Star. — London, England, 1818-02-20 00:00:00

Drummond, 'John Knigitt, and Joseph 'Mitchell, be referred tc, t'ie Committee of Secrecy... . ruipunt SIDMOUTH rose.—He began by ob iervmg, that upOlt the general grounds urged by the Noble Earl, all such Petitions ought to be referred to their Lordships Committee of Secrecy for the pur pose of inquiry.. The argument, such as it was, would amount to this—aet any Petition, from any indivi dual whatever, by the facts asserted ever so false— let the contents be-ever so calumnious, ever so libel -106; in the highest degree—let all such, coming from persons so circumstanced, be entertained by the House, and subsequently referred to the Committee, which should devote itself to the examination of do- cuments so produced I He trusted, however, the House would see the subject in a very different light, and never lend its sanction to one of the most excep tionable propositions ever advanced. He would defy Se Noble Earl to prove in the whole history of Se cret Committees a single instance in which such a proposition was ever agreed to. The very nature of Secret Committee was in its effect adverse to such .procedure. It may be consonant to the proceed ings of Parliament to refer such Petitions to a• Select. )ut never to a Secret Committee. • The Noble Earl 'welt much on the case of the Petitioners.— Noble Lords had read the Petition (he meant that - - . . . Mr. Drummond) they would soon be satisfied, Jat without much more information, it was not pos ible that any such cognizance should be taken of it the Noble Earl required. Mr. Drummond had asserted certain facts respecting the meeting held on he 10th of March, sear M anchester; and that the _ _ ieeting had.eonducted itself in a most decorous and / doper manner. . Of the real facts of this case, they all had full information long since through the pub papers. The opinion of the Committee respecting te transactions in the neighbourhood of Manchester, the 10th of March last, was well kaolin. Mr. Drummond thought proper to 'state, that on that iay mach disturbance was occasioned" by .a riotous, Lot to say a drunken soldiery." The case, however, really was, that for some days previous the Magis trates were forewarned that such a meeting was to held, and that the object of it was, that the per sons so assembled should march in a body to the letropolis, and to demand a compliance with their requisitions from the Representative of the Sovereign person—{hear, hear.) --Warrants were adeordingly applied for against the persons most actively en aged in preparation, and some of these were exe rted two days before : but the remaining leaders, utterly regardless of the loss of their colleagues, still iroceeded - to assemble a meeting on the 10th of !arch, and the Magistrates took the proper pre autions to preserve the public peace. They were lastly apprehensive that so large an assemblage was :tended to be collected that day, the civil power could be insufficient, and they applied for some mi tzry assAtance. Mr. Drummond was one of those rho they felt it their-duty to issue warrants for the )prehension of; upwards of 12,000 persons were isembled, and of those a large portion were pre iared for the wild and dangerous expedient of march ing to the Metropolis, and individuals were sedu- 1 lously haranguing the multitude in the most dange- , rous and most inflammatory language. The assist. .ce of the military was found absolutely necessary, a considerable number were arrested. The con- ct, as well as the character of Sir John Byng, on is, as well as on all other occasions, was faultless unexceptionable, and the assistance of the mili ,ry was adOrded in the most regular and orderly .inner. The accounts received from the Magistrates were of this kind, and directly at variance with Mr. Drummond's assertions on that head. Not a single :stance of wanton or improper conduct could wit truth be charged upon the military. Mr. Drummond was one of these committed to the New Bailey. He was afterwards examined by him (the Noble Secre tary of State) and his Majesty's Law Officers, on the Al; on that occasion he was told not to reply to iy questions that would criminate himself. Not a :Ord of complaint was uttered by Mr. Drummond ; while unJer examination there was no intimidation hatever—he was desired to speak freely. Nor af rwards did he learn, that either to the messengers upon ay examination did he (the Petitioner) utter word of complaint as to his usage. He would ierefore now ask the Noble Lords, whether they .ould say that all Petitions of this sort were worthy inquiry or examination? With respect to the tuch-talked of procedure of Indemnity, he would Ly, that his Majesty's Government disclaimed any ill or Bills that would protect themselves, or per sona acting under them, against the consequences of Ilat which resulted from their own vigour or their prudence. What it was their duty to require, was uerely against that which would go to disclose the sources from whence their information was derived. They . wished that such may not be disclosed, with reference not only to the safety of indiviCaials but the security of the country. The' laws of the •ouatry were what should be looked to, and from tese he trusted in Goa they would receive justice ! lith respect to the two Petitions presented that night ty the Noble Baron, it was on the same ptineiple =possible they could be acquiesced in as referable the motion. To his own knowledge they con tained falsehoods, and a most enormous perversion of facts, and as such were utterly unfit to be included. With respect to the case of Knight, he knew that -tempts were made to insinuate that Visiting Ma, istrates were excluded from seeing State Prisoners, /at such insinuations, he must say, were unfounded ; and in the instance of Reading jail in particular, it MS most satisfactorily proved that such a charge ias totally groundless. In regard to that of Mit qie 1, would only observe, that the charge made against a person of the name of Oliver, as the cause of Iris detention, was necessarily false, as the war- 'ants for his apprehension were signed before they tad any knowledge of Oliver ; and that the appre iension of this Petitioner was not under a warrant .eom the Secretary of State, but from the Magistrates. As to any improper agency, through the medium of spies or informers, it was a question he was ready to meet at any time, and would stand the brunt of the severeq ordeal that ever was devised. Ot the person alluded to, their knowledge was accidental ; but in several parts of the country lie.was successful. in procuring important information. With regard to much of what had been alleged respecting him, the facts occurred at periods when he was unknown to them ; but from the couduct of his Majesty's (So verr.ment in procuring important intelligence, and ja properly following up such information, much mis hief and outrage were certainly averted ; and for no small part of this, their Lordships' own Reports !could be confidently referred to, He would detain their Lordships no longer than to say, that upon these grounds and convictions, he felt it his duty to op , pose the Noble Earl's motion. ~...4 Earl GROSVENOR contended, that the late dis turbances originated, or at least were fomented, by ; the conduct of the Noble Viscount, who sent forth spies and informers—(hear, htar.) This he believed on his conscience. With respect to the Petitions, though there might not be one word of truth in them, yet the House was bound in frankness, and in every principle of justice, to inquire into the alleged grie vances, and to afford, if necessary, redress. The No ble Viscount had stated, that Drummond was speak ing with great vehemence against the Suspension -of the Habeas Corpus Act: would he say that was trea sonable? at least, if it was, the man had been pu nished. He complained of being taken and surroun ded by drunken soldiery : was that not a cause of, grievance ? The Noble Earl recollected, that at the time, the parties who dispersed the meeting boasted of it, and called their action a military manceuvre. For his part, he was of opinion there was no ground for imputing treason to the people. They had given manifest proofs of their loyalty on a late melancholy occasion : and it was but a poor return for such loy alty to charge them with disaffection—to imprison them, and then dismiss them unheard. It was of this they complained. Lord KING denied that the motion for referring the subject to the Secret Committee was, as had been described by the Noble Viscount, a sweeping propo- 1 sition. A Bill of Indemnity, where the evidence on which to ground its adoption was all on the side of Ministers, was, indeed, a sweeping proposition. lII' contended for the necessity of inquiring whether the Petitioners had been legally committed or not? Lord BATHURSTsaid, the Committee might call for additional papers. Whether a Bill of Indem nity should pats or not, would depend on the Report of the Committee ; and if it should turn ou,t that the Report recommended one, then the House might ob ject to it. He saw no reason, on the present occa• sion, for passing by the usual precedent. The Noble Lords had said they knew no,hing of the Petitioners, nor of the allegations' in their Petitions. Did they not, by such admission, confess that inquiry ought not to follow? The Petitioners would, however, still have the right of appealing to the ordinary Courts of Law for redress, if they had sustained any injuries. The Marquis of LANSDOWNE, in consequence of what fell from the Noble Earl, wished to know whether the Committee might, if they deemed it pro per, ask for further papers than those laid before them by his Majesty's Government? The Earl of LIVERPOOL said, it was competent to the Committee to ask for further information. With respect to the formation of the Committee, he would ask the House whether it had not been formed according to the precedents in similar cases at all times? The mode by ballot had been thought a more convenient one ; but had any steps been taken to ap point them unfairly ? It had been said, that the pre sent Committee was formed of the adherents of Mi nisters ; but would the Noble Lords opposite expect that they alone should form the Committee ? He for one should object to such a mode of trial, nor indeed was party the best criterion for deciding in such cases. He denied that a Bill of Indemnity could screen any person, jailer or others, be he whom he may, who had illegally arrested and confined, or cruelly treated