage, had been forwarded to the home-office, and thence to the individual for whom it was intended. The noble lord ought to consider the great burthen thrown on ministers in the execution of the purposes of the act, and that, if they failed to commit a suspicious person, they were quite as responsible as if they committed an innocent individual.
Sir F. Burdettobserved, that seeing that the allegations on which the bills for Suspending the liberties of the country had been proved to be false; seeing, that under those bills, several persons had experienced a very cruel punishment; seeing that these practices were illegal, unconstitutional, and unknown until the unfortunate period of 1794; seeing that they augmented as the apparent necessity diminished, and that now, when there was no pretence for them, they existed to a greater extent than at the time when some pretence might be assigned, he hoped his noble friend would not alter his motion, which asked as little as could be asked from any administration holding the power which had been confided to the present. He was at a loss to conjecture why his noble friend's motion was resisted. In 1797 he (sir F. Burdett), in similar circumstances, made a similar motion, which was assented to without any hesitation. At least the country was entitled to know the names and every thing tending to give as much security to the persons who were confined as was compatible with the deprivation of their freedom. This would appear to be the more necessary when it was recollected that, on a former occasion, the individuals who were confined under a suspension of the Habeas Corpus, were never brought to trial. A bill of indemnity was passed in favour of those by whose authority they had been apprehended; and it was proved
942
that the only persons who had broken the laws were the ministers themselves. It should be remembered that the persons in question were cut off from all intercourse with their families, on the pretext that the conspiracies in which they had engaged might get abroad. There was no ground for believing this. There was not the slightest reason for imagining from the trials which were at present in progress, that there was any justifiable cause for depriving these persons of all intercourse with the rest of the world. The facts with which the persons now trying were charged, were well known before. Nothing new was discovered. To keep them, therefore, in close custody, was as abhorrent to humanity as it was a gross violation of the confidence which parliament had thought proper to repose in ministers. At any rate the House, surely had a right to know whom they had taken up. The right hon. gentleman had told them that his noble friend (lord Castlereagh) was absent, in consequence of official business. These gentlemen thought much of the sufferings of office, but never of the sufferings of their victims. For his part, he believed that the noble lord was just then taking a ride in the park. His absence was not very respectful to the House, or very consonant to the duties which he owed to the country. He trusted his noble friend would press his entire motion, as he could not imagine a shadow of reason for withholding the names of the persons confined under the suspension, and who he had no doubt would hereafter be found to be unjustly confined; and he hoped the House would not be easily persuaded to reject the motion. Did the House consider what solitary confinement was? Did they recollect that insanity was its frequent consequence? The power assumed by the executive government, with respect to the treatment of their prisoners, was most arbitrary and unjustifiable. He hoped the House would prevent it from continuing that treatment; he hoped they would agree to his noble friend's motion; and above all, he hoped, that when the time came for its discussion, they would refuse to renew that detestable act, by which the liberties of Englishmen were thus sacrificed.
Mr. Canningremarked, that the greater part of the hon. baronet's speech was addressed, not to the motion, but to a subject which had long before been discussed in that House—the confidence which the

943
House had been pleased to repose in the executive government, or rather the burthen which it had imposed on them in the responsible exercise of the extraordinary powers called for by the extraordinary circumstances of the times. The hon. baronet had not attempted to show on fair parliamentary grounds that this power had been abused; but he had endeavoured to persuade the House to lament its decision, and to express an unfounded distrust, which would give disaffection new spirit and courage at a moment the most critical that could be imagined. Did any man pretend to believe that the mischief had abated? Was it not notorious that on that very day intelligence had been received of fresh plans of disturbance? Instead, however, of contributing to assist in the suppression of these evils, the noble lord (if he persevered in his motion) and the hon. baronet endeavoured to induce the House to concur with them in declaring, that the power originally given to government for that purpose was monstrous, that it had been monstrously abused, and that it ought to be recalled. He had no objection to give the number, the ages, and the places of confinement of the persons who had been imprisoned; but to give their names, while their machinations were still operating, would be to afford useful intelligence to the disaffected throughout the country, and to make parliament the medium of the communication. He would therefore move, to leave out all the words from the word "House" to the end of the question, in order to add the words, "an account of the number of persons now in confinement in Great Britain, by warrant of either of the secretaries of state, or of six privy-councillors, detained under the provisions of an act passed in this present session of parliament 'for enabling his majesty to secure and detain such persons as his majesty shall suspect are conspiring against his person and government,' with their ages, and the places of their confinement."
Mr. Ponsonbywas a good deal surprised, that the right hon. gentleman should agree to such an amendment and oppose the original motion. Did not the disaffected know at this moment who were taken up? It was impossible to prevent the friends and neighbours of any man so apprehended from knowing the fact as soon as it happened. What secret, then, could be communicated to them by exposing the names? To his understand-
944
ing, it was impossible any danger could arise from it.
Mr. Bathurstattributed the motive of the noble mover to be, to accuse government of improper treatment of individuals [No, no!]. Then, why object to the amendment, which withheld the names? In various parts of the country there might be a connexion amongst the disaffected, but not such a connexion as might cause persons to know who had been taken up at hundreds of miles distance. The giving of the numbers and ages would prevent the knowledge by their partisans of what particular persons had been apprehended; but the names could be of no other purport than to form a ground of imputation against ministers, which must have the effect of weakening the hands of government, whose measures had already obtained the confidence of the House.
Sir W. Burroughswas surprised at ministers refusing what must shortly be fully known in the ordinary course of things. The calendar at the next assises must disclose the names that were now withheld. It was of the utmost importance for the House to be in possession of the names and description of the parties confined; for if it appeared that no man of property or connexion had been committed, that no foreign correspondence had been detected, or any agitation in a higher sphere of society, those considerations must weigh very seriously with the House, when they came to consider the question of the farther suspension of the liberty of the subject.
Lord Folkestoneshortly replied, after which, the question being put, That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the question,
The House divided:

Ayes

53

Noes

104

List of the Minority.

Burroughs, sir W.

Dundas, Chas.

Barnett, James

Fazakerley, N.

Bennet, hon. H. G.

Fergusson, sir R. C.

Byng, Geo.

Finlay, Kirkman

Brand, hon. Thos.

Fitzroy, lord John

Baring, Alex.

Grenfell, Pascoe

Birch, Jos.

Gurney, Hudson

Calcraft, John

Guise, sir Wm.

Calvert, C.

Hughes, W. L.

Curwen, J. C.

Heron, sir R.

Cavendish, lord G.

Hornby, Ed.

Duncannon, visc.

Lloyd, J. Martin

945

Lemon, sir Wm.

Ridley, sir M. W.

Langton, W. Gore

Ramsden, J. C.

Mackintosh, sir J.

Romilly, sir S.

Moore, Peter

Smith, Robt.

Mathew, hon. gen.

Sebright, sir John

Methuen, Paul

Spencer, lord R.

Neville, hon. R.

Taylor, M. A.

Newport, sir John

Webb, Ed.

Nugent, lord

Wood, rt. hon. M.,

North, D.

Lord Mayor

Ord, Wm.

Williams, Owen

Ossulston, lord

Williams, sir Robt.

Osborne, lord F.

Wharton, John

Ponsonby, rt. hon G.

TELLERS.

Peirse, Henry

Folkestone, lord

Pelham, hon. G. A.

Burdett, sir F.

Parnell, sir Henry

HASLEMERE—PETITION OF JOHN GREENAWAY.
Sir F. Burdettsaid, that he had a Petition to present which gave a fresh instance of the destructive immorality of the borough-mongering system. It was from a person of the borough of Haslemere, who stated, that at the last general election certain property had been conveyed to him by lord Lonsdale, to enable him to give his vote in favour of the candidates proposed by his lordship. He came, in fact, under the denomination of what, in borough-mongering language, is called "a Faggot." By these means had two gentlemen been returned to that House. Now this person had a qualm of conscience as to delivering again to lord Lonsdale the property which had been conveyed to him to suit the occasion. He thought it would be improper not to keep that which he had sworn to be his own. In consequence of this determination, he stated, that he had suffered much persecution at the instigation of lord Lonsdale. He still held the property, but he had at last been served with an ejectment by lord Lonsdale. He (sir F. B.) thought it impossible, when the petition should have been read, that the House should take no farther step against a practice which was the worst of treason, for it involved every feature of that crime which was odious and disgusting; it was a violation of the constitution, and combined perjury with ingratitude, want of faith with breach of trust. It was a miniature picture, com. prehending all offences, and presenting an exact resemblance of the borough-mongering system. It was that system which created the dissatisfaction which the ministry wished to put down by force. The public at large knew that they had a right to be represented, and that no peer should interfere in the election of members.
946
Nay, there were resolutions on the Journals of the House, making it a breach of its privileges, and consequently of those of the people, for any peer so to interfere. And what a system, which went in defiance of rights, privileges, and resolutions, to be tolerated! It was
"A combination and a form indeed,
On which each devil did seem to set his seal,
To give the world assurance of a fiend.!"
He concluded by moving, that the petition be brought up.
Mr. Bankeswished to know more particularly the grievance complained of in the petition, and its prayer.
Sir F. Burdettreplied, that among many grievances a painful one was, that the petitioner had been the object of vindictive prosecution. The prayer was, that the House would take the case into consideration, and afford such redress as it might think proper.—The hon. baronet was about to read the whole petition, when
Mr. Bankesinterfered, and objected to the reading of the petition, as being contrary to the usage of the House. He contended, in the first place, that a court of law was the place in which the petitioner should seek redress, and in the second place, that as to the original circumstance it was too distant in point of time to be made the subject of parliamentary consideration.
Mr. Brandwould not discuss the question as to the authority of the courts of law. As he understood the matter, a committee sat on the election, and the petitioner had been a sort of agent or engine of the noble lord who nominated, as it appeared, to this borough. The petitioner swore to the property conveyed to him, and had kept it; and it did not appear, from all the circumstances, that he had a much earlier opportunity of stating his case. He felt it incumbent on the House to take some measures in this case; but how could the whole case be known, except the House heard the petition read? The House was bound to consider a subject of this nature.
Mr. Bathurstcould not see how the House could take up the question, so as to decide upon it. A committee of the House had seated the two members. Would it be contended that this was wrong? In fact it was, if any thing, a legal question. The hon. baronet could say no more than that the petitioner had a legal title to his conveyed property; but that he had been served with an ejectment.

