falsehood of the allegations in Ogden's petition, and that they had been repeatedly contradicted by himself; he could produce the testimony of Mr Dixon the surgeon, that the prisoner had brought with him the disease of which he was cured, and had expressed his thankfulness for being led to a place where he met with a careful and successful treatment, what he could not have expected elsewhere.

The Attorney-General said, that however the detention of persons charged with offences against the state might be justified under the late act, and admitting that a bill of indemnity, on the precedent of that of 1801, should be passed by parliament, he begged leave to say, that such an act would not indemnify a gaoler for any cruelty or excess beyond that restraint which was necessary to the safe custody of the prisoners. He would still remain prosecutable criminally, and liable to answer to the party injured in a civil action. There were instances, especially in a disturbed district, where fetters might be necessary in order to prevent an escape. With respect to their being sent to distant prisons, the motive was, and he took upon himself confidently to assert it, with a view to the comparative comfort of the detained. What complaints would the House not have heard, if these persons had been huddled together in the crowded prisons of the metropolis? He contended that the spies and informers from whom government had received information, instead of causing explosion, had been the cause why none on a great scale took place; they had paralysed the actions of the conspirators. At the same time he would inform the House, that not even one individual had been deprived of his liberty for a single hour, on the evidence of any of those informers. The informers served government merely as an index to point out more creditable evi

dence, and unless where the evidence of such persons was corroborated by undoubted testimony, it was not in any instance acted upon. The noble Secretary of State, by great exertion, had broken the link of a confederacy, which threatened society with universal pillage and disorder.

After a few words from Mr Lamb and Lord Folkestone, the House divided, when the motion was negatived by a majority of 167 to 58.

The same motion was brought forward in the House of Lords on the 19th, by the Earl of Carnarvon, who observed, that when, some days before, he presented the petition of Samuel Drummond, he had considered it a matter of course, that it would go before the secret committee. It had been appointed at the suggestion of ministers, and its object was to lay before the House an exposition of their whole conduct, and of the state of the country since the report of the last Committee. He hoped the conduct of ministers would be justified; but he was sure that if they wished this to be the result of the inquiry, it must not be entered into merely upon evidence brought forward by themselves, upon a case of their own shewing, and before a tribunal packed by themselves; he said, packed by themselves, for he begged to state to their Lordships, and he was sure he could not be contradicted by ministers themselves, that, in the formation of that committee, regular lists had been prepared, and there was not one name that was not inserted by ministers themselves, or at least upon their nomination. At least, however, he trusted the House would not allow all the information to be supplied by ministers from their own offices. If they left it to the discretion of those gentlemen to prepare, not only their own case, but the whole of the evidence by which that case was to be tried, they might trust to Heaven for

justice, but they might depend upon it, that such facts would only find their way into the committee as were most favourable to parties on their defence. Let them look to the proceedings of those ministers themselves. Before two days had elapsed, after the production of the green bag, contain ing, as was at first stated, all the information necessary, they shewed that, even in their own opinion, that information was not sufficient. At that time another green bag was introduced, containing God knows what; but clearly intimating that something had been withheld from the former; and if that was not sufficient, even in ministers' own opinion, why might we not have a third green bag produced, as a supplement to the second? As to the object of the inquiry, he would state, indemnity. But was the door of justice to be shut at once against these unfortunate persons by such a bill? Then let them be told so at once, and no longer mocked with hopes of redress. Was there any thing so decisively clear in the conduct and character of ministers, as to authorize the House to prejudge in their favour the case of poor and oppressed individuals? Was it the fact, that ministers stood so high in the estimation of the public? or was there not a feeling without doors, that it was possible a case might be made out against them, notwithstanding the purity of their fame, very different, in its complexion and degree, from what was likely to be extracted from their own green bag? The question was not, whether Drummond and the other petitioners were of good or bad character, but whether an effectual inquiry could take place without an examination into their case. There was this difference between them and their accusers: the latter demanded a trial, and that their guilt, if any, might be openly proved before the tribunals of

their country. His Majesty's ministers demanded a trial, not by God and their country, but in their own dark chamber, on their own statement, and by judges of their own appointment. Be their characters what they might, be their feelings what they might, the duties of the House, and the feelings of the nation, called for an investigation; to acquiesce in which was the only course which ministers could adopt with credit.

