The Statesman. — London, England, 1818-02-20 00:00:00

P ---•~, the Attorney and Solicitor Generals on the 23i1 of Muth, but on that occasion he did not utter one word of complaint. Was there then upon this or any ether of the Petitions such a presumption of misconduct as called for enquiry ? His Majesty's Government disclaimed any Bill or provision for the purpose of protecting them or those who acted under thens against actions for the cruel and rigorous treat ment of prisoners. The only ground upon which !bey reported to the general measure of Indemnity, its to justify; the extraordinary step they had taken in a case of extreme necessity. If the laws were violated by rigorous and cruel conduct, the Iles were still open to appeal. If such cases had occurred, he hoped the appeal would be made, and there could be no doubt bit redress' would fol low. He should not enter more into the details of all the Petitions, but he could state from his own know. ledge, that they contained many gross and monstrous perversions. The Magistrates of Berkshire went never denied admittance to Mr. Knight, 'in Radio; jail ; in that and in all the other counties they woos unif ormly admitted. He should make bitt ono servetion snore on the Petitions, and that was wits respect to the charge against Oliver. Mitchitil,will paid to have been arrested through his means. Mt fact was not so. Mitchell was, arrested before Olivet was even known to the Government. He was arrested, not upon his (Lord Sidmouth's) warrant, though he had issued one for his apprehension, but on the warrant of a Magistrate, who knew his mal-practices, and took him up on his own responsibility.—[llear, hear!]—The Noble Lord had said much *boat spies and informers, bet his Majesty's Government were prepared to stand the brunt of any enquiry upon that subject ; end he owed it to the injured individual (he would so call Mr. Oliver) to state, that he was'never concerned in the insurrection at any period ..of its progress. The features of the conspiracy were to be found in the two Reports, end it was impossible for any man who enquired into the transactions at Man chester, not to be satisfied that they had taken place before Oliver was known to the Government. Upon the whole, he was of opinion that there was no ground to support the present motion, and he, for MOP, should declare himself decidedly against it.— [Hear, hear!) Earl GROSVENOR. said, that if he spoke of the measures now in a manner suited to the view in which he was led to regard them, he feared he should not he considered as cool enough for such a discus. sion ; if, on the contrary, he spoke with apathy and indifference, he felt he should not be acting up to his own ideas of his duty, or in a manner agreable to his feelings. He expressed his own conviction that there was an universal failure of proof to support the iteports upon which the extraordinary powers eta trusted to Ministers were grounded. Notwithstand ing this universal failure of proof of disaffection and treasorr, excepting in the case of Derby alone, he was still willing to admit that there was none mere fit to be entrusted with the execution of such a disagreeable duty as the Noble Viscount (Lord 4idmouth), whose character was suit as would impel him, wherever it was possible, to act in the manner most likely to consult the feelings of the individuals concerned. As to the Petitions in question, he contended, that supposing there was not a word of truth in the va rious allegations they contained, yet that still they were called upon to allow these Petitions to be re fetred to the Committee, although it was not cons. posed as he could wish. The Noble Viscount had either misunderstood or misrepresented a Noble Lord who had already spoken, and who was supposed to maintain tha• Petitions of all kinds should be re ferred to the Committee. The Noble Lord had pro. posed to send only Petitions essentially connected with the appointment of the Committee. But the Noble Viscount denied that any such Petitions should be admitted. According to this language, nothing was to he received by the Committee but what the Noble Viscount deemed fit to submit to them. But hi contended that, according to the'Noble Viscount's own showing, the Petition in question should he re. ferret]. Thete was no part of it which, prima facie, might not be true. Acctotding *to the Petitioner's ( Drommond).sletement, he was seized while address ing a large and numerous concourse of persons, who wr , re met for the wpm of petitioning Parliameut against the