any of the Petitioners. Lord HOLLAND maintained, that the Habeas Corpus Act was suspended, not with a view of protect ing Ministers; for their illegal acts they were answer able; and the only authority it gave to them was to arrest dangerous men, and to keep them safe until brought to trial. It was not to be endured, after a year of torture, that men should be set at liberty without an opportunity of inquiring why they had been arrested. The Noble Lord contended, that the appointment of the Committee, in the manner and form described by the Noble Lord, in substance, must be considered as unjust and partial. The evidtmice which Minis ters had furnished to the Commitee, to guide them in their inquiry, was evidently all on one side—and yet the House was told that the investigation was to be into the actual state of the country. Was this the proper mode of enquiry ? Was this really the audi alteram partem? Could any real benefit to the prin ciples of justice be expected from this lobsided Com mittee ? But then, Ministers were so fond of prece dents, that they were determined to adhere to them. Instead of so doing, he thought, that after under going a year of such misery, it was due to the people to exhibit a fair and open enquiry ; for a persuasion had gone forth, that they had not been fairly dealt with. An idea was entertained, and the Noble Vis count must forgive him when he said it, that much was imputable to him, on the ground of high misde meanours. A great deal was to be laid at the door of Oliver ; and he could shew evidence, that that per son had a most active part in all the conspiracies— ' at Nottingham, Manchester, and in Yorkshire, near Wakefield. It was due to the country to ascertain that fact. The Noble Lord condemned the practice of resorting to such means as spies and informers ; to elucidate which he referred to Hume's History at the period of 1584, in relation'to the employing c , f spies. —He would not quote Tacitus nor Lord Falkland. Hume says, the sagacity of the two great Ministers, Walsingham and Burleigh, did not enable them to distinguish between the import of truth and calumny. If these spies were not to be confronted with the accused, he knew not to what effect it would lead ; they might put in active force alftheir private-malice and hatred, to injure innocent individuals, and thus, by the favour of Ministers, be allowed to go at large, >after having vented their odious and abominable poison in the heads, probably of innocent, certainly, at all events, of unwary men. ' This was one of the mischievous results, not only of employing, but of protecting these abominable and detestable misc;re ants. Ile was not fond of predicting, but for once he would do so, and he ventured to predict, that the recommendation of the Secret Committee would be a Bill of Indemnity. The question wait theft put for referring the Peti tions to the cor.sideration of the Secret Committee, and is c:vog without a divilion:.—Adjoumed. HOCiE OF cavmoNs. A Bill for llgh:ing the City of Bath with Ga 4 sias read 1 Erb( !lima — served r,sding to-mortar. • the Surgery Regulation lhll was ordered to be read a steam.' time on Friday, dt•: rrth inytaret. Mr. BENNET brought up the Report of the Chimney Sweepery* 'Regulation Bill, which was agreied to, ordered to be read a tbirti time to-morrow. Mr. TEED moved for a Return of the Number of Ships Captured by Private Ships of War, and an account of the net . . proceeds of the same, since 1794. —Ordered. Sir SAMUEL ROMILLY gave notice that he would, on Wednesday neat, move for leave to bring in a Bill to Repeal the Act of King William, which makes iitealing in a shop a ca pital offence. A Return was moved for of the number of Claims made and substantiated on the French Government by British subjects, distinguishing the nature of those Claims since the appointment of our Commissioners; and also for an Account of the Amount of the Commissioners Salaries.—Ordcred. Sir FRANCIS BURDETT presented several Petitions, signed by twenty persons each, from Bath. and rather places, praying for Reform era Parlianaect. The Houie went iLto a Committee on the Agricultural Horse Duty Act. Mr. LUSIIINGTON proposed a Resolution for continuing the Acttauother year, which was agreed to, and a Bill ordered. T YTILES. Mr. CURWEN brought forward his motion re specting Tythes. The Honourable Member, after some general observations on the nature of the Tythe Laws, as they at present stood, and which he said called loudly for amendment, declared; he had not the most distant intention of touching any vested rights ; and concluded by moving for leave to bring in a Bill to amend the Laws relative to Tythes. Sir W. SCOTT, in reply to the arguments of the Honourable Mover, alluded to the various Petitions which were presented to the House during the last Session of Parliament, and particularly to several from different parts of Devonshire, which he said were all couched in the same words, written by the same hand, and signed by women and marksmen, and the lowest of the community. There was also a Petition from Hornchurch, in Esser, in which the Petitioners stated, that the tythes were levied for the benefit of Laviyers and Clergymen, which was not only injiirious to agriculture, but at variance with