they came forward in a tone of defiance, exclaiming, "This is our green bag-who dare touch our green bag?" Mr Tierney was convinced that such a proceeding would never satisfy the House or the country.

Mr Bathurst observed, that the course now proposed, but objected to by Mr Tierney, as not agreeable to precedent, was exactly the same which had been followed in 1801, with the sanction of the right honourable gentleman himself. It had then too been followed by an act of indemnity, Parliament justly feeling, that government ought not to be compelled to give up the sources of their secret information. Although no person of rank had been concerned in the conspiracy, the report of last year had shewn, that it was extensive among the middling and lower classes. The heads of it, such as they were, had been taken into custody, and it had thus been prevented from exploding, unless to a very limited extent. He was enabled to say, that government had thus saved the lives and property of many of his Majesty's subjects, who would have been otherwise exposed to the same atrocity which had marked the insurrec tion in Derbyshire. He conceived it impossible to doubt that insurrection to have been connected with a general plan, the execution of which had been prevented by the manner in which government had exercised the powers granted to them by the Suspension Act. As to the question of ballot for the proposed committee, most of those who heard him had lived long enough to know, that it was the practice of the treasury to recommend a certain list of names to be appointed upon a committee. But although the government recommended, it was still for the House to appoint, and if the House made an improper selection, the responsibility belonged to itself. He remembered the ingenious and impres

sive argument of a right honourable gentleman, now no more, (Mr Windham) upon this subject. That dis tinguished gentleman had justly observed, that upon any question for the appointment of a committee, it was likely that persons would be selected who were agreeable to the majority. So it would come to this at last, that if there even were no recommendation from the treasury, persons would be appointed to such a committee who would be rather more agreeable to the majority than to the minority of the House. Hence, he argued, that for the ultimate appointment of any committee, that House, and not the government, was responsible. With regard to the observations made on the employment of spies, with particular reference to one individual, he maintained that government were perfectly justifiable in receiving information from persons engaged in a conspiracy. That individual, instead of producing mischief, had actually rendered great service to the country. A late lamented member of that House had been satisfied that such was this person's conduct. The fact was, that this individual had become acquainted with the conspiracy by accident, and he communicated his information to government. He was employed, upon this communication, to continue his connexion with the persons through whom he obtained his information; and, in order to obtain their confidence, he must, of course, appear to concur in the views of the conspirators, among whom he was introduced by a princi pal conspirator.

Mr Douglas considered the ballot and secret committee as a mere juggle of ministers, which would in no degree satisfy the country. He admitted a conspiracy arising out of Luddism, but it had been put down by the energy of a single individual, the overseer of the Butterly iron works, who scolded half the conspirators away. He

did not think that Ministers had made out their case in regard to the employment of spies.

Sir S. Romilly fully admitted the necessity of an inquiry, but differed entirely from the noble Lord as to the nature of it; a committee upon whose report no legislative act was to be founded, appeared to him absurd. It was admitted that tranquillity was re stored, the Suspension Act was repealed, the prisoners liberated. What then was the purpose of this committee? Why, solely to procure a report in defence of ministers, with the recommendation of an act of indemnity; which it was felt must necessarily be preceded by at least the appearance of inquiry in the present state of public opinion. He would be surprised at such a proceeding, if any thing on the part of ministers could excite his sur prise. After the moderation and mildness of which ministers had boasted so much, it now appeared, that they sought the shield of an indemnity. He hoped that a most ample investigation would take place into every part of their conduct. After admitting, that tranquillity had been restored in September, and liberating the prisoners then confined, they had incurred a most serious responsibility by not calling Parliament together till January, for the purpose of resigning these extraordinary powers. It had been admitted, and the admission furnished fresh argument in favour of inquiry, that the very same persons who represented to the unfortunate deluded individuals, that there were fifty and seventy thousand men in different places ready to rise, that those very persons were examined before the committee, in order to prove the existence of that plot which they were instrumental in producing and encouraging. This fact had been acknowledged by the committee themselves. After this the minds of the people would never