Suspension of the Habees Corpus t but the Noble Viscount would have it that he (the Peti tioner, spoke with a degree of vehemence which was• dangerous. The Noble Viscount could not deny that they had' a right' to petition against the Suspension Of the Habeas Comas,: but he did not like it. The object of such Vineeting could not be regarded as treasonable; for, if trea sonable. why were'they not proseciled and brought to trial? The Petition states, that *iiire the meeting were se etnployed,they were suddenly sorroundedby a large party of military. He could not say whether it could he denied that they were so surrounded ; but he bad certainly heard a great deal of the dexterity of fhb military makeuvres practised upon that occasion. The -Petitioner was taken before Mr. Sylvester ; and, upon representing the hardships be had suffered . , with regard to the quality of the food w hic h had'been al lowed'him, this Gentleman ordered that he should hare better food. He was afterwards committed to the charge of Nadia, who chained him, and harried him away to another place: With respect to this Na din, he understood there wire serious charges brought against him in another piaci, as having given coun tenance and Itnoooripment to the horrible system of blood.menty'; ant thire .. ippeared no reason to doubt that by this site thelPlttitiOtlOr was very cruelly treated. It was alleged that 'these people meant treason ; but if so, why were they not brought to trial ? It was said that these people (theblankiteers) intended to proceed to London, to petition the Prince lthgetit r such a project was absetd enough, he would ; but not treasonable. If it was alleged that their object was treason, let all the circumstances be brought to proof before the Committee, that the Committee might know who were right and who were wrong. It was not right that any part of the country should rest under such a heavy charge, without lutestiga: Lion. God knew, said the Noble Lord,' how 'Heal at variance with such a charge was the befit dfloy. alty which was manifestrid %vitt a 'tete inetrinfiil tfpa loyalty which attaellid Malt nit to thel“idy trappings of royalty, butt to 'hi lilltivied 'irides of a Princess wed Ohs the gloVy'ofbil our Constitution, and thellifi s The Petiticiter (DruTzroond) was oppressed with ~'~. + T~~.~,w.,.; r .r .y ,~,..~,,+, P.• - 7 - vet waS •• • ‘• ' r~ ibe retiticiter (LI • • • • • THE STAI'ESMA,N t - chains; yet it W 49 not Of this, or of the loss of his purse that he complained, but that he had d.no trials. TIM exisitrce, ifko else, ISt itteeti its( SO his recognisance - wara grievatite misiek Coal no . be' , m denied. The recogo s izances were highly. pc ri and subjected the Petitidner to nlich•expence and great inconvenience. In short, he contended there was prima facie evidence of every one of the &Wets lions being true. liked been said, if the grievin&s alleged were so great, bow happened it that no more thin these fee 'Petitions worn presented; het he be lieved this proceeded entirely'from the opinion which had gone abroad from the whole coarse of proceed. ings, and especially from tl?i appointment or this Committee, that it would prove a hopeless ease.— The Noble Viscount bilked of responsibility, and when, on a former occasion, the evidence was demanded that rendered such a responsibility ekes airy, they were told to suspend their opinion till the proper time. But what were they now to think of this heavy responsibility ? for he believed the conse 'menu of the Bill of Indemnity would be to shelter Him from every responsibility ; and it was doubtful whether, by its operation, even Jailers and Magis trates, who had acted improperly, would nut be pro tected from punishment. Imprisonment, even for a few days was a hardship, but confinement, in a damp room for nine months, was no light punishment. As nothing had fallen from the Noble Viscount which tended to alter his opinion on this subject, he shlsuld say "content" to the motion. Lnrd KING said, that after the able and eloqeent speech of the Noble Lord who had just sat down, it was ennecessary for him to say much. The Noble Viscount (Lord Sidmouth) had regarded the motion for referring these Petitions to the Committee as a Sweeping proposition ; but to appoint a Committee of their own nomination, to judge of their own acts, and that upon evidence produced by themselves, in order to guide them to a Bill of Indemnity, was more a sweeping proposition, an unheard-of proposition, which his Majesty's Ministers had brought forward ; but when