the Christian Religion. He would not oppose the motion, but he considered it his duty to advise the House, if they proceeded on this subject, to proceed with caution. Sir SAMUEL ROMILLY was of opinioq, that the Bill proposed by his Honourable Friend, if adopted, would he the greatest improvement which had been made in this part of our laws for many years. As it tended only to regulate the most objectionable part of the Tythes Laws. He was not of opinion with the Petitioners, alluded is by the Right Hon. Gentleman, that Tythes were contrary to the Christian Religion ; but he was of opinion, that the Bill, if adopted, would put an end to the continual litigation between Cler gymen and their Parishioners, which was most de structive to Christianity. Mr. LOCKHART supported the Bill. Mr. PEEL was fearful the Bill would increase liti gation. Lord CASTLEREAGH said, it should be consi dered, that in touching the question of Tythes, they were touching a species of property as sacred as any other description of property could be ; and, there fore, that it must be entered upon with caution—but though the house should be cautious in its proceed ing, there could be no objection to fair discussion. Mr. BROUGHAM defended the pill. He was ready to allow that the property of the Church was sacred, but he could not allow that it was more sa cred than the property of the Crown, or individual, property. _ After a few words in explanation from Mr. Cua wrm aad Sir WILLIAM Scort, leave was given to bricg in a Bill. JUDGE DAY. Mr. BENNET said, the House would recollect, that last Session he presented a Petition from a per ' scn, containing heavy charges against Judge Day, one of the Irish Judges, imputing to him, that in the course of a trial, where the prisoner was charged with having murdered a man in a duel, the Learned Judge had made a partial charge, (the prisoner hav ing been a distant relation of his Lordship); and that the Learned Judge had exerted all his influence to prevent the prosecution taking place. Since present. , lug that Petition ' he (Mr. Bennet) had made inqui r y, and ascertained that the facts stated in the Petition were unfounded; that the than was no relation to the Judge; .and that, so far from hazing attempted to prevent the prosecution, he had given money towards it. Having ascertained these :acts, he was most anxious to do the Homes:dile and Learned Judge jus tice, by stating them to the House, and declaring th.st he should proceed no further on the Petition. Mr. PEEL, congratulated the Honourable Gentle man on his conviction of the integrity of Judge Day, a more honourable and upright Judge than whom never sat on the bench.—Here the subject dropped. Dr ref ser No the air du let lou Pei Ha wh CUT Ho anc tiol the cre prc a S a p ing but dw If of tha sibl as asst the rne pre all lic the Or. Dr dal not rea trai be. son Me req in I aPF gje 1 , ( cut utti pro Ma cau just intc wol lita ap/ ass< 1 ' P 3l ing low rou at.d d•sc anz to rua wei Drl trui wa.! tar , ti 1 .. t $ • any w hw , wh ten Or I a IA I the cou Of • mu say ' Bill son tha prc Ifie snU Th , ref< to cot the Wi by inli I , r. t.iii of Wi apt , gis wx• J cu ot ra h A lie A , sp to th pe bt, is to th 4N. to 10:t. k: • /AIL COTTON FACTORIES. Sir ROBERT PEEL rose to move for leave to bring in a Bill to regulate the hours of labour of ap prentices in the cotton factories. About fifteen years ago he brought in a Bill on this subject. lie had at that time 1000 apprentices in his employ. Since that time the business had much increased. At present in Manchester there were not less than 20,000 per sons employed in the cotton manufactories, and in all the• factories more than three times that number were employed. A great portion of them were chil dren, under nine years of age ; and these unfortunate little victims were called up before day-light, and employed for 15 hours in the day, a portion of labour far beyond their power, and by which their health was destroyed, and their lives shortened. This was proved by their appearance ; those who were thus employed never attaining their full stature, or living to attain old age. After some further observations on the subject, ihe Honourable Baronet moved for leave to bring in his Bill. Lord LASCELLES felt this to be a subject of very great importance indeed. If these children were taken from under the protection and controul of their parents, he should consider this as a proper subject for legislating upon ; but they were, in fact, what were called free labourers, under the controul Of their parents, who employed them as they thought proper. He was desirous to do justice to these poor children, and to interfere in their behalf, if real cause of com plaint existed ; but he thought, before the House proceeded to legislate, it should be put in possession of all possible information on the subject. Mr. WILBERFORCE said, the House was very much indebted to the Hotiourabie Baronet; and be hoped the House would =vend its iud em .., i.e measure to be proposed, as 11,. dictated by prudence, humanity. Mr. W. S - MITH thought theie ‘iz s s. , dente upon the Report of the Coir.n.ittee authorize this measure. ~v C' , n Mr. PHILLIPS defended the conduct cr....