Star.
London, England, 1817-03-04 00:00:00

ACT.

Lord HOLLAND, after briefly adverting to the
Amendments made by the Commons to this Bill,
end animadverting on the great nneontrouled power
the measure tended to vest in his Majesty's Govern.
meet .over the liberties of their (chow subjects, ex-
pressed his wish to b exptly informed, either b
the Noble and Learned Lord on the Woolsack, or
some other Learned Lord, how the law would stand 1
with respect to the well-known right of the subject to,
petition either his Sovereign or the Legistiture ; that
is, whether those persons who were detained in cus-
tody under the Bill, should it pass, were to be debar-
, red from their rights of addressing, in the humble
form of Petition, either their Sovereign or the Legis.
lature of their country ? This was what he thought
the House and the country had a right to be inform-
ed of ; and, as to the Noble and Learned Lord on 1
the Woolsack, he was sure of his readiness to give
every information in his power on a subject of the kind.
The LORD CHANCELLOR wished the Noble
Lord to be more explicit as to his question.
Lord HOLLAND stated that his question was,
Whether the persons detained under the Act had not
a tight to petition, or whether they were to be de-
barred from the exeicise of that right ?
The LORD CHANCELLOR said, that to a
general question his answer must be also general.—
He
did not find any subject of the country who, en.
der this Act. had not, a right to petition either his
Sovereign or the Parliament.
Lord HOLLAND observed, that he understood,
in some prisons, it was the practice for the gaolers
not to allow the use of either pen or paper to certain
of the prisoners ; but these persons had afterwards
an opportunity of appealing to the puhlic through
the medium of a Court of Justice; persons however,
detained under skis Bill would have no such opportu-
nities. In that view of the case he would ask, -whe-
ther or not gaolers would be entrusted by law with a
power, under this Act, to withhold the use of pen,
ink, and paper ?
The LORD CHANCELLOR stated, he had no
difficulty in saying, that every person accused of
crime bad, by the raw, the presumption in favour of
his innocence; and wits, therefore, left at liberty to
use every opportunity of making application to Par-
liameat, or to his Sovereign, that may tie consistent
with the safety of his person. He knew of
,no law
that did not so entitle the subject with the reservation
he had mentioned. _

Earl GREY seemed to think the statement of the
Noble and Learned Lord, clear, distinct, and satis-
factory ; at the sane time, he observed that the ab-
stract right was of little importance, it individuals
;were deprived of the means of exercising it; and he
must think it a high breach of duty in a gaoler who
should withhold from any'prisoner the means of pe-
titioning either the Legislature or the Sovereign.
Their Lordships then proceeded to take the
Amendments made by the Commons to the above
Bill into consideration.
The Earl of DARNLEYcensured what be Item-
mjstliphurry and precipitation wide which his Ma-
lemes;Miniuers pressed the measure through that
itlAtsse.-- He must think that no real necessity existed
Itis,the,nieasure. A great deal of discontent oath-
tiill4.4tose from the distressed state of the country,
and there may be some who were prone to take ad-
vantage of such a state of the people's minds; but
nothing was effected but whit a proper application
of the existing laws could repress. The state of the
country certainly was such as to have rendered it the
dirty of Ministers to have assembled Parliament early,
and to have taken the advice and assistance of the
Legislature with respect to the most constitutional
and practicable measures for allaying the discontents
of the people, and repressing whatever improper
practices might exist. Thinking thus unfavourably
of the measure altogether, be would move, that in-
stead of now, the amendments made by.theCommons
be taken into consideration that day three months.
The Earl of • LIVERPOOL -observed, that after
the full discussion the general measure had under-
gone, he did not feel himself called upon to enter
into any farther debate upon it. Two points, which
fell from the Noble Earl, he could not, however,
avoid noticing. First, as to the charge of precipi-
tancy, he had to state, there was no former instance
of a similar measure being introduced, where the Bill
had not been read three times is one day. Secondly.
as to the assertion that no case had been made out,
he nust pointedly deny it, as the Report of the Com-
mittee on its deliberate view of the case, and a great
majority of the House, on, a deliberate discussion,
rendered it unnecessary for him to go farther. As
to his own conviction upon the point, it was, that at
no former period whatever did there exist a stronger
necessity for the adoption of the measure than the
present occasion presented.