any complained of being seriously ag grieved, as in the present case, was it right that they should refuse to listen to their complaints on such frivoleus pretences ? The question was not whether these men were improperly detained or not, but whe ther the Suspension empowered Ministers to commit without evidence upon oath. Ile believed, that if these Petitions were referred to the Committee, it would appear that great injustice had been done; but his Majesty's Ministers would allow nothing to be referred to the consideration of the Committee but what they themselves had prepared ; they were judges, party, and witnesses also. Earl BATHURST observed, that the Committee which was now appointed, had. a power to send for fresh information if they felt it to be necessary.— The question, therefore, was, whether they would leave it the Committee to decide in this matter for themselves, or whether the House would interfere to determine for them.—[Hear, heur!]—lf their Lordships were not satisfied with the Report when it was brought forward, they would be under no obli gation to pass the Indemnity 13111. But why should they depart from the established practice of the: House? Ile did not mean to say that the practice should never bend, but surely it ought only to yield in cases of necessity. 'the Noble Lords confessed that they knew nothing of the persons from whom the Petitions came, nor of the facts to which they referred. Was that a reason for enquiry ?—[Hear', hear!]--The Petition's complained of Hiegel arrests, and prayed, upon that ground, that the Bill of In. demnity might not he passed; but the Bill most he very dsfferent indeed from that which was passed be fore, if it could be construed to protect such abuses as were complained of. 'then as to the legality of. the arrest, was the Committee to enter into that question? If so, they must enquire whether those persons were guilty of treason or not. But suppos ing they did enquire, and found the men were inno. cent, would they conclude from that circumstance that the arrests were illegal ? Supposing oil the other hand, they found them guilty, would they liberate them in that event, or send. them to be tried again, after having been tried before, and with all the preju dice which that previous trial mast attach to their character ? Even if the practice of the House was in favour of such a course, he would say, from the na ture of the Petitions themselves, that they ought not to be referred to the Committee.—[flear, hear!] The Marquis of LANSDOWNE would not enter at length into the merits of the question, as he was a Member of the Secret Committee; but be rose to re ply to the statement of the Noble Lord who had just sat down, as to the practice of the House and of Se cret Committees. It was not the practice that a Se cret Committee should send to the House for papers, but to confine themselves to the consideration of such papers as were laid before them. Therefore that part of the Noble Lord's speech did not apply to the point under discussion. If the Committee were to see and investigate those Petitions, the pre sent motion seemed to be the only mode of giving them that power. The Earl of LIVERPOOL admitted that the Noble Lord was correct in stating, that it was not the practice of a Secret Committee to send to the House for papers; but they could apply to the Mi- ' nisters of the Crown for any papers they wanted; and if they did not obtain them, it was perfectly competent for them to report to the house that they had not had sufficient grounds for coming to any final judgment. Till the Report came before them, it was improper for any Noble Lord who was not a Member of the Committee to say that any meta were necessary. When the Report should be mode, they could judge of it. If it should bosatisfactory, ,I the Petitions would be admitted to be unnecessary I for the Committee. If it should be unsatisfactory, and express ,the impossibility of coming to a oonsis sion without further information, then this motion might be urged. But till the Home were aware of the Report, it was impossible to say whether any or what proceeding should be adopted respecting it.-- Allusion had beers wade to the nianWer la which this Committee was appointed ; it had betit asserted that it was appointed in a manner never Milli" O(befiste- He weuld appeal to the House whither is was . sot appointed in the manoetintiviably adtoPtOtt !Ow efoist., hr occasions. It was' aleiys, tltti . ,doik:Of it,4 Noble Lord who propoied , a .Comesitless: to mai*, the individuals who should form thattontidttee.