The Sun.
London, England, 1818-02-20 00:00:00

OFFICES IN REVERSION.

The Earl GROSVENOR adverted toa motion be had lately
made, for an Account of Offices granted in Reversion, and ob-
served', that it had not been laid before the House ; a delay
which he understood to have at isen from the circumstance of'
their not having been enrolled, and application had in con,e-
quence been made to the Treasury.
The Earl of LIVERPOOL maintained that the Treasury
had nothing to do with it; and that it rested with the House
to cause its own Orders to be obeyed, on discovering the
proper pee son to make the Return.
A conversation of some length ensued.
. . _

The LORD CHANCELLO-lit suggested, that as a return of
a Simi? ar description was made three or four years'ago, it
rnizlit be discovered from that who was the proper Officer to
mike the rerun) note called for. '
Lord BOLLAND moved, that the paper he forthwith laid
before the House, liut afterwards withdrew his ir,otion upon
an understanding that it would be first advisable to discover
who was the proper Officer that was to make the return.
COMPLAINTS' OF ARBITRARY IMPRISONMErg.

Lord HOLLAND, before the Order of the Day, was de-
sirous of pre:enting to the Honse two Petitions, front
complaining' of harsh usage, unjust imprisonment,
and in urr►v respects cruel treatment. They had been put
into his hands ahove two hours preciously, and though► by
had read Limn, he had not had sufficient time to make him-
self toaster of their contents. They were. however, very
humbly entitled, and respectfully worded. One of them was
from a person► of the nom►. of Knight, of whom he had never
before heard, and the other from a person of the. name of
Mitchell, to whose character vague (perhaps untounded)
report had attached suspicionq, but lie begged to protest
against the doctrine that objections against the moral charac-
ters of individuals were to operate against the • prriheiples.
which they sought to maintain. It was true that persons ►n
the sitivat of the Petitioners might endeavour to put their
own Cases to the most favourable- point of view, by mtg.-
gerating the hardships they had endured, and suppressing
what made avrinst them ; but it should be at the sante tints
rveollected, that there were other persons aecused of high
misdemeanours whose statements were on that-acdount

ree,i ved with great indulgence, and he only claimed the same
indulgence for the 'etiti,►ners.
Ills Lordship then presented a petition front Jelme Knight.
of Manchester, and Joseph Mitchell; of Pverpool, the latter
of whom states his having introduced Oliver, at the riquFst
of the latter, into stone meetings of the Iteformers•(similar
petitions from liotb those individuals were recently. presented
to the //wise of Commons, and the, subitunce of them stated
in our f'nrliaoi;ntnry.ftrports). With respect to the petition
froni Mitchell, Lord Holland stated, that several.of the state-
Torsos In it c4utd he verified sy persons- of •respectability.
The petitions were read and ordered to lie upon the table.
RECENT SUSPENSION orTHE HABEAS CORPUS.diCT.

The Order npon which their Lordships• were
sot-minified heiog read,
Tile Earl of CARNARVON rose.--:When he had
otigin.lly presented tit* Petition of Drummond
to the Hflose, he said he Could not conceive that
the least ditErence of opinion could exist as to the

