ner had certainly that tendency [No, no, from lord Holland]. On the subject of spies and informers, that noble lord had held such language, as he was sure he could not have held had he been placed in an official situation. At the same time, he gave the noble lord perfect credit for consistency. In saying this, he meant no disrespect for admiring, as all must, the talents of that noble lord, and prizing, as all did, his personal qualities, it was impossible for any administration not to regret that he should differ from them, and withhold his sanction-yet he must say, that the noble lord and some of those who sat beside him, had a claim to the character of consistency on one ground at least, which was, that they had never, on any occasion, supported any one measure which the wisdom of parliament had thought necessary for the safety of the country. As to the system of espionage, he disdained it as much as any man; he abhorred, with all his heart, whatever tended to shake the confidence of the private dwelling, or weaken the bonds of social intercourse between man and man; but when he was placed in that situation that an opportunity of saving the country from insurrection was presented to him, by means of an informer, could he, as an upright minister, could he as an honest man, reject such information? He only wished that he could, consistently with his duty, disclose what had been communicated to him: above all, he wished he could disclose what had passed between him and Oliver. He had, indeed, made a full disclosure to the secret committees of both Houses of Parliament; so full, that he was not aware of a particle that was not in their possession. He wished that it were consistent with propriety to make an equal disclosure to the country generally, that he might state what related to Oliver, and show how much the public were mistaken in that man's motives and conduct.-As to the question of the treatment of the prisoners, the noble and learned lord opposite had gone too far, when he asserted, the he (lord Sidmouth) must be conscious of at least one instance of injury inflicted on some innocent person, or he would not ask for a bill of indemnity. He could broadly and conscientiously say, there was not a single case of imprisonment, which, in his own mind, or in the minds of any of those who had officially advised it, produced the slightest feeling of self-reproach; there was not one individual apprehended, against whom he would not proceed in a similar manner, under similar circumstances. The accounts of their treatment, as furnished by the prisoners themselves, were full of the grossest misrepresentations and falsehoods; and he could enter into particulars which would convince the House, except that they did not concern the present discussion. He would not, therefore, touch upon them: indeed, his chief object in rising had been to state, that Oliver, the individual so often alluded to, could not come within the scope of the present bill; for he had done nothing that required forgiveness or indemnity; and he defied any noble lord to say, that he had made use of Oliver in any way repugnant to strict honour, or to strict law; or that he had exercised any of his official functions in any way injurious to the sound principles of the British constitution. Lord Holland denied that he had passed any such sweeping censure on the magistrates as had been imputed to him. His argument was simply this: that as ministers had openly encouraged the busy, meddling activity of spies and informers, and as magistrates were merely men and actuated by human motives, it was possible that one consequence of the system adopted by ministers might be, that some magistrates out of a vast number would be induced to act with more zeal than discretion; with more anxiety to please the government than to keep within the strict limits of their duty. The noble viscount could not pretend to say that such an effect had not been produced on some magistrates. Earl Grosvenor said, that nothing had occurred which could justify the suspension of the Habeas Corpus act. There was nothing that might not have been left to the ordinary laws of the country. The noble viscount might be, and perhaps was, satisfied with his own conduct, but his self-opinion furnished no sufficient reason for the satisfaction of the House generally; the grounds of that self-approbation must be better explained before the House could ratify it by their sanction. The noble viscount had defended Oliver, and not without cause; for, if Oliver should turn out to have been guilty of the acts imputed to him, then the noble lord himself would be answerable for the conduct of his agent, on the common principle of "Qui facit per alium, facit per se." But he would not at that late hour, I did not think it irrelevant: he did not discuss a subject which might be discussed think it was too late. For what was the at another time, but should content him- question before their lordships? Was it self with expressing his decided approba- not whether ministers had abused, or had tion of the motion of his noble friend. not abused, the powers intrusted to them? and was it not fitting that all cases of alleged abuse should be strictly inquired into by that House, before their lordships proceeded to shut up the tribunals of justice against the petitioners, and through them against the people of England? The noble viscount seemed to consider that the great object of the Habeas Corpus Suspension act was to detain persons in prison whom they never had the least intention of trying; in other words, that it