There was certainly a small body of political fanatics of great and most mischievous activity, and there were notoriously districts in great distress, where a great disposition consequently existed to acts of tumult and outrage; but against these, all that the present measure would do, would be to take the power away from the ordinary jurisdictions, and out of the hands of the local magistracy, where all the sound part of the population would, for their own sakes, be aiding, and where that power would be effectual, to lodge it in those of a secretary of state, where the natural and honest prejudice of Englishmen against acts of mere authority would lead the mass of the community in every instance to impede its exercise, and where it in consequence would be found utterly useless and unavailing. All this had been pretty clearly proved during the late trials; and Mr. Gurney said, he could not but extremely lament with a view to the impression made in the country generally, that the executive government had so lost the confidence of the people, by the communications of the highest authorities of the state with such men as Castle and Oliver; and, above all, by the unfortunate circumstance of Mr. Reynolds appearing first as a grand juror and then as appointed to an ostensible situation abroad-as to render these transactions subjects of more alarm than a thousand combinations of starving mechanics. ministers saw proper to prolong its date. Last year the difficulties of the country were allowed to be great, yet parliament was postponed by repeated prorogations till late in the winter. If ministers so exercised their discretion, this act might be continued as long as ministers chose to exercise the powers it conferred. If at any time it was more necessary than another that its duration should be limited, it was the present, when great general distress prevailed, and it was proved that agents employed by government had endeavoured to seduce the suffering people to the only acts that could justify an extraordinary exercise of power. It had been said, that our constitution could bend to circumstances, and he would allow that the present administration had found or made it flexible and accommodating enough. He would not, however, agree to this description of it. Frangas non flectes was the motto best suited to the British constitution, and the sturdy oak not the pliant willow its appropriate emblem. He concluded with moving, "that it be an instruction to the committee, to limit the duration of the bill till the 1st of December next." Lord Castlereagh said, that the motion was altogether unnecessary, because it was competent to the committee, without the proposed instruction, to fix the dura. tion of the bill at any period it thought proper. Such an instruction was called Sir J. Newport objected to the mea- for, only where it was deemed proper to sure altogether, but seeing that it was introduce in the committee some matter likely to obtain the sanction of the House, not strictly relevant. But, waving the he would propose a clause to render its point of form, he must object to the moduration as short as the assumed necessity tion upon principle; for if the state of the justified. By the present provisions of the country should be such at the period bill it was to continue till six weeks after stated in the motion, as to require the the assembling of parliament. This, it further continuance of the act, he did not was evident, made its duration very inde- know that to call gentlemen to attend parfinite, for it depended on the pleasure of liament, from the several districts in which ministers, at what time, after a proroga- their local influence and personal authotion or a dissolution, they would call par- rity might be so usefully exercised, would liament together. There was a rumour not be a greater evil than the cessation of abroad, that a dissolution would take place the act itself. As to the rumour of an inafter the termination of the present ses- tended dissolution at the close of the ses sion, and consequently with the suspension, he could not think it probable that sion act in existence. If this was the case, any of his majesty's ministers would have it was difficult to say when this oppressive made such a declaration as the right hon. measure would cease. He would not probaronet had stated, for such a declaration pose that any pledge should be required would imply an interference with the preas to the time of assembling the House; rogative of the Crown. But this had nobut he would move, that the duration of thing to do with the question before the the bill should be limited to the 1st of De-House. It would be obviously inconvecember, and thus make it necessary for nient to assemble parliament before the Crown to call parliament together, if Christmas, and especially so for the Irish members; and yet such a proceeding might be necessary if the motion of the right hon. baronet were adopted. The provision of the supplies, and the re-enactment of the mutiny bill, would of course render it necessary for parliament to reassemble at such time as to render the right hon. baronet's apprehensions groundless, with regard to the indefinite duration of the bill. But yet he (lord C.) proposed to fix in the committee a definite period for the duration of the bill, not so early, however, as the right hon. baronet desired. Sir J. Newport said, that the rumour of an intended dissolution depended on the authority of a noble peer high in administration, who had declared that such a