-. nufacturers, which, he conteuded, was mane. He was a partner in one of the curies, which had been establidied for upv . years, and the average of sicknc.:s :•, not more than one in 100 ; and althou g h ti upwards of 1000 of these children empic • factory, the average expense to the Puci r: these persons was not more than 5/. i: ..'4 factory paid to the rates. He was was nut a factory of any kind plaints might nut have been had been used to obtain t.;,ern: been, for some time past, to canvas t . r.s .• employed in the factories, to (..bt-iin them. Mr. FINLAY entered his protest atra.: being considered as resulting from any tr: fore the House. There was nu Fut': e: except in the case of one workm an at and even that case proved nothing, so.:t of Parliament was insufficient to keep a doing wrong. Some medical me: ha mined before the Committee, but tl:c that they had no knowledge of cone% A friend of his had told him not to be said, for they had told him that he six months, yet he lived much bvio..l He warned the House not to entertai. this importance without discussing it f - k: mated his intention to debate the Bill in t Sc Mr. PELL said, the argumeil:s of for Manchester amounted to nothir,g. H e doubt that Gentleman's manufactoty Wls, himself, well regulated, and therefcre,;:e the regulations of such manufactoriN as -re 7 , conducted. It was proved before the that in the manufactory at Blackburr, were employed 17 hours a day, and ever. twelve on the Sunday, in clear.sing This was proved by a p.erson who had left a in the manufactory of £BO a year, to ac:c?t r. of A... 50, and that Gentleman (3lr. Moss that-on the bankruptcy of tlie person at t'..! that manufactory, the chddrer. v. :e Lancaster in a cart, and told to beg thuir . they rot to their parishes. He put it to a:— sr.l•: say, if a child of seven or -rears of :tie. •;., be confined for 14 or 1.5 hoors a da7 a tory, without injury to its healfr.. Mr. CUR WEN sai'd,.ihat . he had :r.spc:•.e.'.._ factory in Lancashire, since it had becr, hands, and he found it regulated with e; t: the health and comfort of the children. Tv 7 introduced into the manufactories a perfect ventilation ;an also machinery to col:en cea fly, which was so injurious to the children's He thought Parliament *Ought to he very C.::: :3 how it legislated between parent and of the Bill would be to render a greater qu:ner labourers to perform the same work, ar.d ci lower the wages of each ; and if it were co: 7 - House would he besieged with pe - ..tions.rs, them to follow up their plans of anieli.7.r.ar... fixing a higher price to their labour, ads... that unless they did so the present ir.earn have injured instead of served them: t.:!;.r. ference would render another necessary. impossible to say where such a system Sir JOHN JICKSON thought, as t!..? given their attention to the arncioratica c.. - tion of slaves abroad, they could r.ot ir.reas their fellow-subjects at home. possible that children kept at %yolk fors • could be brought up with a doe impres,: moral duties. Ilehad had much cor.•:ersatt, subject with many persons cor.nected mills, and particularly with the conducto: tablishment at New Lanark, ar.d the geneTa: was, that something was necessary to be dcr.e. hoped, therefore, that the Bill would be cr through the House ; it came front an excellent ter, for it was impossible to select a persou perienced in the business than the Hc':. Baror.st 6 "'~ Sir J. GRAHAM thought it wry repreher. prevent persons from labouring, if they WOU.e. 17 hours a day. It might be proper to for the comfort of children and apprentices. to abridge the hours of free labour. An had gone abroad, among the Lrhoureri is t•.e of England, that Parliament was about to the hours of labour, and to increase This measure would go, he was af:.l.!. to rr.: nufactures ; and though I.e would no: bringing in of the Bill, yet he would every future stage. Mr. B. SHAW thought the parents cf would not suffer them to work beyond Leave was then given to bring in the 8.:.. ARRESTS IN SCOTLAND. Lord A. HAMILTON presented three one from William Rubertscn and arothe: vid Smith, and a third firm an ".. name we could not learn, complai-;-i sustained by them during five rnont.n . in Scotland, under the Suspension of the • pus Act. Mr. Fl NL AY said the allegations ecntaine , i were false ;—the Petitioners were r.ct under the Habeas Corpus Suspen.sion Act. the Habeas Corpus had not been suspende , i land. They were nut ill-treated, fur thei; knowledged how much they felt obliged tc for his kindness, and to the Sheriff in parties. had taken care of their families; but this had refused to have any thing to do with t1:( - 7 6 : tions, knowing them t 3 be a ti sue of falsthcc...... - . to their complaints of being detained five :,-• - they might have demanded to be brought: , within sixty days after their commitment. Lord A. HAMILTON said, the Hon. had not disputed one of the facts, h?d been discharged without a trial. It been proper or improper to arrest them. he c. 7 go into that question. but he was sure that imprisoned they ought to have had a trial.—L' i the table. Sir ROBERT PEEL bought up the Cotton Ma 7 v :- :',: Labourers Bill, which was read a first time, ar,d orf , rc' • read a second time on Monday next, and to br priord. The Llection Laws 11111 was recomrnmed, abd rrzrot4,.