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

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 recogosizances 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
WhatA..lencti;:ipie difference, jracept,thi
Cot preliMitell Moss discus t$ sdiol
Cps,hat
bit
ralways to Ns :ivildei
I s gte 'dee of the Hari titrei
aro bdr of Committee. Whin the i•

liter *aced last yearvend we posy eseasioujr-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 biel
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 tnetlago.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 parts 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 Fr •
ifila
'd not done so; be had distinctly said, that the lesup.4
?ointment of a Committte ,to enquire into theism!,
Leg the allegations of theYetitioners might be made
!question ; but a Committee being actually sitting, 6
substantially and notoriously to report apes ,
,conduct of Ministers towards those very Petitio .
he had moved to refer those Petitions to these es a"
form.ulloaettledr admit(
131se to ue'reseletr.hy s oTwenhoeer daimuotlhi that: rin
till': had
been
said, the
met,ahee to forma
polesfor rimed,
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 Coenelljes •
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—first, to engeffe
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 Committee
should obtain any evidence against our former asset.
tions, or against our conduct' udder the Susliendon."
He would maintain that no confidence tumid be
placedsoa 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 le*
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.!'

both sides ; and he would not therefore gay that ell
the statements which he could produce should be im-
plicitly relied on ; but he would say, that, till be ea*
the contents of the Green Bag, the evidence in his
possession against Oliver appeared conclus 16.1
[Bear, hear !] —This evidence did not proceed en-
tirely from persons who were interested or preju•
diced—it was not altogether from what had
been termed a polluted source—it was furnished
by respectable individuals, who had watched
his operations, nr who had enquired into the .truth of
peek/UW.I supplied by others. The Noble Viscount
(Lord Sidmoutii) had thought be had sufficiently dir.
proved the allegations of Mitchell's Petition, by de.
laying that he had been apprehended on the testi-
mony of Oliver ; but, so far as lie (Lord Holland)
tement:tered, the Petitioner did not state that he
was. One thing, lionever, was certain, and could
tot be denied, as it was supported on irresistible
proof—that Oliver had been detected acting in most
of the disturbed districts. Witnesses could he brought
to state, that he had been engaged in exciting the
people of Nottingham, of Derbyshire, and of York-
shire, to violence and insurrection, by the most in-
danimatory latigutre, and the most encouraging as-
surances of assistance. He (Lord Holland) did not
asset that such evidence was true, but he gave it as
his opinion that it laid sudirient grounds for enquiry
and investigation. He would go further and say,
that the employment of Spies (he did not allude to
the receiving of intelligence from informers) was al-
ways usijuslifiable, except in cases of the greatest and
most imminent hazard to the State. Nothing but a pa-
ramount necessity that set all orditia ryru les at defiance,
and threatened danger to social order,that could neither
be met (tor averted by acting on common principles,
or exercistig all the means which human foresight and
vigilance could suggest, would justify a resort to
ouch revolting, Reza rdous, and abi•minahle agency.—
The persons so employed must always be the refuse of society;
and unless those who employed than were able to judge of their
testimony, and to estimate coolly the facts they supplied, they
must always produce mischief. lie might appeal to all history,
and the opinions of all wise historians and politicians. in sups
port of. this doctrine. He would nut refer to the authority of
Tachus, nor quote Lord Falkland, but be merely instanced a
passage in Humes history, which, in speaking of the Measures
pursued by Burleigh and Walsingham, in 1584. says. •• spies
were hired to observe the actions and discourses of suspected
persons; informers were countenanced ; and though the sagacity
of these two great Al Misters helped them to distinguish the true
from the false Intel maim many calumnies were no doubt
hearkeued to, and all the subjects, particularly the Catholics.
kept in the utmost anxiety stud disqvietude." When such great
Ministers as these were liable so be imposed upon, was it oat
to he suspected that the employment of similar agents by them