measure was in contemplation, to more than one noble peer of his (sir J. N's.) acquaintance. Lord Castlereagh could not answer for what was said by any individual, but he was not aware of any such intention. Mr. Wynn said, that if Providence blessed us with a plentiful harvest, of which there was now every prospect, that distress which was the instrument of disaffection, would be taken out of the hands of the enemies of the public tranquillity, and the suspension act might expire on the 1st of December. Every member who supported that act allowed that it was an evil, and that it should not be continued one hour longer than it was justified by the necessity of the case. therefore, the difficulties of the country at the period mentioned should be so mi. tigated or removed as to render it unnecessary, it should then expire; but if dangers to justify its continuance should exist, much as he valued the exertions of members in their country residences, he thought this House would then be the proper sphere of their duties. If, Mr. Bathurst thought any such instruction to the committee unnecessary. The amendment was negatived. The House then went into the committee. Sir W. Burroughs moved two clauses; the one limiting the provisions of the bill to the counties of Lancaster, Derby, Lei. cester, Nottingham, and York, together with the towns of Birmingham, and Stockport; the other providing that no committal should take place under the bill, except the warrant, was signed by six privy councillors, two of whom should be the lord chancellor and the secretary of state. Both amendments were rejected. (VOL. XXXVI.) Lord Castlereagh objected to the limitation of the bill to a fixed period rather than to six weeks after the meeting of parliament; but if any fixed period was thought necessary, he would, to avoid the necessity of calling parliament together at too early a period, propose, that the duration should extend to the 1st of March. Mr. Gurney asked, whether the noble lord intended that the persons now under arrest should continue for nine months longer in solitary confinement. Lord Castlereagh said, that every reasonable indulgence, consistent with safe custody would be allowed to the persons in confinement. General Gascoyne had supported the former measure, but as parliament was about to rise, he thought the duration of the bill ought to be limited, and that the 1st of December, or some definite time, should be fixed. The committee then divided: For the amendment, 45; Against it, 78. List of the Minority. Althorp, visc. Mr. Douglas objected to the extension of the bill to Scotland, and moved the omission of the clause by which that country was included in its operation. Lord Folkestone wished to know whether, in fact, this bill would really extend (4 H) to Scotland or not. He knew that, ac- | noble lord to instance even a solitary case cording to some legal opinions, the of disaffection. With respect to the apamendment made in the former bill, had prehension that the right hon. member taken Scotland out of the operation of the expressed as to emigration he believed act [No answer was given]. there was little fear that Londoners would fly to Scotland. Sir S. Romilly expressed his surprise that no answer had been given to the question of the noble lord: for if it really was the case that the bill could have no operation in Scotland, then it was not passed for the purpose of suppressing any dangerous practices in that country, but for some unexplained object of ministers. He believed that since the former bill passed, not one individual in Scotland had been committed under it. The question was not whether the Habeas Corpus had or had not been properly suspended in the early part of the session, but whether they should now pass a bill, purporting to deprive Scotland of the benefits of the act against wrongous imprisonment, though that measure was not called for by the state of the country, and when it was not certain that the bill could operate. Lord Castlereagh said, it was evidently the intention that the measure should extend to Scotland. He saw no reason to suppose that it could not be executed in Scotland. Lord G. Cavendish observed, that all the disorders which had occurred in the disturbed districts mentioned in the report proceeded solely from the spirit of Luddism, against which the present bill was perfectly inoperative. Before the former bill passed, there had been a great many clubs in those districts, which were of an open, public nature; but after the bill passed, the people, instead of meeting publicly as before, assembled secretly in barns and Methodist meeting-houses, and in that way the late disorders were hatched up. He would ask whether Mr. Oliver, and such men as he, ought not to be regarded as the chief instruments in these movements? Nothing could be more culpable than that abominable system by which spies and informers were let loose among an ignorant people, to work on their passions and provoke them to acts of violence. He should not object to a law for punishing more severely the crime of framebreaking, or any bill for strengthening the magisterial authority in the disturbed districts; but he must protest against the present bill. Lord Folkestone expressed his surprise that ministers had not given any reply to his question. His question was, not whether it was a point of policy that this law should extend to Scotland, but whether in point of fact, Scotland was not taken out of the operation of the act by the way in which the clause was drawn