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 Manchester; 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 inquiry,
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' P3l
ing
low
rou
at.d
d•sc
anz
to
rua
wei
Drl
trui
wa.!
tar,
ti 1.. t
$ •
any
whw,
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