Lord Sidmouth, after observing that the noble Earl had not gone into the merits of the petitions, but had confined himself to the broad ground, that all petitions, of whatever description, ought to be referred to the committee, admitted, that they might be suffered to lie on the table, but that to ask more than that was to say, that petitions of whatever description, (provided only that they were not couched in language disrespectful to their Lord. ships,) whether frivolous, false, malicious, or libellous, were all to be considered. He did not conceive that their Lordships could assent to a principle of such dangerous latitude. Of all modes of investigation, too, in such a case, that of a secret committee appeared to him the most exceptionable; a select committee would, he thought, have been more proper. Unless the petitions contained much more infor mation than that which had been read, they appeared to him quite unworthy of notice. Drummond, for instance, had undertaken in his petition to prove the decorum and propriety of the meeting of the 10th of March, near Manchester. The magistrates having notice that the people were then about to proceed in a body to the metropolis, in order to enforce the compliance of the Sovereign with their demands; and that their intentions (as was borne out by the facts) were to proceed to acts of violence, applied for 13 warrants to apprehend those who were most ac

tive. Drummond was one of the parties against whom a warrant was issued. The people met, to the amount of 12,000, were preparing for their march to London, with the intention of carrying confusion in their train, and addressing the prince in person, and the petitioner was arrested while haranguing them in the most vehement terms. Two hundred other persons were also apprehended for tumultuous conduct at the meeting; but not till the riot act had been read by Mr Holland Watson, the magistrate. The soldiers had no doubt assisted the civil powers; but the character of Sir J. Byng, and the testimony of the magistrates, were pledges that they had strictly confined themselves to their duty. Drummond had suffered no hardship, except simply having been committed. When under examination, he made no complaint whatever of having been ill treated. His manner was not sullen; he spoke freely, and in such a manner, that it was impossible not to regret that a person of his appearance should have fallen into such courses. But there was not one word of complaint as to the mode of his apprehension. His Majesty's government disclaimed any bill or provision for the purpose of protecting themselves or those who acted under them against actions for the cruel and rigorous treatment of prisoners. The only ground on which they resorted to a bill of indemnity, was, because the sources from whence they had derived their information ought to remain concealed. But he disclaimed any protection for acts of rigour, if any could be proved against him. Two other petitions had been presented, which, from his own knowledge, contained the grossest perversions of truth. Of Knight, he knew that every accommodation had been afforded, and nothing could be worse founded than the allegation of Mitchell, that Oliver had been the cause

of his apprehension. The warrant for that apprehension had been signed be fore government knew any thing of Oliver. He owed it to the injured individual (he would so call Mr Oliver) to state that he was never concerned in the insurrection at any period of its progress.

Earl Grosvenor admitted, that the Hon. Viscount was a very fit person to be intrusted with extraordinary powers, and that the sincerity and mildness of his nature were so many safeguards against their abuse. Still the House were called upon to send these petitions to a committee. The noble Viscount had misunderstood his noble friend, in supposing that he maintained that petitions of all kinds should be referred to the committee. His noble friend had proposed to send only petitions essentially connected with those objects which had occasioned the appointment of the committee. But the noble Viscount denied that any such petitions should be admitted. It was admitted that Drummond had been arrested by the military; might not some of them have been drunk or have treated him harshly? There appeared no reason to doubt, that he had been cruelly treated by Nadin, against whom serious charges were brought forward in another place. It was said that these people (the blanketeers) intended to proceed to London, to petition the Prince Regent; such a project was absurd enough, he would grant, but not treasonable. God knew how utterly at variance with a charge of treason was the burst of loyalty which was manifested upon a late mournful event-a loyalty which attached itself not to the gaudy trappings of royalty, but to the hallowed virtues of a Princess who was the glory of her sex, the glory of our constitution, and the glory of our country; after the regret so generally felt and expressed upon that melancholy occa

sion, he little expected to hear the country maligned by the charge of treason. As the charge, however, was made, inquiry, he contended, was indispensable.

Earl Bathurst contended, that it was contrary to all usage and precedent, to force information upon a secret committee, when they were not applying for it. The committee might ask for more information, or if their report appeared unsatisfactory, the House need not act upon it. There were two subjects of complaint in the petitions; first, illegal and injurious arrest; secondly, cruel and harsh treat ment during the detention of the petitioners. With respect to the second ground of complaint, the indemnity would not reach it, it would not protect from any action which the law allowed on that ground. There would be no clause in the bill of indemnity to prevent an appeal to the courts of law, if any person thought himself aggrieved by cruel and harsh treatment, while detained under the Suspension Act. As to the charge of illegal and injurious arrest, what would the noble Lord propose to be done? Were the committee to examine whether the petitioners were guilty or not, of treason? In that case they must go through the whole trial of these individuals; and if found guilty, must either dismiss, or cause them to be tried over again, under the weight of a strong unfavour able prejudice.