up? If that was the case, it was of the utmost importance that the House should know whether they were legislating for Scotland or not. Mr. Ponsonby wished to know for what purpose the second committee of secrecy had been appointed? Was it for mere form, or was it to lay a parliamentary ground for this measure? If the latter, he could say, that the report did not touch Scotland, and he would assert farther, that not a tittle of evidence relative to Scotland had been submitted to the committee. When, therefore, the report was silent respecting Scotland, was it to be endured that the liberties of the whole Scottish nation were to be taken away on the mere recommendation of ministers? What availed the good conduct of the people, their unshaken allegiance, their loyalty or their attachment to the constitution, if this could be done at the mere will of an administration? If the commit-mittee relative to the existence of treasontee, under these circumstances, extended the bill to Scotland, the vote would be the most violent and unjust decision ever made by that House. Mr. Bathurst said, it would render the measure altogether illusory, if any privileged place was left, to which the authors of these hostile machinations might retire. Sir R. Fergusson rose as a Scotsman to protest against the injustice of extending the measure to his country. He defied the Mr. Bathurst said, that Scotland was included in the act, but admitted that no person had been taken up, and that no evidence was laid before the second com able practices or disaffection in Scotland. The House divided on the clause for extending the provisions of the act to Scotland: Ayes, 129. Nocs, 48. HOUSE OF LORDS. Friday, June 27. MILITARY AND NAVAL OFFICERS OATHS BILL.] Lord Melville presented a bill to regulate the administration of Oaths in certain cases to Officers in the Naval and Military Service. His lordship stated, that by different acts of parliament, certain oaths were to be administered to officers in the naval and military service, and by the practice which had prevailed, these oaths had invariably been administered to officers in the military service at some period after they had received their commissions; a similar practice had also of late years prevailed with regard to officers in the navy. A doubt, however, had arisen, whether by law these oaths were not required to be taken by the officers before they received their commissions; but there was no instance of the oaths having been so required to be taken. This being the case, and it being in every respect mere desirable that the present prac tice should be continued, than that what was supposed to be the law-should be literally carried into effect, the object of this bill, was to legalize the present practice with regard to officers in the military service, and to assimilate to it the practice with regard to officers in the navy. The bill was read a first time. HOUSE OF COMMONS. Friday, June 27. PETITION OF THOMAS EVANS.] Mr. Bennet presented a petition from Thomas Evans, confined in Horsemonger-gaol under the warrant of a secretary of state. He was denied pen, ink, or paper, summoned six times before the privy-council, and no other question asked than whether he was acquainted with Thistlewood, Watson, and questions of the like trivial import. The prisoner was removed to a condemned cell of the most wretched description, and a flute, his only amusement, taken from him. He was ironed for some time. His irons, after a visit from three magistrates, who said nothing on the subject, were afterwards taken off by order of the secretary of state, but he has not tasted fresh air since the 10th of April. He affirmed, that he had no connexion whatever with any designs against the peace of the country, and that by this confinement his trade is totally ruined, and his family reduced to beggary. Mr. Addington did not believe the petitioner was more harshly treated than other prisoners under the same charges. As a proof of the kind treatment of such prisoners, he had to mention, that Mr. Watson had written a very becoming letter ro the secretary of state, thanking him for his indulgence to him while in confinement. It was impossible there could be any grounds for the complaints in the petition, but he should feel it his duty to inquire into the circumstances. Mr. W. Smith did not rise to contradict the right hon. gentleman, for he had only said that there could be nothing of such severity by the orders of the secretary of state. He could believe that, and yet believe the complaint of the petition to be well founded. In the case of a lord-lieutenant of a neighbouring country (lord Hardwicke), he had known a similar contradiction. He had then papers put into his hand alleging the greatest cruelty to have been exercised towards prisoners: he could not believe that the lord-lieutenant could have sanctioned such acts, but he had no confidence in the tender mercies of the gaolers of that unhappy country. He had since known, from unquestionable authority, that the facts were true, and that the persons concerned deserved to be brought to condign punishment. In the same manner he could believe that the facts here were true, though the secretary of state had not sanctioned them. Mr. Barham could not imagine that any person would dare to bring forward such specific charges if they were not true. The secretary and the under-secretary were respectable men; but he wished to know, as to one single fact, whether any one person was, for the sake of security, put in