Imágenes de página
PDF
ePub
[ocr errors]

2

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

HISTORICAL CHRONICLE.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE FIFTH SESSION OF THE FIFTH PARLIAMENT OF THE UNITED
KINGDOM OF GREAT BRITAIN AND IRELAND; continued from p. 264.

HOUSE OF LORDS, Feb. 24.
EARL Grosvenor observed, that another
petition from Mr. Cleary, the secretary
to the London Union Society, had been put
into his hands, in substance the same as
the petition which he had formerly of
fered. He trusted that the period was now
come when it would be received.

Lord Harrowby said, that the document
from which the Committee had drawn their
conclusion that there did actually exist a
London Union Society engaged in these
projects, was this:-It was an address
1 dated the 30th of October, 1816, and pub.
lished by the Sheffield Union Society,
established for the professed purpose of
promoting Parliamentary Reform, which
referred to the London Society as then
existing. In that address it was stated,
that the object of the society was to carry
its
purpose into execution by a general
and national union, by co-operation
with the London Union Society, and with
the branches throughout the country;
and the address proceeded to state, that
it was absolutely necessary that there
should be a radical reform, annual par-
laments, and universal suffrage.

Earl Grey said, with respect to the Report, the explanation just given, shewed the danger of proceeding to legislate on matters of the highest importance-to suspend the laws upon which the liberties of the subject depended-merely on an examination of ex-parte evidence.

Lord Holland strongly condemned any attempt to snspend the Habeas Corpus Act on such vague and general charges as were to be found in the Report.

Lord Erskine observed, that the charges of treason in the Report were confined to societies called Spencean Philanthropists -visionaries who talk of dividing the land. No suspension of the Habeas Cor. pus Act was necessary on their account: the fittest way of disposing of them would be to place them in private mad-houses.

Earl Grey then moved, that the petition be referred to the same Lords who composed the Secret Committee, that they might examine witnesses, and report their opinion to the House.-Motion negatived by 74 to 23.

Viscount Sidmouth, on moving the second reading of the bill to enable his Majesty to secure and detain in custody persons suspected of designs against his Majesty's person and government, commented upon the prominent parts of the Re

GENT. MAG, April, 1817.

port. The Committee had presented the conclusions and results of their investigation, instead of detailing information, necessarily of a secret nature, and producing documents which would put to hazard the safety of individuals. These seditious papers had been spread over the country in a profusion scarcely credible, and with an industry without example: every town in the manufacturing districts was overflowed by them, and scarcely a cottage had escaped the perseverance of the agents of mischief. Many prosecutions were now pending. The circumstances that marked the atrocious character and designs of the meeting in Spa-fields, did not come to the knowledge of ministers until three weeks before the meeting of Parliament. It was a great satisfaction to him to inform the House, that it would not be necessary or just to extend the operation of the bill to Ireland.

The Marquis of Wellesley observed that this was a crisis which at once called for all the fortitude of the people and all the energy of the Government: he was ready to allow that the state of the popular mind was exactly such as had been described by one of the greatest statesmen of any age or country he meant, that general distress had produced general discontent. The statesman to whom he alluded had said, that "the matter of sedition was of two kinds, poverty and discontent:" and of this matter of sedition he was willing to admit that there was an abundant supply: though, as to the sedition itself, he did not think the proof was so evident. Let it be proved, however, that the country was in danger, and he would ask where was the man who would not say that even a great evil ought to be sustained in order to prevent a greater.

The Earl of Liverpool, in reviewing the Report, took the same line of argument as Lord Sidmouth, contending for the necessity of vigorous measures.

Earl Grey contended generally that the existing laws were sufficient to punish both sedition and blasphemy.

The Duke of Sussex observed, that he was present at the greatest part of the examinations of the rioters, and the result he had heard was this:-The whole subscription amounted to the enormous sum of ten pounds. The ammunition was contained in an old stocking; there were about 50 balls, none of which fitted the

pistols, and 1lb. of powder: such was this

mighty

mighty plan of insurrection; but he could not allow mole-hills to be magnified into mountains. The duty of an honest man was to vote only on that side on which his conscience lies, and therefore he should sit down in voting against the measure, (Hear!)