propriety of referring it to the consideration of
their Lordships' ;Secret Committee ; hot be had,
ag,revably to the wish of. his Majesty's Ministers,
postponed a motion to that effect to this day, in
order that they might he the better prepared to
meet. the :question. A resistance to such a um-
tiou HS he meant to offer must, be thowzlit, be
highly,injurious to the chat acteis of Ministers
themselves He called for no new proce«ling ; no
uew Committee; and it was imperiously the duty of
the House to cause itiquiry into the circumstances,
with a view to ascertain whether the nature of the
Petition was such HS to reTtire that which it went
humbly to pray for, The course in the present in-
stance was of an easier and a clearer nature ; a
ComMittee of Inquiry had already been appointed
at the suggest inn of Ministers themselves. .They
had state, that out of their own bag that should
be brought to light which would shew the whole
conducrof his Majesty's Government, in the ex-
ercise of the extraordinary powers entrusted to
them in the late Session of Parliament, and a full
view of the- state of the Country subsequent to the
last geport. It would he too much to assume
that it was already decided-upon,. or that the in-
vestigation could he complete, going on such li-
mited. documents as Ministers merely thought pro-
per to lay before the Committee. The mere can-
vassing of such documents could never be a mode
of eliciting truth. He meant not to suggest that
thekmduct of Ministers would, on investigation,
be (Mind faulty; but certainly if they wished to
appear ,justified before the House and the Country,
they moktAnn depend alone on such an inquiry as
'they Ittatisc;res had chalked out, or upon the ver-
dict of a It Nina; packed and nominated by them-
selves. It could never be expected that Minis-
ters would select from their own offices that
which would criminate themselves. Two days
had scarcely elapsed before they thought it neces-
sary lo produce another green hag. That proce-
dure shetved, that in their own opinions, the in-
formation originally afforded was not sufficient.—
May not the House then fairly suppose, that not
only in, but out of the Ministerial offices, fit mat-
ter fur inquiry may be produced? Much, how-
ever, of the importance of the •pentlit'or inquiry
would be calculated from the object Ministers
had in view. They were asked, early in the
Session, what their object was. This, at the
time, they professed not to be able to state, alleg-
ing, it would deOend upon what the result of the
inquiry may turn out to be. But lie would ven-
ture to state their object was, that an inquiry
should lead to a Bill of indemnity. Let not the
people of the country have reason even to itua-
gine that no justice was to be afforded to them,
either at the hands of Parliament, or through
the inferi,,r tribunals of justice. Let them not
think that Ministers alone were protected, and
the subjects not. If the Petition was refused to
be referred, such a conclusion, he feared, would
be drawn. Let then those documents he sent to
the Committee, who, he doubted not, would con-
sider them as they deserved. In a decision of this
peculiar importance, the character, the import-
ance, and estimation of that House in the eyes of
the country were naturally involved. They should
show their determination to decree strict justice,
and, if necessary, upon the agents of Ministers
themselves. The Report of the Committee of last
Session plainly intimated, that a part at least of
the disturbances last year was increased by the
very agents employed by Government. May it
oot therefore be inferred, that a larger portion
of guilt may, on further investigation, be found at-
tributable to the conduct of these persons. Though
the referring of these petitions would be an ims
portant object, it would be a still snore important
object to show what sort of an inquiry was going
on. If the real object were to ascertain the state
of the country, then such petitions ought to be
referred as a matter of course. What must be
the regarded situation even of Ministers them-
selves, if they refuse a proper inquiry before the
Committee ? Must they not remain under the
taint of insidious charges ? They should wish,
therefore, to be tried before God acid their Coun-
try, and not in their own dark Chamber, by a
Secrct Committee. They should attend not to
the feelings of Ministers alone, hut consider what
the general feelings of individuals throughout the
country actually were. They all called with one
voice for investigation. They should promote
inquiry, and for the sake of their own characters
equal justice should be'extended to Ministers and
to the people. Upon these grounds he pressed
upon their Lordships an acquiescence in his mo-
tion. Under all the circumstances, the reference
of such petitions to such a Committee as that now
sitting should be a matter of course, and be there-
fore would move—" That the humble petitions of
Samuel Drummond, Joists Knight, and Joseph
Mitchell be referred to the Committee of Seuresy."
Ou the question,

Viscount SIDMOUTH rose.—He began by ob-
serving, that upon the general grounds urged by
the Noble Earl, all such• Petitions ought to be
refet red to their Lordships' Committee of Secrecy
for the purpose Of inquiry. The argument, such
as it was, would amount to this—let any Petition,
from any individual whatever, be the facts assert-
ed ever• so false—let the contents be ever so ca-
lumnious, ever so libelous, in the highest.de-
gree—let all such, taming froth persons so cir-
cumstanced, be entertained by the House, and
snbsequently referred to the Committee, which
should devote itself to the examination of docu-
ments so produced ! lie tiusted, however, the
House would see the subject in a very different
light, and never lend i:s sanction to one of the
_mot exceptionable propositions ever advanced.—
tie would defy the Noble Earl tO,prove in the whole
histoty of Secret Committees a single instance in
which such a proposition was ever agreed to.
The very nature of a Secret Committee was in its
effect adverse to such a procedure. It may be
consonant to the proceedings of Parliament to
refer such-petitions to a Select, but never.to a Se-
cret Committee. The Noble Earl dwelt much on
the case of the petitioners. If Noble Lords had
read the petition Ole meant that. of Mr. Drum-
mond) they would soon be satisfied, that withont
much more information, it was not possible that
any such cognizance should be taken of it as the
Noble Earl required. Mr. Drimmiond had asserted
certain facts respecting the Meeting held on the
10th of March, near Manchester.; and that the
Meeting had conducted itself in a most decorous