— What benefit had that mode over a ballot? , — ._ In both teem the mover proposed the im What A.. lencti;: i pie difference, jracept,thi Cot preliMitell Moss dis cus t$ sdiol Cps,hat bit r always to Ns :ivildei I s gte 'dee of the Hari titrei aro bdr of Committee. Whin the i• liter *aced last year v end we posy eseasiou jr -be•fAs_ Ifaltoiti sublit the information on which Ministers 'fetid to pirians •of alt political opinions.—(Hear, hear! from the Opposition.)—The Casualties - was { not.formed on any narrow or party views. —(Hear, heaig from the Opposition.)—He certainly would not choose to submit his conduct to the judgment of the Noble Lords he sew opposite to him.—(Hear, hear! and a laugh.)—The Report of the Committee would speak for itself; be had no doubt that it would be a fair and jolt conclusion, deduced from ample materials of it.vestigation. The Members of the Committee were as cOnicientious, and ai much inte rested in the welfare of the country, as the Noble Lords opposite could be, and was it fair, then, to suppose that they would not do their duty? As to the contents of the Petitions, the first ground of con plaint was wanton midi cruel itriprisonment—(Lord Holland spoke across the table to correct the Noble Lord, it was illegal imprisonment that formed the ground of compiiint)—the first complaint was, then, illegal imprisonment ; the second *at cruel and harsh treatment. With respect to the latter, he should only say, with his Noble Friend, that 'the Bill of Indemnity would cootaitt no clause to screen Ministers, Magistrates, Niters, or any other description of persons, againit the conse quences of any cruel or harsh treatment. This paint, therefore, was not at issue. As to tho other •romplaint, of Illegal imprisonment, which its et issue, he would ask, whether it most not be the complaint of all who were confined under the Sol. pension of the Habeas Corpus Act ? The 'ground of complaint was the very power contorted by the Sus pension.—[Hear, hear! from Lord Sidmouth.)— The Noble Lord (Grosvenor) had given his votiseiren or eight times for the Suspension of the Habeas Corpus. He might say it was upon grounds different from those of the last Suspension ; but the grounds were not now in question. Whenever, then, the Noble Lord had voted for the Suspension of the Habeas Corpus, he voted for the power of taking up persons and confining them without trial.—EHear, hear! from Lord Sidasouth.)—Whether it was neces sary to grant such a power was another question.— This question had been already discussed, and might he again discussed by the House; but it had nothing to do with motion now before them. Earl GROSVENOR explained. He had not entered into the subject of the detention of the Pe titioners upon suspicion, as a ground of complaint, but in order to repel the insinuations of the Noble Viscount (Sidmouth) that the statements were un true. With this view he had stated, that Samuel Drummond had, in fact, been arrested, brought be fore Lord Sidmouth, and dragged fiom jail to jail, as set forth in the Petition. As to his former votes on this subject, he should only say, that the grounds of Suspension were then different in all respects from the present. Lord HOLLAND, considering the motion es in timately connected with the whole system of go. vernment, and with the question now at issue be tween the Government and the People, feltit bie l duty to offer a few obtervations upon it. Hot hi would first answer the attacks of the Noble Lords op. posite, and especially the very curious observation of the Noble Lord who had lest spoken, respecting his Noble Friend's conduct on a former occasion.- - lie hoped it would be indelibty engraved on the mina of their Lordships, and he implored them to consider what was the consequence of once voting fpr the San. pension of this sacred bulwark of our liberties-4f they were once betrayed by the representations and delusions of Ministers to assent to such a Metsore, they were held to be incapable ever after of deli.: berating on the subject. The Noble Lord (Balkiest) had misrepresented the object of the Suspension: be did not charge him with haring purposely misrepre sented ; notwithstanding his political hostility to him, he admitted that he was the last maw in the House to misrepresent ; but he had misrepresented in the present case. It never had been stated, till now, that the Suspension of the Ilahess Corpus granted the power of arresting and keeping' in confinement, without any intention of bringing to trial at all. He had too often, anfortunately , for the country, seen the Rabe** Corpus sospandid, although he was not an old man ; but never had be heard it asserted before, that men could be arrested' with no intention to bring them to trial. On the contrary, it was always asked by the other side of the House, and particularly, he recollected by the Noble Lord on the 11'oolsack—" Where was the great iujory of the Suspension ? Where the danger ? Was any man.commited but upon oath, and on their own responsibility to bring him to trial ?"