Lords Grenville and Holland spoke shortly against the Bill; and the Duke of Gloucester in support of it.

The House then divided on the motion for the second reading, when it was carried in the affirmative by 150 to 35. The Bill was then read a second time, committed, reported, read a third time, and passed.

In the Commous, the same day, Lord Castlereagh concluded a very long speech on the subject of the Report, by proposing the suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act; secondly, to extend the provisions of the Act of 1795 to the security of the person of the Prince Regent; thirdly, to embody in one Act the provisions of the former Acts against seditious meetings in two branches: one against tumultuous meetings, and the other to regulate the debating societies, taking the provisions of the 39th of the King, against all societies administering illegal caths, and all those bound together by secret affiliations; also to make the appointment of a delegate from one society to another a proof of their affiliation (hear!) He hesitated not to contend, that the provisions of the law ought to be permanent against aggregating societies, and trusted the House would see it made effectual. But he did not wish the law against debating societies and seditious meetings to remain in force longer than the necessity of the case; therefore he had taken a shorter period than formerly. He hoped that the sense of Parliament, and the sound and discerning part of the community, would make the prevailing absurdities fall to the ground with rapidity. Though the theories were of so absurd and disgusting a character, yet they were dangerous enough to call on Parliament to act with a vigilant and determined hand, to relieve the public mind from the bondage of desperate men, countenanced too much by the conduct of men of higher rank and importance (Hear!) They must, therefore, be prompt and efficacious. On these grounds, then, he exercised this painful act of duty arising out of the Report. He concluded by moving for leave to bring in a Bill for more effectually preventing seditious meetings.

Mr. Ponsonby had concurred with the Committee in their Report, and was prepared to give his assent to all the measures, except the suspension of the Ha

beas Corpus Act, to which he was decidedly adverse.

Sir F. Burdett objected to all the measures proposed. It was not, he said, the Spenceans who ought to be feared, but the Expenceans in that House, that really and effectually took away the property of the people.

Mr. Elliot said, that we had at present but a choice of evils; that no one would willingly go into such measures as were then before the House, but he conceived they were now called for by the necessity of the case. The point at issue he understood to be this, whether or not, when a number of individuals pervert the rights and privileges of the Constitution to its danger, may not those rights be for a time suspended ?

Mr. Lamb, Sir William Garrow, the Solicitor General, and Mr. Canning, spoke at great length on the same side; they were replied to by Mr. Brougham, Sir Samuel Romilly, and Lord Cochrane. The motion being put, that leave be given to bring in a Bill to suppress seditious meet ings, there appeared, for the motion 190; against it 14. The Bill was read a first time; as were also the several other bills, as proposed by Lord Castlereagh.

Lord Cochrane moved, that a petition should be read which within ten minutes had been put into his hand. It came from an individual who was ready to prove at the bar of the House, the falsehood of certain imputations on the publick that had lately appeared in the journals as the Report of the Secret Committee. He (Lord C.) thought there could be no doubt, that allegations of this nature should be examined before the House pro ceeded to suspend the liberties of the country. The individual in question stated, that Lord Sidmouth knew beforehand the proposals and intentions of the parties who excited the tumult at Spafields; that certain instruments, resembling pikeheads, had been ordered, by a person in the dress of a game-keeper, to be made at the shop of one Bentley; that those instruments were nothing more nor less than spikes, for securing the head of a fish-pond against marauders; that certain police-offi cers had come to this same Beutley, and had ordered him to fabricate some more spikes similar to those he had made for the game. keeper; and that these imitations, fabri cated by such orders, were the pike-heads produced before the Committee of Se crecy. The petition contained much other curious matter, for the truth of which be (Lord C.) did not hold himself responsible but he thought that it ought to be examined into, and a committee appointed for the purpose; because it would be satisfactory, that the proceedings of the House should be grounded on truth, or