and proper manner. Of he real facts of this case,
they all had fuel information long since through the
public papers. The opinion of the Committee re-
specting the-transactions it, the neighbourhood of
Manchester, on the 10th of March last, was well
known. Mr. Drummond thought proper to state
that on that day much disturbance was occasioned
" by a riotous, not to say a drunken soldiery." The
case, however, really was, that tor, sot•ne days
previous the Magistrates were forewarned that.
such a meeting was to be held, and that the ob-.-
jeet of it was, that the persons sa Assembled
should march in a body to the metropolis,
.and to
demand a complanee with their requisitions from
the Representative of the 'Sovereign in -Peison.---
(Hear, hear !)—Warrants were accordingly ap..plied for against the persons most actively en-
gaged in preparation, and some of these were exe-
cuted two days before ; but the remaining leaders;
utterly regardless of the loss of their colleagues,'
still proceeded to assemble a meeting on. the 10th
of March, and the Magistrates took the proper
precautions to preserve the public peace. 'Fitey
were justly appiehensive that-so large an assem-
blage was intended to be collected that day, that the
civil power would be insufficient, and they applied
for some military assistance. Mr. Drummond was-,
one of those who they felt it their duty to issue war-
rants fur the apprehension of; .upwards -of twelve
thousand persons were assembled, and of those.

larger portion were prepared for. the wird and
► dangerous expedient of marching to the -metro-
polis, and individuals were sedulously haranguing
the multitude in the most dangerous and must in-
flammatory language. The assistance of the mi-
litary was found absolutely necessary, and a con-
siderable number were arrested. The conduct,
as well as the character of Sir John Byng, on this
as well as on all other occasions, was faultless
and unexceptionable, and the assistance of the
military was afforded in the most regular and or-
derly manner. The accounts received from the
Magistrates were of this kind, and directly at ca-
riance with Mr. Drummond's assertions on that
head. Not a single instance of wanton or impro•
per conduct could with truth be charged upon the
military. Mr. Drummond was one of those cont.
mitred to the New Bailey. He was afterwardS ex-
amined by him (the Noble Secretary of State) and
his Majesty's Law Officers, on the h'ith ; on that
occasion lie was told not to reply to any questions
that would criminate himself. Not a word of com-
plaint was uttered by Mr. Drummond; while under
examination there was no intimidation whatever—
he was desired to speak freely. Nor afterwards
did lie learn, that either to the messengers or
upon any examination did be (the Petitioner) ut-
ter a word of complaint as to his usage. He
would therefore now ask the Noble Lords, whe-
ther they could say that all petitions of this sort
were worthy of inquiry or examination ? Wi'h
respect to the much-talked-of procedure of Indem-
nity, he would say that his Majesty's Government
disclaimed. any Bill or Bills that would protect
themselves, or persons acting tinder them, against
the consequences of that which resulted from their
own vigour or their prudence. What it was their-
!' duty to require, was merely 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
but to the seen-
esois(i-nithylaiyntotfsGoltftio,tdiell country.:
lisbyie'e
receiveot il,vajacl%s:l olfjsrf:oi
stmthiect
elc) these suen‘ltvire::ti:u.
ett:-
would
pye telt; to
otbhlee Zor o it Petitionsvas t' presentedliesall.l etiplart. night
able
nbilpeostsoiblteh
et h
tcifoooatti
its 1.e4
facts,lhoh To
,la3sac,
his
;lasi
neas(osicaes.
adnu iikminno:as
knowledge,
were
ereee:itogearer ,
it
I! containedous
perversion
terly unfit to be included. With respect to
the case of Knight, he knew that attempts were
made to insinuate that Viking Magistrates
were excluded from seeing State .Prisoners, but
such insinuations, he must say, were unfounded
arid in the instance of Reading Gaol in particular,
it was most satisfactorily proved that suclr'tfcharge'
was totally groundless. In regard to that of
Mitchell, he would only observe, that the charge
made against a person of the !mine Or-Oliarer, as
the cause of his detentiOn; -was neceisarilyfalie,
as the warrants for his apprehension were, signed
before they had any knowle,dge.of Oliver ;, and
that the apprehension of till's petilionie well -not
under a warrant from the Secretary of State; but.
from the Magistrates. As to any improper ageocY)
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 severest ordeal that
ever was devised. Of the person alluded to, their
knowledge was accidental ; but in several parts of
the country he was successful (so we nnderst nod
the Noble Viscount) in procuring important in.;
formation. With regard to much of what had
been alleged, respecting hits, the facts occurred at
periods when he was unknown to them ; but from
the conduct cif his Majesty's Government' in pro.
curing important intelligence, and properly fol-
lowing up such information, much mischief and
outrage was certainly averted; and for no small
part of thiS, their Lordships' own Reports could*
he confidently referred to. He would detain their
Lordshipi no longer than to say, that upon these
grounds and convictions, be felt it his duty to op-
pose the Noble Earl's motion.