Earl GROSVENOR briefly argued, that a
sense existed in the country againt the measurera
that numerous Petitions were in preparation. *
particularly adverted to a Mating which lately wok
place at Chester, where a Petition against the isat
was subscribed by an immense number of peruse,
most of wboas were.of high respectability.
The Bishop of CHESTER, to a curtain event,
mated what bad fallen from the Noble Earl'
that the Petition alluded to was very numerously
seoctioned ; but, the Reverend Prelate observed,
that a cousiderabie portion of the most respectable

riarroborated

inhabitants of the City ii questidh tiiitertained con-
trary sentiments.
, • The Earl of GROSVENoR admitted that there
are many highly respectable persons who may not
have signed the Petittori.
The Earl of DA R.NLEY shirtly repeated his con-
viction that there were not sufficient grounds for pro-
posing the measure; and he was Money of opinion,
that, whatever advantages may arise from it, would
be more than counterbalanced by the discontent which
its adoption would spread throughout the country.
The Earl of ROSSLYN disapproved of the ori-
ginal framing of the Bill, which placed the liberties
of the people of Scotland in a very different, and
still more precarious footing than it did those of Eng-
land. In England no individual could be detained
under the provisions of this Bill, unless arrested by a
warrant signed by a Secretary of State. or six Privy
Councillors, on their responsibility; whilst in Scot-
lana individuals might be arrested by any interior
Magistrate, without responsibility, and could not be
released, or put upon their trial, without a warrant
signed by a Secretary of State or six Privy Council.
lnrs. These enactments, svltich placed the people of
Scotland in a much worse situation than those of
England, and for which no reason whatever had been
assigned, had been altered by the amendmeut made
by the Commons, and that amendment he hailed as
a most material improvement. He did not. however,
the less object to the Bill, which he considered to be
wholly uncalled for and unnecessary.
. The LORD CHANCELLOR said he had wished
to have merely given his support to this Bill, by his
silent vote, for which, however, he was just as much
responsible as if he had publicly declared his opinion.
But what had been urged by the Noble LGrd with
regard to the amendment, rendered it necessary for
him to say a few words.. In 1794, when a similar
measure was proposed, he himself had a considerable
knowledge of scots law, from having been employed
more than any Englishman before his time, in Scots
Appeals, at the Bar of that House, and he framed
the Bill, in concert with the late Lord Loughborough,
who then sat on the Woolsack, and who, joined to an
intimate knowledge of the Law of England, had
also a peculiar knowledge of the 'Law of •Scotland.
That Noble and Learned Lord approved of the Bill
as then drawn. and no objection was made to it—a
similar Bill had subseqnendy passed, and the present
Bill was a transcript of those. He thought then
that the Bill was right, and be still thought that this
Bill, as originally introduced, was right; he would
hot, however, object to the amendment, because
rather than any further delay should take place in the
passing of this Bill, which, in his conscience, he be-
lieved to have been never more necessary upon any
former occasion than at the , present moment, lie
would agree to the Bill as amended. He could not
help, however, saying. that in his opinion the amend-
ment mide the Bill infinitely worse, both as it re.
pitted the situation of the individual and the Magi-
strate in England and Scotland.