—Ufedrij —The ground of Suspension urged on all occasionsk was, that it was necessary to postpone the trial be. yond the period cllowed by law, because it was dan= k gerous to betray the evidence which might enablaother traitors to escape. He bad the best authority for stating, that a Government dependent on one man was misery to ill. This it was found to be during the last year. After a year of such misery, Ministers came forward and said, they had obtained liberty to do all that hat been done: they came forward to say that they had beetaniborlaed to commit illegally, and to treat their' prisoners cruelly. What else torrid have been espected ? After having, on (tire pretdnces, obtained an Act of Suspension, they came forward .now and ' called upon 0414 to iodeMnify them for all they had done even beyond. that Act. The first Noble Viscount who bed spiken on the other side bad said, that the 'Noble Lnrd who brought thii motioebeftire'the House bad acted judiciously in confining Maisel to the tnetlag o .and refraining from going Into the cements 'ottitit'Petitions. He knew that the Noble Viscuest lived, parodies, al. thinigh °nerd hit Colleagues Wei Ariattraplislied in that species ofrawnPositiOn: For!his own part s be wii a very bad bind at a parody', yet Pe was almost tempted to try a parody' upon this pait of tbe'Nolile Viscount's speech. The Noble Viscount bed cer tainly actratrasist jidiciotuily in refratt4itresn touch isny *as: 4: the arguments of the Noble Meyer, ' awd'twcrailintar himself to points TOW foreign •to •Ifif had rlntiged . hri Nute FrientV with baling made a sweeping preposition to refer . mumm bete Mitbiti 'to a Committee. ' ilia Note F r • i f ila 'd not done so; be had distinctly said, that the le s u p. 4 ?ointment of a Committte ,to enquire into theis m! , Leg the allegations of theYetitioners might be made !question ; but a Committee being actually sitti ng, 6 substantially and notoriously to report a p es , ,conduct of Ministers towards those very Petitio . he had moved to refer those Petitions t o these es a " form.ulloaettledr ad mit( 131s e t o u e 'r e sel e t r .h y s oT w enh o ee r d aimuotlhi that : rin till': had been said, the met,a he e to fo rm a polesfor ri m ed , was an aggravation of the conduct of Ministers is this ease. He had not been iu the House when the Committee was appointed ; but be understood it laid 1 t then been stated, that the object of the Coenellj es • was to examine papal upon the state of the coses'il 9-• • and the manner in which Ministers bad acted.. . But, if they bad acted fairly and honestly, they should have stated w.hil iiiiiit . and object ware to J be prescribed to the Committee. They should heti said that the object wastwo.fold— fi rst, to eng e f f e into, the state of the country ; and secondly, to judge of the criminality or innocence of Ministers, and then they should bare pointed oat thi proper form in which the enquiry was to be conducted. 66 We bringdown a Green Bsg," they should have said, " and we refer it to a Committee, which Com: mittee we select ourselves, and we lay before theft what papers we judge proper. We adopt this forte, beceese we think it improper that the Committ ee should obtain any evidence against our former asset. tions, or against our conduct' udder the Susliendon." He would maintain that no confidence tumid be placed s oa a RePori, however conscientiously framed, when the information ween strictly and yealOisly 'expecte. As to the uniform practice of the House, !be didOot• reeolliit that such an enquiry as Mial. stars now instituted bed ever been proposed in sack circumstances. ~, The danger was now over; iti existence couldtherefore be fairly proved, if it ever existed. Last year the Noble Lord had introduced a•Green Bag in a very mysterious manner; in cos.. sequence of this Green Big there was a Secret Coke mittee, a Report, and a Suspension of the dame Corpus. The Report stated suspicions of a variety of Meetings through the country, but chiefly 41 Ili central Meetings in the Metropolis. A Petition was presented by his Noble Relation offering to prose this suspicion totally unfounded. It was . moved that the Petition be taken into considers.. tiOn. The reply was, that this was improper its itself; besides, that there was not time to enquire into the truth of all such representations ; the put. peas of the House would be defeated if they wet into en investigation when every individual thou* proper.