947
The courts of law must decide whether he had a bona fide property, or vice versa. The question to be raised upon this petition was far different from a general question. Proofs of particular property in the borough could not be brought before them; and the only way of discussing such subjects was, by a general proposition; such, for instance, as they had lately had.
Sir H. Parnellthought, that the circumstances of the case were of such a nature as to entitle the petition to the consideration of the House. He observed, that he had known a man to be called upon to return conveyed property the day after his vote. The conveyance was made to him by the agent of a peer who nominated for the borough.
Mr. Peter Moreobserved, that the petition stated a distinct grievance to have been suffered by the individual; and where a grievance was felt, he hoped that in this country there was always a remedy. He trusted, therefore, that an opportunity would be afforded him, by the reception of the petition, to exercise his judgment on the case.
Mr. W. Smithmust protest against the doctrine, that it was not the right of a member to read from a petition in the course of his speech. He never heard so from the Chair; but he remembered a good deal about the mode of presenting petitions; and what the presenter should; or should not say on such occasions. It had been said, that the member should have read the petition, and seen that there was nothing in it improper. The House was always in a state of embarrass-merit on questions of this sort. If the Statements of the petition, as far as they had been mentioned, were true, they told facts which were alike anomalous to the law of the land and the constitution of that House. A freeholder or voter should be so bona fide. This petition showed the contrary. Yet, when the subject of burgage tenures came before the House, they all felt that men had freehold or other property made over to them fraudulently, and for a particular purpose. According to an old saying of Mr. Lee, the qualification of property was nothing but a little hot wax and wet paper. This was to convey a bona fide right to the temporary occupier: but how did the question stand in common sense and law, when the conveying party brought his ejectment? The man to whom the property was made had
948
it, or had it not. The man appeared to be persecuted, because he would not give up what was made over to him. Here the House were in their accustomed embarrassment on such occasions. It would be better to enact something to establish the right of burgage tenures intelligibly for the return of members, than to leave them as they were. They were now disgracefully covered with a cloak and a concealment. The petition showed the absolute necessity of some reform. He had nothing to do with the petitioner's conscience. While these boroughs existed, it seemed good that now and then these faggots, as they were called, should come under the notice of parliament.
The Speakersaid, that he wished to of fer a few words relative to the right of a member to read in his place a petition as part of his speech. It certainly was expected from every member, that he should read a petition before he presented it, in order that he might be enabled to state to the House whether it was couched in decorous language, and what were the facts it contained; but it was contrary to the invariable practice to read the petition itself in the course of his speech. In answer to another point alluded to at an early part of the debate, when it was urged that if a petition was brought up, it should afterwards be read at the table; he was of opinion, that if the petition was in itself objectionable, or if the prayer was such as could not be complied with, it was in that stage, as well as in any other liable to be opposed.
Mr. Curwenhoped the House would not be unwilling to hear the petition read. It stated some things which went against the honour and dignity of the House of Commons, out of which some measures might spring which might be of importance to the character of the House for its own vindication. The public discontent did certainly arise, in some part, from an idea of the improper construction of that House. He could not see how the petition could be refused.
Sir R. Fergussonthought the House would not consult its own dignity by refusing to receive the petition.
Sir F. Burdettsaid, that if it was a rule of the House to prevent the reading of petitions in the way that he had done, nothing could be more easy than to describe the substance. He was not at all surprised at the objections made to the reception of the petition by the member for Corfe Cas-

949
tle, and others who were returned in the same way which the petition went to expose. It was quite natural that they should raise objections in limine. The petition went to charge a peer of parliament with interfering in the election of a member. How could the House get rid of that? It went further to state, that the interference was fraudulently conducted. Though the House might shut its ears against those facts, the country would not; and unless some step was taken, he should be compelled to bring the question forward in the nature of a charge, so as to oblige them to entertain it.
The House divided on the question, That the Petition be brought up: Ayes, 15 Noes, 47.