Lord HOLLAND said, the House had been very
hardly dealt with in the proceedings with regard to
this Bill. No satisfactory explanation had been
given with respect either to the Bill or to the particu-
lar clause which had been amended, or why the
House should be called upon to pass the Bill with
such an extraordinary rapidity ; nor even now, whets
ssdi the Noble and Learned Lord declared the a
meat made the Bill worse, had he condescended to
state the reason why it did so. With respect to the'
haste in which the Bill had been passed, he was
aware that there were precedents for it, but what
availed precedents when the seasons for them had
ceased to .exist. and no maw whatever had been
stated independently of mere precedents, why the
Big should. be passed with such extraordinary rapi-
dity ? How did it happen that only two days should
hoe bait allowed to that House to pass the Bill
whilst a week' had been allowed in the Commons ?
what became in this case of the pressing and urgent
danger f But why hurry the Bill through with a
clause placing the people of England and Scotland
me a different footing without the least explanation of
such a clause ? Surely it was not only dealing hardly
generally with the House, bat still more hardly with
those Noble Lords who bad supported the measure,
fir* to call upon them to agree to the Measure as ori-
giaally drawn, and then to say. here is an amend-
ment made in a most material part of the Dill, which
makes it much worse ; how it makes it worse cannot
be explained, but still it is necessary-the Bill should
pumas it is. Surely the House had a *right to ex•
pect that the bearing of the clause and the amend-
ment should be explained. So far as appeared the
amendment was a most material improvement, and
certainly it had his entire approbation. What ano-
maly there existed to make it otherwise he was un-
able to discover. With regird to the Bill itself, his
opinion remained unalteyEd, no sufficient reason
having been urged to Faye its necessity;' the only
good part of it was the omission of Ireland, which he
certainly rejoiced to see, and he trusted it would have
a good effect in promoting the tranquillity of that,
part of the United Kingdom.
The Earl of LAUDERDALE also contended,
that no reason whatever appeared sufficient to autho-
rise this measure. Whatever• he bad been able to
ascertain, tended, on the contrary. to prove no sm.
ceuity existed for such a measure is the resent. It
was not because some poor wretches chose-to set•up
for conspirators, that the whole people of England
andiSeotland were to be deprived of their liberties.
Adam Smith had justly said, that the desire to have
any fhing did not create a demand for it, unless there
were the mesas to procure it. So with respect
some low and illiterate men. they might desire to be
conspirators. but where were their means ? If they
possessed so means of 'carrying their conspiracy into
effect, how could they became formidable to the
State I In Glasgow, for instance, where much bad
latokbeen said about arrests, who were the people
arrested I poor and illiterate men, who bad no means.
whoever of doing mischief, atleast that might not

I be effectually counteracted by the ordinary hews. C f
this description were the dangers which lee ere urged
as the pretext for this Bill. With respect to the
amendment he thought it a little .:notrlar that the
Noble ana Learned Lord shonli refuse to enter auto
any exolanvion as to why it made the BM worse;
t e (Lord Lauderdale) so far as he could judge, on
the cnotrary, thought that it WAS a TAt2lial irno-eve-
meet with regard to the people of Scotland ..hy 'at
least hot placing them on a worse leering pith re-
gard to their liberties than the people of England.
Earl BATHURST defended the Report of Ow
Secret Commitzee. It was a Report which had been
unanimously agreed to, although the Noble Leeds of
whom the Committee had been composed were of
different political opinions. The same was the case
with respect to the Report of the Secret Committee
of the House of Commons. Both P.epor.3 stated
distinctly that the existing laws were nit sufficient to
repel the danger with which the public pease ens
menaced. The question, therefore, was as to the
degree of sedition in the country, all agreeing that
• sedition there was. Was it of a mageisude sellicint
to require a measure of the kind which had been
? In his opinion it decidedly was. T'le
Noble Earl had said that an offer had been made to
disprove at the bar the facts on which the Repots was
founded. This he denied. There WAS nothing in
the statements adverted to which affected the char..c-
ter of the Report. With respect to the London
Union Society, although it might not exist at pre.
sent, its printed resolutions were spread and adopted
throughout the country, in which it had formerly es-
tablished an extensive correspondence. The proceed.