that,

4

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

had at

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

her that, if the allegations contained in the petition were false, the individual who had attempted thus to impose on the House should be severely punished for his contempt of their proceedings. It appeared to him a most extraordinary circumstance, that though a private person, when accused, was allowed to exculpate himself in the best manner he could, the whole people of England should be condemned, unheard, by a selected Committee (and all knew how Committees were selected). This was so extraordinary and unjust, that he there, in his seat, protested against it; and he trusted the House would not sanction such a proceeding by its vote, when it was notorious that no serious disturbances had taken place. It was true, that a small body, calling themselves Spenceans, had meditated an attack on the property of the country; but they were not above 100 in number, even in the opinion of the Lord Mayor; that a few desperate individuals might have evil designs he had no doubt, but that the Constitution was in danger from any such wretched individuals, no one could seriously imagine. The petitioner himself, on his way to the Spa-fields meeting, met those coming from it who were said to have hired the waggon from which such inflammatory speeches had been made that it was extraordinary that the Courier should have stated those resolutions to have been made as part of the proceedings of the meeting, which were absolutely rejected by the petitioner, and which ministers were in possession of long before the meeting. It was averred in the petition, that so far from Spa-Gields having been fixed on with any settled design, that Palace-yard was the place originally chosen for the meeting; from whence there could have been no design for at tacking the Bank or the Tower.

The petition from Henry Hunt, of Middleton Cottage near Andover, was then read. It stated in substance, that the petitioner had been the mover of several petitions which had been favourably received by both Houses of Parliament, and of one in particular as the Spa-fields meeting, which had been received by his Royal Highness the Prince Regent that he had lately read the Report of the Secret Committee, which, as far as he was able to disentangle it, endeavoured to show that Spa-fields had been chosen as the centre for an attack on the Bank and on the Tower; and that at the second meeting, the banners of revolution had been unfurled, and an insurrection actually begun. That pikeheads had actually been fabricated, and delegates appointed from different meetings in the country. With respect to the first allegation, the petitioner, as he could not know the thoughts of men, could say

nothing; but he trusted a simple narration would remove all suspicion from those who were principally concerned in the business of the day. The petitioner, while in the country, had received a letter from Preston, requesting his attendance at a meeting to be held at Spa-fields; he wrote to know the object of the meeting, and received for answer an advertisement dated from the Carlisle Arms, and addressed to the distressed mechanics, mariners, and others of the metropolis. Petitioner hesitated not to accept the invitation, and attended the meeting: he found there a memorial ready prepared, which a stranger put into his hand. Petitioner, finding it contained propositions he could not approve, and, among others, one to lead the people to Carlton House, refused to accede to it, and moved instead, that a petition should be presented by himself to the Prince Regent. John Dyer had furnished Mr. Gifford, the magistrate, with a copy of the other resolutions, which were in the hands of Lord Sidmouth be. fore the meeting was convened; so that whatever took place was owing to the connivance of those who knew beforehand what would be proposed. With respect to the second allegation in the Report of the Committee, there was nothing like previous concert in the transactions of the meeting. A second day had been ap pointed without any decided preference, but only with a view to the probable meeting of Parliament: at that meeting the petitioner was to carry down the Prince Regent's answer to the petition that had been presented him: the petitioner had informed Lord Sidmouth of this, who, so far from making any objection, or advising petitioner not to do so, said that petitioner's presence appeared to have prevented mischief; so that his Lordship could have had no desire to prevent the meeting. The petitioner, and others connected with him, had nothing to do with the unhappy disturbances on the day of the Spa-fields meeting. He met the rioters on his way to the meeting, and proceeded to the strongest resolutions against violence and tumult; so that at a third meeting, much more numerous than either of the preceding, every thing passed off in the most orderly manner. to the pike-heads, he was ready to shew that a person of the name of Bentley had been employed by a game-keeper to make spikes for the preservation of fish in a fishpond; that the first set succeeding extremely well, more had been ordered; and that, after this, Bentley had been sent for to Bow-street, and ordered to make others similar as a copy of what he had furnished the game-keeper with. Delegates from Hampden Clubs having been mentioned, the petitioner begged to shew

As

that

that they were not termed delegates, but deputies; that they had met only three times, and that in an open room to which newspaper reporters were admitted; that they had separated by an absolute dissolution, and not by an adjournment; nor were they to meet again in March, as was alledged in the Report of the Committee. The petition was ordered to lie on the table,

February 25.