be satisfied by the mere appointment of another committee by ballot. Nothing had appeared in the trials at Derby to shew the origin of the conspiracy, or disprove the allegation of its having been caused by the agents of government. The general impression was, that if Ministers had gone into that part of the case, it would be found to have originated with the persons employed by them in the different districts. He did not mean to say that it was positively the case, but such was the impression on the public mind. Parliament were bound, by the most rigorous inquiry, to do away the mischief of the precedent which they had established-a precedent which was not only fraught with mischief, as it was employed to tear away individuals from their families, to plunge them in solitary confinement, to load them with irons, and expose them to all the rigours of arbitrary imprisonment; but as it must operate upon the constitution itself in the present and in future times. Even the mass of individual suffering that was experienced under this act, was far outweighed by the incalculable disadvantages entailed upon the general system of our government. They were bound to see how far they could do away a part of the poison, which, if not mitigated in its effects, was fraught with the most alarming evils to posterity. They might look forward to some future minister, anxious to increase the power of the crown long after the grave had closed upon the present generation-they might suppose some future sovereign of the House of Brunswick, but feeling in his breast the principles of a Stuart willing to avail himself of such a minister, preferring rather to imitate the despots of Europe, than to reign in the hearts of a free people. What a precedent had they furnished to facilitate such designs, by suspending the

Mr Philips followed on the same side, and particularly inveighed against the employment of spies.

Mr Wynn was free to declare, that his conviction of the necessity of the Suspension Act remained unchanged; that it had been confirmed by every thing that passed in the country, and by all the evidence that was disclosed on the trials alluded to; that it had averted threatened danger, and that by it the country had been preserved from confusion. It had been said, that if the ministers had taken advantage of it, they might have prevented the disturbances that broke out in Derbyshire. He had understood an honourable and learned friend to say, that by apprehending the ringleaders of the insurrection in Derbyshire at an earlier period, under the Suspension Act, the mischief would not have followed; but however that might be, it was not a proper argument against a measure of prevention, that the evil did not occur which it was intended to prevent. It had been said on the trials at Derby, that the prisoners expected co-operation from the north, and from various quarters. He believed that their hopes were not without foundation. He believed, from evidence gained on other trials, and by other means, that bands from Manchester, Yorkshire, and other places, were prepared to break out about the same time. In Yorkshire, an insurrection did take place; an armed mob fired upon the King's troops, and the greatest disturbances were threatened. If it be replied to this, that there was

no conviction, he would say, that though, from the darkness of the night, and the difficulty of identifying the persons who had assembled to commit the acts of violence, a verdict could not be obtained against them, yet the fact of the insurrection was no less true and undoubted. In the trials at Derby, enough had been brought out to produce conviction, and he saw no occasion for going into the origin of the conspiracy. When the overt act and intention could be proved, there was no necessity for going into all their previous counsels. He therefore thought that the prosecution behaved properly in not calling such extraneous evidence, and that no suspicion could be thrown on the policy of the Suspension Act by withholding it. This measure was extremely useful in preserving the public tranquillity, till the circumstances of the country were altered, and till the people, by the attainment of a more prosperous state, were withdrawn from the influence of those who exasperated their discontents into disaffection. With respect to the appointment of a committee by ballot, or otherwise, he thought it a question. of no importance, for there was no reason to doubt that exactly the same men would be chosen, whether they proceeded by ballot or by motion. The ballot was resorted to for the election of a Committee, because it was thought that some members who would not chuse to act ostensibly against the administration, would yet vote against them under this cover of secrecy. He did not know if this would be the case, but at least such was the ground of its adoption.

Sir W. Burroughs was of opinion, that the conduct of ministers themselves shewed the total want of any necessity for the Suspension Act. If the persons apprehended under the act had formed the atrocious designs

imputed to them, of subverting the government, of burning London or Manchester, how could Ministers account to their country for having liberated them without a trial? On what plea could they be discharged, at first with the idle farce of taking their recognizances, and afterwards from their recognizances? If this was not a confession that the Ministers had nothing to produce against the alleged traitors at Manchester, and that the evidence on which the report of the committee in which they were arraigned was unfounded, they incurred a heavy responsibility for sending back such dangerous characters into society. Their conduct was inexplicable on the supposition that the report was true, and the Suspension Act could not be justified on the ground that it was not. No events happened since to justify such a measure. If he might advert to one melancholy event which had united the nation in one common expression of sorrow, he might draw from it an irresistible inference, that the minds of the people were sound, and that their attachment to the House of Brunswick remained unshaken. Never in any country was there more sincere or more general sympathy, and never did any nation more unequivocally testify their affection for the family of the sovereign. He was decidedly against a committee by ballot, and an act of indemnity.

Sir John Sebright had formerly voted for the Suspension, but was now convinced that he had been grossly mistaken, and that there had been no necessity for arming ministers with such extraordinary powers.

After a few words from Mr Ellison, Mr Saville, and Mr Forbes, the question was put and agreed to. The reference to a committee of 21 was also agreed to.