who might lint exercise the same caution and vigilance, would
lead to the greatest oppression and abuses, especially when such
instruments were relieved from the fear of detection or pettish-
meet / The fear of a public trial was the only check that could
be imposed on the misconduct of spies. if protected from skim
or exposure, t..ere was no limit to their audacity, DO contrast
over their actions. no means of meeting or confounding their mis-
rei•resenta• ions. They might give any information they pleased.
they might invent the most palpable falsehoods. they might
calumniate the most innocent and orderly individaals. if the
danger from this detestable race was great, when they wereseat
among the better-informed clot es of society, how much was it
soultiplieil when ihey were employed among the lower order.,
who were liable to every Mono° which they mi hi attempt to
pnic i.e and unable to detect their real ammeters ? Oliver
found the People almost mad with projects of Reform. discorso
tented from w..nt of employment, and almost furious from want
of Ned. It was not his business to sooth their discontents, to
represent the real state of iheir feelings, or to tranquil intent
gene of their real situation be was sent to detect their dangerous
projects, to discover their treasonable and seditious plots. To
please his rmplat ere', therefore, and to magnify his own Mt- •
patience. tie had a motive to impel them to the escrows. which it
wee the object to denounce. " I shall get nothing." says he,
" by encouran;ing them to petition peaceably for Podiums are
Reform I shall get nothing by urging a People crying for
bread to bear their suffering. with patience, or to rely ore h con-
fidence on the Legislature for all the relief it cant grant. 1 must
excite them to violence, I muss inflame their discontents into
rebellion, before 1 execute my mission, or deserve my re-
ward." These things laid grounds for enquiry and investigation ;
but these were not the only things. The Petitions on the
table, and the enquiry proposed to be referred to the Committee,
referred to mopes-Li; with witnesses, to the taking of illegal
reengnizances, and to discharges without trial, by which sus-
picion wits still axed on the Petitioners. But it was said, that
the forms ofthe House precluded enquiry; and this was the only
mower dna was given to Petitioners when they complained of
the grievances which they had suffered, and the hardships to
which they had been subjected. He was glad to hear it said,
that the Bill of Indemnity which would be proposed wuahialill
allow a recourse to be had to a Court of Justice for a refire.. Of
individual grievances, if any abuse of authority had been exer-
cised; but he distrusted such pledges, *lmo he remembered the
effects and consequences of other Bills of lintemoity when Is.
recollected that in Mil, the last Bill of this kind precluded all
enquiry. The Noble Earl opposite t Lord Bathurst) had said
that on -itch a reference the Comusitire would be converted into
a Court of Low to decide on the guilt or illMweiler of the Pea.
sinners, to convict or acquit them of treason; bathe (Lord Hool-.
laud) could not see bow this would be the effect, as it was not
the object of the motion. The motion referred the Petitioners'
ease to the •Committer, not to pronounce whether they were
guilty or not guilty, hut *heftier the Goverment. in its mode
of apprehending and treating them, bad exceeded its powers.
It was an old inasiin in law, its which if he were wro, he
would beset right by the Noble and Learned Lord on the goal.
sack, that no troth could be proved till it was conto.ted, and
be thought the ekction of the Committee was such as protons-A
&tithing without the present reference. He had never in his life
been in the habit of predicting nny thin; in public. Ste reinem
bered no instance in which he ventured to predict the result of
a political measure, but one. when, in the owe of the reapert-
sion of cash payments at the Bank, he foretold that they wessid
never be resumed. He would now, however, predict. and take
his character of a prophet on the issue, that the result of this
partial enquiry. by this Ministerial Committee. would be the
recommendation of as Bill of Indeinnits —Near, hear l)—whieb.
in other words, would be this—that hiinisters, after bowies
procured a recommendation front a Secret Committee tolerant
them extraordinary Kissers to preserve the law. would obtain a
similar recommendation, by the same meats, to promo them
against-the breaches of it.
After his lordship end cot luded, no other Peer offering to
address the House, the question was put from the Woolsack,
and she modem negatived without a division.
Adjourned at nine o'clock.