—lt was objected, that the evidenie laid be fore the Committee *as ex-parte. It was answered, that it must be so, and that thesCommittee acted like a Grand Jury, wise found true . bills upon ex-parte' 'evidence. Did Ministers now, then, come forward `sod really tell the Mose, that the eir.llent old' maxim, Audi atteran; partern would not be admit. ted I—After they had two Reports of Secret Cow.. mittees ; after many were arrested for High Tres. son; after some had been condemned, many sea quitted, and the most discharged without trial, woe they to be told that they should l:eve no farther 11)0 deuce of the necessity of the Suspension P—The Mi.. Wain mist now say, 66 Leave the law to its course, I , we are able to justify our conduct ;" or," VVe bare ‘.! bete masted, expunge . frons pp records the Reports on Mick we acted ;" or, " You granted the powers under which we acted from confidence in the charge. ten of Ministers; grant us now an indemnity on the same principle. You suspended the Constitution from prospective confidence in us ; indemnify ; us from retrospective . confidence." —If they • bad manfully come forward with this last propo. vision, he' should have opposed it, as he had dorm last year ; but be must have thought much more, highly ; of their fairness and magnanimity. The last year, be regarded as a year of misfortune. It was a yeeir of delusion, practised in the most execrable caner ; of power unnecessarily obtained and an. warrantably exercised; of distress and suffering,. without justice and without redress. Yet it wel base been manly to call for indemnity on the ground of character. One other honourable mode of proceeding was left for them; they might have come forward and said—" The storm is now over, the danger is past, the alarm is ceased, calmly judge therefore our coodeet, examine all the evidence that can assist your judgment ; let us bear all that can be said against our proceedings; open the doors to all complaints, petitions, and representations; we acted honestly upon the best information we could' °bide; judge ye now our conduct." But the Noble Lied bad chosen to recommend neither course ; their pro. ceedings were perfectly different, and embraced no piode of satisfying the minds of the People. His tioble Friend (the Earl of Cernervon) had properly ;aid, that, whether justly or not, the country bad oodly expressed an opinion, that there had been l e * ostice exercised; that Government had mega lis owers ; and that every thing which they bad done• in consequence of the Suspension Act was not tightly done. There was a prevalent suspicion, amounting with some to a positive belief, that the Noble fiord' at the head of the Nome Department had not acted constitutionally ; that be had exercised powers be. yond the law ; that in his Circulars to Magistrates, directing how to perform their duty, ice preventing their visitation of prisoners, in recommending the auspension of the great bulwark of our rights, aitt, in employing ,spies and informers, he conduct , * himself in a manner subversive of our hest privileges,; and hostile to the public interests. The Noble Via- • count (Sidmonth) had replied to the observations ow the latter subject, that it was idle to suppose that sit the mischiefs ' which bad occurred in the disturbed districts could be attributed to Spies. Ile (Lay& Holland) would not go the length of toying that an this mischief bad arisen from the employment of such persons; but he bad no hesitation in declaring his conviction that much of it was to be referred to that origin ;—[llear, hear !]—and if he were allowed: he would produce sufficient evidence 10 support st his opinion. He could assure the House, that if s proper opportunity were offered, be had an doubt he could make out a better case spina Oliver, than Ministers has been able to make nut last year against the country.;—[Hear, hear!] -11e was not in the ri habit of ascertaining facts on ex-parte testimony ; he. was not in the habit of coming to a decision on any • qeestivo till he beard what could be allrinced to abr.!' - .•.. - 1 • .& * a ; _, r) -