On a petition being presented, praying for a reduction of the duty on wine, the Chancellor of the Exchequer declared that, under existing circumstances, no reduction could be made on the duty on wine.

Sir Matthew Ridley made his promised motion for an address to the Throne, to reduce the number of the Lords of the Admiralty, in such a way as was not incompatible with public safety, and was most suitable to the exigencies of the time. The principal speakers against the motion were Lord Castlereagh, Messrs. Croker, Canning, Huskisson, and Law; in support of it, Messrs. Brougham, Bankes, and Warre, and Lord Althorpe.

On a division the motion was negatived by a majority of 56

February 26.

Lord Castlereagh having moved the first reading of the Habeas Corpus Suspension Bill; Mr. Bennett expressed his surprise that the noble Lord should not have adduced a syllable in support of a Bill, which was to take from the people, not a trial by jury only, but all trial. It should be remembered that in the face of a Report made in 1794, and another in 1812, both by Secret Committees, the persons accused by them were, when tried, acquitted, and the testimony of nine-tenths of the witnesses proved to be false. He suspected that the present Report was founded on similar evidence. The idea of a handful of armed rioters taking the barracks by surprise-also the Tower and the Bridges, was too ridiculous to dwell upon. And who were these conspirators? what were their means? Six men in a waggon, with a stocking full of ammunition! He dared any Member of the Committee to say that there was one nobleman, one gentleman implicated, or even any of the middle classes of society.

The Lord Advocate of Scotland said, he had given evidence before the Committee. Early in January be learnt that secret meetings had been held in Glasgow; that a conspiracy was organized there; and that the members were bound by a secret oath.

Sir Francis Burdett said, if the present motion passed, he should propose in the Committee some clause against the torture of prisoners who might be the victims of

this measure; so that, if their personal liberty was to be restrained, they should endure nothing more. It might be said, that it was sought to suspend the Act but for a short time; but no man who appre ciated the value of liberty, or knew the horrors of a dungeon, could consider any time short that was passed in a prison.

Lord Castlereagh, in reply, said, the Hon, Baronet's speech was not made to convince the House, but was addressed to persons in another place.-Being called to order, the Speaker said that all speeches made within those walls must be consi dered as delivered only to the House.

Messrs. F. Lewis, Wynne, Wrottesley, and Courtenay, spoke in favour of the Bill; Lords Russell, Althorp, and Rancliffe, with Sir S. Romilly and Mr. Ponsonby against it. The second reading was ultimately carried by 273 to 98-Majority, 175.

[blocks in formation]

February 28.

Sir James Shaw presented a petition from the Common Council of London against the Suspension of the Habeas Corpus, which Sir James considered as unnecessary.

Mr. Brougham presented a petition from Liverpool on the same subject.

On the third reading of the Habeas Corpus Suspension Bill, Messrs. Bankes, W. Quin, Protheroe, Lambe, the Lord Advocate, the Attorney General, and Sir Ar thur Pigott, spoke in favour of the Bill: Messrs. M. A. Taylor, Lyttleton, W. Smith, Tierney, Sir S. Romilly, and Lord G. Cavendish, spoke against it. The third read. ing was then carried, on a division, by 265 to 103; majority 162.

Mr. Ponsonby moved a clause which went to limit the duration of the Bill to the 20th May, which was negatived by 239 to 97.

HOUSE OF LORDS, March 3. Lord Holland wished to be informed by the noble and learned Lord (Eldon) on the woolsack, whether an individual, unfortunately detained in any prison by order of government, under the power given by the Habeas Corpus Suspension Bill, would have the means allowed him of petitioning Parliament; or, if that should be thought to involve too much publicity, at least of petitioning the Sovereign. He was the more desirons of being informed upon

[ocr errors][ocr errors]

their this point, because knowing the kind of d regulation that was enforced in some prisons, it was of essential importance that an individual, placed in the situation he had alluded to, should not be debarred from the free exercise of the right of mak. ing an application to the Government re, specting the circumstances of his case.