The Marquis of Lansdowne having observed that it was not the practice of a secret committee to call for papers, Lord Liverpool admitted the correctness of the noble Marquis, but said, that they could apply to the ministers 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. The com

mittee had been appointed in the mode invariably adopted on similar occasions. The ballot differed from open nomination, only in preventing invidious discussions as to particular names. He felt anxious to submit the information on which ministers acted to persons of all political opinions. The committee was not formed on any narrow or party views. He certainly would not choose to submit his conduct to the judgment of a committee composed exclusively of the noble Lords he saw opposite to him. As to the contents of the petitions, the first ground of complaint was illegal imprisonment; the second, cruel and harsh treatment. With respect to the latter he should only say, with his noble friend, that the bill of indemnity would contain no clause to screen ministers, magistrates, gaolers, or any other description of persons, against the consequences of any cruel or harsh treatment. This point, therefore, was not at issue. As to the other complaint, of illegal imprisonment, which was at issue, he would ask, whether it must not be the complaint of all who were confined under the suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act? This suspension had been seven or eight times voted on former occasions by the noble Earl (Grosvenor.) Its propriety had been repeatedly discussed in the House, and might be discussed again, but had nothing to do with the present motion.

Lord Holland called the attention of the House to the curious remark of the last speaker, respecting his noble friend's conduct on a former occasion. He hoped it would be indelibly engraved on the minds of their Lordships, and he implored them to consider what was the consequence of once voting for the suspension of this sacred bulwark of our liberties-if they were once betrayed by the representations and delusions of ministers to assent to such a measure, they were held to be

incapable ever after of deliberating on the subject. He denied that the Suspension Act gave ministers any power to arrest persons whom they did not mean to bring to trial. The only ground of the act was that it might be necessary to postpone the trial. But after the danger was confessedly over -after a year of national misery, for the subjection of every man's liberty to the will of one must be productive of the misery of all-after forty British subjects had been immured in prisons and discharged without any trial, he submitted that it was not too much to call upon that House for some inquiry into the cause of the arrest of those unfortunate persons, and into the treatment which they experienced while in custody; instead of which, ministers now came forward and said, they had obtained liberty to do all that had been done. They came forward to say that they had been authorized to commit illegally, and to treat their prisoners cruelly. What else could have been expected? After having, on false pretences, obtained an act of suspension, they came forward now and called up. on the House to indemnify them for all they had done even beyond that act. The noble Viscount had carefully refrained from touching on any of the arguments of the noble mover, he had kept wholly on points foreign to the question. There might be some difficulty as to form, in sending the petitions to the committee; but substantial inquiry could not be otherwise carried on. He disapproved of the formation of the committee. He would always maintain that the persons to be tried ought not to be members of the committee that was to try them. He would also maintain, that no confidence could be placed on a report, however conscientiously framed, when the information was strictly and jealously ez parte. Last year ministers had

VOL. XI. PART I.

evaded inquiry, by saying, that the country was in danger, and that there was no time to examine statements made ex-parte, and out of doors. Now, after a year had elapsed, and the country was so tranquil, what possible reason could be assigned for resisting inquiry? What sort of tribunal had they constituted to decide upon their conduct? Could any unbiassed man conceive that, in appealing to such a tribunal, they proposed a tona fide inquiry? The last year he regarded as a year of great misfortune. It was a year of delusion, practised in the most execrable manner; of power unnecessarily obtained and unwarrantably exercised; of distress and suffering, without justice and without redress. There was a prevalent suspicion, amounting with some to a positive belief, that the noble Lord at the head of the home department had not acted constitutionally; that he had exercised powers beyond the law; that in his circulars to magistrates, directing them how to perform their duty, in preventing their visitation of prisoners, in recommending the suspension of the great bulwark of our rights, and in employing spies and informers, he had conducted himself in a manner subversive of our best privileges, and hostile to the public interests. If ministers did not chuse to submit themselves to a fair and open trial, they ought to have candidly called for unlimited confidence on account of their personal character. He would have opposed this claim, but he would at least have thought it manly. He would not assert that all the mischief in the disturbed districts arose from the employment of spies, but he was prepared to prove, if allowed, that much of it could be referred to that origin. He would go farther and say, that the employment of spies (he did not allude to the receiving of intelligence from informers) was always un

C