was its object to erect in every county a bastile for persons who were obnoxious to ministers. He would tell the noble viscount, that this was an erroneous view of the subject, and he doubted whether their lordships would ever have given their consent to such an act had ministers avowed such an object. He would not now trouble the House any farther. He should have a better opportunity when the details of the bill should come before their lordships; or when its terrible principle should, as he hoped it would, be again discussed. But he would now conclude by impressing on their lordships, that on their conduct in this business depended the character of their lordships, the character of the ministers, nay, the character of the injured Oliver himself [a laugh, and cries of Hear, hear!] for against him as well as against the unfortunate complainants, whose petitions lay scorned and unheeded upon their table, would this bill of indemnity block up all the avenues of legal redress. The Earl of Carnarvon said, that he could not be content with a silent vote. The noble viscount had commenced his speech by disqualifying himself from taking part in the present discussion, and had fairly avowed what was the fact, that he could not with propriety advocate a measure which was so personal to himself; this was a very correct view of the subject, and he trusted that the noble viscount would carry it a step farther, and would give no vote on a matter so extremely personal [a laugh, and hear, hear!]. But he should like to know when and how the noble viscount had arrived at this just opinion; for he could not but recollect that a few days ago that noble viscount had appointed himself to sit as judge on his own conduct, in conjunction with certain other judges, all chosen from a list furnished by himself. Since the appointment of that committee, several petitions had been laid upon their lordships' table; and he could not but think it a peculiarly hard case, that these petitioners could procure no hearing before the House, and that now they were also to be shut out from all redress before the ordinary tribunals of their country. But what was scarcely less hard was, that the noble viscount should, in the very face of these facts, get up and declare to the astonished ears of their lordships, that he had laid before the secret committee all the evidence that could be procured-all the circumstances of every case. The noble viscount had forgot-but would the House forget that he had a very few days ago refused to lay these petitions before that committee. When he (lord C.) first laid the petitions on their lordships' table, with a desire to make a motion on the subject, he was told that such a proceeding was premature, and that delay was required. Well! after the interval which had been begged of him, he brought forward his motion, but was then told that the committee were about to make their report, and that such additional information would only puzzle and distract them. And now that a report was made, and a bill of indemnity, its usual consequence, was brought in, it was said, the subject of the petitions should not be alluded to-it was quite irrelevant-it was too late. But he The question being then put, That the word "now" stand part of the question, the House divided : Contents, 56; Proxies, 44 . . 100 PETITION FROM CORK COMPLAINING OF THE INCREASE OF POVERTY.] Colonel Longfield presented a Petition from the mayor, sheriffs, and several inhabitants of the city of Cork, and its vicinity; setting forth, "That the Petitioners beholding the daily increase of poverty among the inhabitants of that city, arising from want of employment, which has unhappily induced its necessary consequences, disease and misery, and knowing that similar evils are felt in every part of Ireland, approach the House to state the calamitous situation in which that country stands, and to call upon the House to protect them from that ruin into which all ranks appear to be fast sinking; the petitioners have to deplore the want of sufficient encouragement to their manufactures, the difficulties which stand in the way of agriculture, and the absence of a majority of the nobility and gentry, who receive the produce of the soil, and spend it in other countries; the petitioners shall not presume to dictate to the House in what way their sufferings can be best alleviated; but, as they principally trace them to want of employment for their superabundant population, they would beg most humbly to suggest the propriety of some legislative enactment respecting the non-residence of the nobility and gentry, the encouragement necessary for the increase of their manufactures, the formation of canals, the working of mines and fisheries, the more profitable tillage of land, the construction and repairing of roads, and such other means of employment as the House may think proper to devise; the petitioners would also earnestly solicit the attention of the House to the means of extending the benefits of education to all classes of the community as the best corrective of human depravity, and the most efficient moral engine of state; the petitioners most fervently beseech the House to take the case of Ireland into their early consideration, and to reflect on the urgency of the circumstances under which the petitioners address them, disease making rapid strides through all classes, and no prospect of its decrease, while so large a portion of the population are unemployed and continue in a consequent state of poverty and wretchedness." Sir N. Colthurst said, he felt it due to the extreme