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

The Lord Chancellor said, that every individual arrested on suspicion of treason, by order of Government, and detained under the provisions of this Bill, had in his favour the presumption of law, which always supposed every person under accusation to be innocent, until proved to be guilty; and as far as he could answer a general question, every individual in that situation had the right of petition ing either the Sovereign or the Parliament, a right which the gaoler, in whose custody be was, had no right to deprive him of. He must observe, at the same time, that this privilege would not be allowed to be asserted as a mere colourable pretext with a view to other objects.

The Earl of Rosslyn complained that the Bill was unnecessary. The amend, ments made in the Bil by the House of Commons were then agreed to; and a message was ordered to be sent to the House of Commons to acquaint them therewith.

In the Commons, the same day, Mr, Bootle Wilbraham presented a petition from the hundred of Blackburne, in Lancashire, complaining of the attempts made by designing persons to mislead and to instigate them to measures subversive of the Government and Constitution.

Mr. Cawthorne said, that with respect to the meeting at Preston, it had, no doubt, been regularly convened; but the doors of the hall had hardly been opened, when in rushed a rabble of cotton spinners and weavers, and others of the very lowest order of the people,

Some discussion took place on the second reading of the Seditious Assembly Bill. The Solicitor General said that meetings called by Lords Lieutenants, Justices of the Peace, or the Mayor, Aldermen, or other officers of a Corporation, or division of a Corporation, would not be af. fected by this Bill, Another opening to petitioning was left; for on a requisition being signed by seven resident house, holders, a meeting might at any time or place be convened; but the justices who attended at such meeting would be authorised to declare it an unlawful assem bly, if it proceeded to discuss any subject tending to alter matters of state, without the authority of King and Parliament. Another regulation was, that any person propounding matters of that sort, or propounding any seditious matter, might be

taken up for so doing. All those regulations were precisely similar to what had been introduced into the Bill of 1797. The first object of the measure, therefore, was to prevent any meetings or assemblies of above 50 persons, except such meetings of Corporate Bodies, &c. as he had already mentioned, and except such as were called together upon a notice signed by seven householders. In the Commnittee, however, it was his intention to propose a clause to prevent those meetings, so convened by seven householders, from being adjourned, and to prevent their being held at any other time or place than should be at first specified, by way of adjournment. A second object of the Bill would be to prevent the existence of debating societies, lecture-rooms, readingrooms, &c. for admission to which money was received. He should further observe, that the 39th of the King had for its object to suppress by name certain Societies, whose existence was regarded as prejudicial and detrimental to the State; it also declared other societies to be unlaw ful which were constituted in a particular way, such as imposing oaths, engage. ments, tests, declarations, &c. or having branches, divisions, employing delegates, &c. Another object of the Bill would be to suppress a particular society or societies, calling themselves Spenceans, or Spencean Philanthropists. If ever there was a society, the doctrines of which were utterly subversive of every well-regulated state, subversive of all property, order, and good government, it was that society, At the present moment there was an immense number of persons who belonged to it; and therefore, without inquiring whether it employed delegates or not, it was condemned by the very doctrines which it promulgated, and was rendered as unlawful as any Corresponding Society that ever existed. With respect to the using of delegates or missionaries, he was aware that many societies of the most exemplary kind did so; he believed the Quakers had persons who visited their dif ferent communities in that character, though under a different appellation, and therefore it would be a provision in the Act, to except from its operation all societies constituted for charitable or reli, gious purposes. The Hon, and learned Gentleman then concluded by moving the second reading of the Bill,

Messrs. Bennet and Calvert, Sir F Burdett and Lord Cochrane, were decidedly averse to the Bill.

Mr. Baring remarked that the Report said much of the prevalence of blasphemous doctrines. He believed the reverse was the case that religious feelings existed very generally amongst the great body of the people-that with some it

« AnteriorContinuar »