The question now came relative to the election of the committee by bal

Mr

lot; and upon this the opposition members had determined to divide the House. Mr Brougham put a question, whether, in case of Lord Castlereagh being returned in the list given by the scrutineers after the ballot, there would be an opportunity of taking the sense of the House on his or any other individual name. Canning replied, that the name having been given in by the majority of the House, it appeared to him absurd to appeal from its decision to that of the minority. Mr Brougham and Mr Tierney declared themselves dissatisfied with this explanation, but no other was given. The motion for the election by ballot was then carried by 102 against 29.

On the following day, 16th Febru. ary, the committee was balloted for. The process was very simple, as the members opposed to ministers declined to give in any lists. The following were the members chosen :-Lord Milton, Lord G. Cavendish, Mr W. Wynn, Lord Castlereagh, Lord Lascelles, Mr Bathurst, Mr Lambe, Sir Arthur Piggott, Sir W. Scott, Sir John Nicholl, Mr Solicitor-General, Mr Attorney-General, Mr Canning, Mr Yorke, Mr Egerton, Mr Wilberforce, Mr Bootle Wilbraham, Mr W. Dundas, Mr Peel, Sir W. Curtis, and Admiral Frank.

Mr Brougham appealed to Lord Castlereagh, whether he ought to sit on a committee which was to decide on his own conduct; but his Lordship replied, that if he could not sit on such a committee, he did not see how he could vote or exercise any function in the House. It being stated by Sir M. Ridley, that Lord George Cavendish, admitted by all to be an excellent member, was at a considerable distance from town, under circumstances which would render it impossi ble for him to attend, Mr Brougham urged the substitution of another name,

and was seconded by Mr Wilberforce, who, however, expressed his general approbation of the method of ballot. The Speaker, however, observed, that there was no precedent for the substitution of one name for another in such a case, and that it would be in a manner jumping over several of the principal orders. Mr Calcraft, however, insisted on the propriety of filling up the place of any member who could not attend. He conceived, there was no mode in which the influence of ministers was so great as in that of ballot. He had himself been a scrutineer upon the appointment of this committee by that method. He did not suppose there was any thing secret in what he was saying, but if there was he would not proceed.-(Cries of No, no.)— He had not been sworn when he was appointed a scrutineer. There were, upon this occasion, 103 persons who had put lists into the glass, and amongst those there were 97 not only identically the same, but in the same handwriting. Whose hand it was, or whence the lists came, he would not presume to offer a conjecture. But if his hon. friend had considered for a moment, he was persuaded he would have inferred, that the quarter whence they came was not very doubtful. The debate was closed, however, without any step being taken upon this question.

The motion for the secret committee of the House of Lords, was made by Lord Sidmouth on the 3d of February. The debate was carried on by the Marquis of Lansdowne and the Earl of Carnarvon, on the side of opposition, and by Lords Sidmouth and Liverpool, on that of ministers. It was short, and went over the same ground as in the Commons. The only peculiarity was that, whereas the committee of the other house was invested with power to call for persons, papers, and records, such a clause was stated by Lord Sidmouth to be inconsistent

with the practice of the upper House. But the committee might suggest any evidence that they might consider necessary, and apply to the House upon the subject, when either witnesses might be sworn at the bar to attend to give evidence before the committee, or the House might order papers to be produced for the information of the committee. The Earl of Carnarvon maintained that the full powers granted to the other committee were indispensable; but Lord Liverpool considered the precedents against such a cause as quite decisive. The motion was agreed to, and on the 5th, the choice fell upon the following members:-The Lord Chancellor, the Earl of Harrowby, the Duke of Montrose, the Earl of Liverpool, Marquis of Camden, Marquis of Lansdowne, Earl Fitzwilliam, Earl of Powis, Viscount Sidmouth, Lord Grenville, and Lord Redesdale.

As soon as these arrangements were completed, the attention of the House was immediately called to a series of petitions from persons who complained of the sufferings they had undergone under the operation of the Suspension Act. The petitioners were, Philip Drummond, Francis Ward, John Knight, Samuel Haynes, Joseph Mitchell, Thomas Evans, William Ogden, John Stewart, and William Benbow. The general tenor of their complaints was, that they had been seized, while pursuing their peaceable occupations, without being accused of any crime, and without being able to dream of any of which it was possible to accuse them; that they had been denied all means of proving their innocence; that they had been treated with severity, and had sometimes been scarcely supplied with food sufficient for their support; that they had been sometimes mixed in the same room with common felons; that they had been confined in damp or ill-ventilated apartments, by which their health had been