respectability of those who had signed the petition, and the importance of the subject, to move that it be printed, and he trusted it would receive from the House that attention to which it was entitled. The petition was ordered to be printed. PETITION FROM THE CORPORATION OF LONDON COMPLAINING OF THE OPERATION OF THE HABEAS CORPUS SUSPENSION ACT.] Mr. Alderman Wood presented a Petition from the lord mayor, aldermen, and livery of London, in com. mon hall assembled; setting forth, "That the Petitioners have viewed with the deepest concern the continual encroachments that have been made upon the rights of the subject; they have been called upon to make sacrifices without bounds, and to submit to burthens and privations without example; they have evinced the utmost patience, fortitude, and forbearance under their sufferings, under a persuasion that upon a return of peace they should have witnessed a disposition, on the part of his majesty's govern ment and the House, seriously to inquire into the cause of their sufferings, and to redress their grievances, to diminish their burthens, and to make such necessary reparations in the constitution as would remove the numerous and deeply-rooted abuses, and restore it to full vigour and energy; in all these expectations the petitioners have been unhappily disappointed, and, instead of seeing realized expectations so reasonably founded, at a moment of unexampled distress, when they were representing their grievances to the House, no redress was afforded them, nor were their complaints inquired into, but, upon unfounded alarms, raised and fomented by the hired emissaries of ministers, and for the purpose, as they believe, of stifling the complaints of the from making an appeal to the legal tribunals of the country. Mr. Alderman Wood said, that the Hall in which the petition was agreed to was one of the most numerous he had ever witnessed, and that only four hands had been held up against the petition. Sir W. Curtis observed, that all he had to say was, that he had attended the hall in question, and that he disapproved of every word of the petition. The petition was ordered to be printed. PETITIONS FROM SAMUEL BAMFORD, ELIJAH DIXON, AND ROBERT PILKINGTON, COMPLAINING OF THE OPERATION OF THE HABEAS CORPUS SUSPENSION ACT.] Mr. Bennet presented a Petition from Samuel Bamford, of Middleton, Lancaster ; setting forth, people and protecting abuses, and upon no other evidence than the partial documents furnished by ministers to secret committees, the great pillar of the constitution, the Habeas Corpus act, was suspended; that, as the grounds and pretences for such a measure, and in a time of profound peace, were without precedent, so they believe is the wanton arbitrary, oppressive, and vindictive proceedings of ministers without example in the annals of the country; the petitioners will not detail these oppressions, many of the facts have already been stated to the House, and are generally known; but, while they forbear to dilate upon the cruel and vindictive imprisonment and prosecutions of numerous individuals, which have ended in the defeat and disgrace of ministers, the petitioners cannot forbear expressing their decided impression that in the instances where convictions have taken place, those unhappy and deluded men had been led into the commission of crimes through the agency of those infamous and abandoned emissaries who had been employed; that they are farther convinced that the existing laws are fully adequate in those cases, and that, by due vigilance, those acts which led to the forfeiture of the lives of those unhappy individuals, might have been prevented; the petitioners submit to the House, that the justice of the country, and outraged feelings of the people, demand a full, impartial, and rigid inquiry into all the proceed ings of ministers, both in obtaining and under the late Suspension act: that no inquiry before secret committees, composed partly of those ministers and place men, can promote justice or satisfy the nation, and must lead to an inevitable conviction that those, who ought to be the guardians of the property, the liber-panied him a short distance, that one Loties, and lives of the people, are guided max, of Bank Top, in Manchester, was by other motives and considerations than one of the persons who sent him to Midthe welfare and honour of the nation; dleton; that notwithstanding the above the petitioners therefore humbly pray, demonstration of the petitioner's reverthat the House will immediately institute ence to the laws of his country, of his a full, impartial, and rigid inquiry into the love to the principles of humanity, of his conduct of ministers, and all the proceed. abhorrence to rapine and plunder, the peings in obtaining and under the late Sus- titioner was, on the morning of the 29th pension of the Habeas Corpus act, and of March, arrested on suspicion of high that the said inquiry may be referred to treason, by authority of a warrant signed such committees as are composed of such by the secretary of state for the home demembers only of the House as hold nei partment; that the petitioner was, by the ther places nor pensions under the govern-deputy constable of Manchester, handment, and that the House will not pass any bill of indemnity, nor preclude those who have been the victims of oppression (VOL. XXXVII.) "That at dusk on the 11th of March, 1817, a young man was introduced to the petitioner by Dr. Joseph Healey at Middleton aforesaid: that the said young man stated himself to have been deputed by some persons in Manchester, to