irons. When the House was about to pass a law, suspending the Habeas Corpus, what security could they have against the most flagrant abuses of such a terrible power? It was the bounden duty of the right hon. gentleman to inquire and to know when such extraordinary powers were claimed by the secretary of state. Mr. Peter Moore said, that the noble secretary of state was an amiable and good man; but he was imposed upon by vile miscreants, deserving of a halter rather than of a pension. Mention had been made of transactions in Ireland under lord Hardwicke. He had then said that the lord-lieutenant was imposed upon, and so it afterwards turned out. In a committee appointed to inquire into the facts, it appeared that the conduct of Dr. Trevor, the superintendant, was such, that he ought to have been hanged a hundred times over. Yet this man was now on the pension list. Mr. Macdonald thought the assertion of the right hon. gentleman warranted an inference which he was not perhaps aware of. He had said, that the petitioner was not worse treated than other prisoners. This prisoner was put in irons. Was the inference therefore admitted, that other prisoners were put in irons? The right hon. gentleman seemed to think himself bound to know very little on the subject. Mr. Bennet said, the gaol was different from other gaols. In other gaols they had more room, and a yard to walk in. The gaol in Horsemonger-lane had no yard: for this, among other reasons, it was of essential benefit that gaols and prisoners should be accessible to the inspection of the public eye. Lord Folkestone would fain know who it was that was responsible, since all magistrates and other persons were excluded? Under such laws and restrictions, who was responsible that prisoners were not put in irons, and even put to the torture? The secretary had promulgated a new law as to prisoners; and having done so, he now says he is not bound to know any thing about the matter. The other night it was stated that solitary confinement was authorized by the law: the noble lord (Castlereagh) had stated that there was a distinction as to high treason, and that all prisoners under that charge were committed to safe and close custody. The noble lord had taken this up from the attorney-general, but stated it more explicitly. He was not now prepared to deny the interpretation given to the law. From the books, it appeared, that all prisoners were committed to safe and close custody. In Bumstead's Reports, there was a case in which lord Coke lays it down as the law, that gaolers are bound to keep all prisoners committed to them in safe and close custody. The same doctrine was found in Bacon's abridgment, and in Coke upon Lyttleton. There was thus no authority for solitary confinement in the case of state prisoners. He had, however, seen directions from the secretary of state to keep them in solitary confinement. Irons were only to be applied when absolutely necessary. Other prisoners were not put in irons, and therefore it was not necessary here. Mr. Bathurst thought it was too much to expect when a petition like that now before them was presented for the first time, that those connected with the department to which the case belonged should be able at once to speak to all the allegations which it contained. These could not be held to be proved to be true, till some inquiry had taken place on the subject. Lord Cochrane thought the subject called for inquiry. The parties taken up had not been confined in the strong gaol of Newgate, merely because if placed there, the City magistrates could have access to them. He described the conduct of ministers to be most despotic; and maintained, that a man might as well live under the sway of one tyrant, as under the dominion of the deys on the opposite side of the House. The petition was ordered to lie on the table. Mr. Barham gave notice, that, unless a satisfactory explanation should be previously given, he would, on Tuesday, move that the petition be referred to a committee. Mr. Brougham said, that one of the allegations of the petition set forth, that a petition to that House had been detained at the office of the secretary of state. If this charge was founded, a great breach of the privileges of the House had been committed. The petition was ordered to be printed. HABEAS CORPUS SUSPENSION BILL.] On the order of the day for the third reading of this bill, Mr. Bennet said, that though he had but little hope of making an impression on the House by his opposition to the measure, he felt it his duty to protest against it. The noble lord who had opened this subject to the House, had properly divided it into the causes and the remedies of the discontent. The causes he (Mr. B.) conceived might be all traced to want of food and want of work in the districts which had been disturbed; the remedies were work and food. During the war the ingenuity of mechanics had been exerted to find all possible substitutes for human labour, and as the demand for the produce of labour, had now diminished, an enmity towards machinery had grown up and had broken out into acts of violence. It was fit that this spirit should be repressed, that if the vigilant execution of the laws were not sufficient, local laws might be enacted to suppress it, but it formed no pretext for putting all Britain to the ban, on account of frequent breaches of the peace in five counties. There was no case more in point than the disturbances in the year 1812. If any one would look into the report drawn up at that time (and no one |