ings of the Sheffield Union Society were proof of
this. The Noble Earl, in speaking of the amend-
ment, had argued as it it exhibited great inaccuracy
on the part of their Lordships to allow such an error
as that which the Noble Earl described to have pasted
in the Bill unnoticed. The Noble and Learned Lord
'on the Weeilsack• had, however, told their Lordships
that the provisions of the Bill, when it left their
Lordships' House, were the same as they were in the
Bills for the Stop:moon of the Habeas Corpus at for.
mer periods. The Nobl: Earl had closely attended
the proceedings on some of those • former Bills, and
yet, somehow or other, this gross error, as he termed I
it, had always escaped his attention.. Nothing had
been stated to skew that Scotland had particularly
I suffered from the former Bills; and certainly, 0-.ere-
fore, the renewal of the same proeisions in the Bill
which had lately been sent from their Lordships to
the Hoist/ of Commons, and which was now irtuilied
with amendments, afforded tio proof whatever ,4 cen-
surable hurry. •
..
. Earl G KEY had, on a firmer occasion, given his
opinion, on the general merits of the measure below
their Lordships, and that opinion had by no means
been weakened by any thing he had since beard. He
wished to make a few remarks on what had just
fallen from the Noble Earl, and a few observations
on the immediate subj-ct tinder their Lordships' vt- -
sideration. The Noble Earl 'teemed to think, with
feference to the circumstances in 'which the suspeu.
sion of the Habeas Corpus orginated, that the, only
question was one of degree, and that it was on all'•
sides admitted that a danger existed in the country
which required that the Istulds of the Executive Go.
vernmenc should be strengthened. It the Noble
Earl in ibis remark alluded to what h: (Earl grey)
had said eta a former occasion, the Noble Esil had
entirely misapprehended him. Certainly, he had
never said that there was no danger; but the whole
drift and tendency of his argument bad been, that'
while he admitted the existence of danger to the
fullest extent in which the Noble. Lords opposite were
disposed to assert its existence, hesohtended that the
clanger was not of a nature to call for any new legal •
provisions, and last' of ill for the adoption of a mea-
sure-which in its effect silspended for a time the en..
sire liberties •of the people of England. To this
opinion he adhered; notwithstanding what had been
said by the Noble and Learned Lord who maintained
that great•as was the danger in 1794, the prevent
danger was of considerably greater magnitude—that
great as the danger was in 1715, or 1722. or 1745,
when the Habeas Corpus was formerly suspended, it
was infinitely surpassed by the danger of the present
period. " For (said the Noble and Learned Lord)... •
we are not now called upon to consider whether this
or that family shall sit upon the Throne, but which
Cher all law, power, and authority in the realm shall
or shall not be maintained ?" He would ask the
Noble and Learned Lord, and he would ask their
Lordships, whether that was the way in which the
dangers of 1715, 1722, and 1745, ought to be stated ?
Was it merely a contest at that period as to the per-
son of the Sovereign ? Was aot the danger of de..
stroying the principles on which the Revolution had
been founded—principles, passing by the claim of •
legitimacy, of which so much had lately been said, in
favour of a much better claim—greater than could
have resulted from the mere substitution of one fa-
mily for another ? Would not the success of the de.
seendints of James the Second have- occasiened no-
thing lest than the utter eubversion• of the laws and
liberties of the country ?. The Noble and Learned- '
Lord, as one of .the causes .which, in his opinion,
threatened so much danger at the present moment to • •
all law, authority, add government, in the realm, had
'spoken of the seditious publications eakulated to
deadenvlt sense of meiralityeand • religion, without
which,the Noble and Learned Lord truly obser vett,.
no law. authority, and government could continue to
exist. He (Earl Cd'eyt was very far from under.
rating the evil of such p licitions ; but what lie con-
tended was,thit the Idiot et:threatened by those means
IS
might be met hte.the lawns -it stood, and was not
such as required theltispension 'of the Habeas Cor-
pus...or which that measure was at all calculated to
meet. Bto was it true that this was a period pecu-
liarly irreligious ? 'He had heard of the evil'arising
from the increase of Methodists, and some of the
, Reverend Prelates. opposite had expressed much
setledita at the great diffusion of Bible Societies; but