propose to the Petitioner and the rest of the Middleton reformers, the burning and sacking of Manchester aforesaid, the storming of the Barracks and New Bailey prison, and the liberation of the blanketeers confined in that place; that the above proposal was by the petitioner rejected with horror, and the petitioner, considering the young man as an innocent dupe to some spy, urged him by every legal, humane, and honourable consideration to have nothing more to do with the business; that the young man appearing affected, promised that he would never more propose such a thing to any person, and he shortly afterwards returned to Manchester, on his way to which place he told a person who accom cuffed like a common thief, and by the said deputy escorted by a party of the king's dragoon guards, conveyed to the (2X) New Bailey prison in Salford, where he was put into a common cell, in which were four other persons who were charged with felony; that the petitioner frequently requested the governor and turnkeys to let him have a blanket to shelter him from the intense cold, but that the petitioner's request was not attended unto; that on the following morning the petitioner was, with seven other persons, heavily ironed, and put into a stage-coach, in order to be conveyed to London; that the petitioner was accordingly, in company with the above seven persons, conveyed to London, by two king's messengers and two police runners; that on the night of the petitioner's arrival in London, when he retired to rest, he was chained in bed to two other fellow prisoners (Healey and Lancashire); that on the 1st of April, the petitioner was taken to lord Sidmouth's office, at Whitehall, when lord Sidmouth informed the petitioner, that he was arrested by virtue of a warrant signed by the said lord Sidmouth; that afterwards the petitioner was taken to the House of Corection in Cold Bath-fields; that on or about the 8th of April, the petitioner was again examined by lord Sidmouth, who repeated to him the aforesaid charge, and that the petitioner in his defence affirmed, that no just ground of suspicion could exist against him, for that instead of having done, or encouraged to be done, any thing of a treasonable nature, his conduct had always been the reverse; the petitioner at the same time acknowledged himself to be a reformer, and did then, as he still does, take credit to himself for so being, but strenuously denied having ever recommended violence in the accomplishment of a reform; that during the month of April the petitioner was frequently examined, at one of which examinations, lord Sidmouth questioned him respecting his knowledge of a person named Lomax, whether the petitioner was ever in company of said Lomax, upon what occasion the petitioner was in company of said Lomax, and what was the subject of discourse during the time the petitioner was in said company, to all of which questions the Petitioner answered simply and truly, whereupon lord Sidmouth observed, "This cannot be the man," or words to that effect, for the petitioner had understood lord Sidmouth as having alluded to a near neighbour of the petitioner's, residing at Middleton; but when the petitioner in his prison room began to reflect upon every circumstance, he saw the improbability of his former conjecture, and was convinced that lord Sidmouth meant one Lomax, who resided at Bank Top at Manchester, and who, after the arrests which took place at that town, was recognized by the whole country as a spy in the pay of the police, the same Lomax, at whose instigation the young man, mentioned in the beginning of this petition, proposed to the petitioner the burning and sacking of Manchester, which proposal was rejected by the petitioner as before stated; that on the 29th of April, the petitioner was liberated from his confinement in Cold Bath-fields prison, and was allowed 31. to carry him home to Middleton aforesaid; that from the foregoing circumstances, the petitioner ventures to express confidence, that the House will perceive the extreme probability of the petitioner's arrest having taken place in consequence of false information furnished by the aforesaid notorious Lomax; but that whatever may be the opinion of the House respecting this conclusion, they will not fail to express that strong feeling of indignation and abhorrence which ought always to animate the guardians of the lives and liberties of Englishmen, when, as in the case of the petitioner, their lives are basely endangered and their liberties violated; wherefore the petitioner prays that the House will no longer countenance a system of terror, of blood, and of oppression, by granting to his majesty's ministers a bill, indemnifying them from the consequences of the numerous outrages by them committed against the constitution of this realm." Mr. Bennet also presented a Petition from Elijah Dixon, of Manchester; setting forth, "That the Petitioner was, on the 12th of March 1817, whilst following his lawful occupation, apprehended by a warrant issued by lord Sidmouth, and carried to London in double irons, and was on the 15th of the same month committed to Tothil-fields bridewell, by the same noble lord, on suspicion of high treason, and there detained till the 13th of November, although the same noble lord must, or might have known, that he was perfectly innocent of the crime imputed to him; the petitioner therefore prays, that the House will be pleased to consider the justice of making the said noble lord responsible for the loss of time of the petitioner, and for the injuries which his family has suf |