The Earl GRObVENOR and Lord KING supported
the motion.

Earl BATHURST argiled forcibly against it.
The Marquis of LANSDOWNB seemed of opinion
that the Committee should be empowered to send
for additional papers, if deemed necessary.
Earl GROsVntioß spoke in explanation.
The Earl of LtvattPoot.tuaintained that it Was
.competent to the Secret Committee to report, if
it saw occasion, that it had not sufficient grounds
upon which to come to a satisfactory conclubion,
nulto apply for farther information; therefore
he felt it would be premature to appoint a distinct
Committee to consider the Petitions referred to,
until that Committee stroll's! have made its report.
—.,As to -the allusion made tri the Manner in which
the Secret Committee had been formed, he should
only say, that the mode of proceeding- objected to
was in accordance with the invariable custom of
both Houses of Parliament in all times. With re-
gard to animadversions upon the ballot, !tut! !Lv
opinion that the Committee should rather be pro-
posed by separate nounuation,-he hoped Unit Lord-

ships trotdd recollect the usual practice, that whet/
any Member proposed the appointment of a
Corn'
mines, be himself proposed the names of those ot
whom he wished such Committee to consist'
What then was the difference between the one
and the other mode of nomination, except that
by the ballot any invidious discussion upon names
-was avoided ? gut, he would ask, whether in any
.case of this nature, Ministers had ever declined to
make such a reconunendation in the appointment
of a COmmittee, as mieht enable them to collect
the views of the members of all parties, .with 1.,e;
speet to the grounds upon which they had acted
' They had not, to he sure, proposed-that a Con,"
mittee of this description should consist sMe'Y
of Members from the opposite side of
House, nor • could such a proposition be re!':
sonably expected. Ministers had in fact sought
for a Committee formed frOM different parties,
in order that the Report of such Committee
should be enlightened by the informatiout
NtiasievLiei)wrsd,s
and exempted from the prejudices, of all Par'
ties.Tbe Noble Lords ou the other side
were no doubt actuated by the most cooscien-
but I
wbo bmelocnoguchcil tio'attate%lov
ludeeto were not as interested in the real webarci
and as anxious for the constitutional freedom o,
the country, as any of the Noble Lot ds tip""
the
opposite Bench---.(hear, hear ! front the Aliniste"
risi betich.) I I
• —?.le petitioners to whom the mo;
that
lion referred complained, he observed, first, !!'itit
those
they were improperly arrested; and secondly, I::
Committee
they were cruelly treafed—(" and also that they
Any charge being matte against them,
were held to bail upon their liheratiou
formed that they would ever be brought to 11'0.,
observed a Noble Lord on theOppositionne"l;')„„..
Now with regard to theanass of compl4intora"e%.,
tion as to cruel treatment which those petiti,osiCeoc“),
ta i tied, any Biil of I ndento y would not fireclu.st.
s: erss .
petitioners from legal remedy against any Al'n„I;
fiction
Magistrates, or Jailers concerned in the tub
of
of such cruelty. He never knew, indeed,
vea
Bill of Indemnity which shut out the aggr'et
trom their right of redress under such cir
for the Suspension or beintf,,
ty
stances. Why then should the Noble Lord oppt,
site (Lord Grosvenor), Who had formerly vote
so peculiarly tenacious in this instance, and front
an apprehension truly_ that something rootlet take
place now, such as had never been witnessed be"
of the Habeas Corpus Act, 71
fore ? The Noble Earl concluded with observinri;
that in every view of the subject, as well oo I,l_
ground of.principle as of practice, he thought I: •
motion objectionable, and therefore he should el
pose its adoption.
Lord HOLLAND commenced by observing, 11';ii,C
as he considered the subject then before 111.`03
Lordships a branch of the great question 0"
was pending between Ministers and the Cuunt:l;
he could not leave the House without sieli"r;u"
his opinion on it. He begged their Lordsb•Pi:
.would take particular notice of a charge vaglij'ff
had been made against his Noble Friend (;-,}lo
Grosvernor), It had been said, that be
known to have voted more than once for the 5;-;
pension of the Habeas Corpus Act, Thus Lott
at any time supported such a measure as tise",,,
an argument agittrw: opposingi' w
casion. How liery•cauti,us ought they any
be ti;e(l
an other
how they countenanced the Suspc.ostanat any 1.1-,f
when such countenance was held to be a disqua"'
fication from opposing it on any subsequent oece
hen
e
tC‘‘svvhi ie
sthsictelAn'asibcissertsi
oieNtelirim:eoipblolgels:vilt:ealc^:trrieaeltnhslst Suspension
trial:spset -1)1s
be 1311°i:d wasrvPt ifrieiness:°ljoisi it
ibic:eteeell
seen attacks made on the Constitution, butt :hat
knew, and so must their Lordships knows lit
though persons arrested were not to be brotaA
, to trial' immediately, vet they had an undo"or
right to be put upon their Counts y, either tO no of
their guilt or innocence proved. The teas°,oo
the delay was said to prevent other traitors tilisej
eluding justice. Such had been the langnage
poe
when the Suspension was appiied fors but kw
that. it was repealed, the)/ were told that con_ce
menu without trial was a necessary conseqn e
,1 ro
of that Suspension, and instead of inquirin 1g.17.4$
the grievances stated to have Z.teen suffered by (e
typo , had -been confined, ;Ministers appoint. tcr
Committee to have a Bill of ludemnity p.assed:,!,
their cotithict. The Noble. Viscount (Sulinour
statements to the allegations of the petition, iost‘1"01
leery prudently confined himself to making coolie clic
of. opposing the arguments of his Noble 1:!,4(
(Lord Carnarvon.) Ail that had been 53'.:30
Ministers was, that no inquiry should be .pia
into-the case of the petitioners, and that t:a
'livers) should be the ooly persons who
If
s',
give evidence of their own conduct. ti ti
mittee was appointed in the usual yea)",
sz
would say that it was unjustly appnint"l;s:,
(1 as
could not be justice to constitute, ihe
judges in their own case. He thought ", Lew,
certoo 300
s:en precept of our law, " Audi aVeram!'r,vo„o
ought to be attended to, It
• eeding
be a more regular mode of In" beet
the lame and crippled system "'bid' l'l,,(lra
followed. If Ministers had come f0re...1
thef
acknowledged their error, if tl'eY said the
had abused the. power entrusted !" 'Ol
he would have thought it more consieert'Lol4l
manly than their present conduct, and ,I,,„ce
would then oppose a Bill of lademoity,
have given them credit for their candoe,)e cotr
was the time to institute an iuquiry
duct of Ministers, to throw open their jostb,
the reception of all complaints which tvere tee:
made, us he did not know it happened, hot 3 fair!,
loot gone abroad that the country was , (00C
dealt with by Government, and he rt•AllY 0)0
there was prima facie esideoce of the fa "t+ f tiieh
his Majesty's Ministers were at least guilty beer'
onisdemeanottr. Notwithstanding tt hoc lltc
said of' Oliver, he was still of opinii,o, tiro
(Oliver) bad occasioned much 1"_01C
country. He would ►pledge himself to prose r:/itioa
House, that Oliver had been guilty of el'L ,1.0!11
much disturbance. lie would quote a passagc,:e of
history to prove the e‘ i! restd!iii4 hod' tl'e,.l3ci'
spies by Government. He ;1,0,„1,1 not gaol' rtio
tot,: nor Falkland,but •would real a tn4-"g:e
Hume ; it related to the conduct of :%1:11‘;„,,t
in 1584, it was nt.;,tll,- -ns bof
this !lute Burley and Waisingbarn were
_Ol
in employing spies and informers, 1114 .

at when

a Cori).-
lwse of

Collslft,

tie 01le
1)( that
n naine9

I aliy
hoed to

itic:»ent

xior re.
acted?

a CO'
t solely
o the

)e re!'

~c~,~ dit

pgr!iei,

'nrnittee

„atioo,
tit Par'
er side

lISCiC"

those
:tee al-
elfarc't
clone of

)01, !be

ioist e-

ie
t, that
3t they.

ii,T, I":
trid, '

clh
dlega'
cou"
ade the

istersr

tictio3

,
1 i e'L

cltal°

ow'
a
, vtge

,ct , 116
1 {io'
A r3l'6
ed e'

11" ille

ill the
'ld or

t 1

W II i C:1

I•ii, I
i=
i
(1)4r1
bcel
the;
11e1"'
(PO'
Fa 1
10"

the
oio°
0
,e
fro"
st,r4
','lst
of"