Billeder på siden
PDF
ePub

his majesty's faithful subjects, to consider whether it be not possible that your secret committee may have been misled, by what they may have deemed good evidence, as to other parts of their recent report; and, at the least, your petitioner humbly prays that your lordships will, in your great condescension, be pleased to permit your petitioner to produce all the books and papers of the London Union Society at the bar of your right honourable House, where your petitioner confidently assures your lordships that he is ready to prove all and singular the allegations, contained in this his most humble petition. "And your petitioner will ever pray. "THOMAS CLEARY." Some words applied by the Earl after he had read the petition, produced a warm attack upon him for the violation of order, in which other speakers defended him. At length, upon his motion, that it should lie upon the table, a debate ensued, when Earl Grey moved for an adjournment to the following Friday. This was disposed of by Contents, 18; NonContents, 64. The motion for laying the petition on the table, was then put and negatived.

On February 24th, Earl Grosvenor appeared again with Mr. Cleary's petition, respecting which he said, that the learned Lord on the Woolsack had declared, that the petition could not be received, because it alluded to the report of the House, of which the petitioner could not be cognizant, neither had it as yet been brought before the House. It was now tendered in such a shape as, he trusted, would remove any objection, all

notice of the secret committee being omitted. No opposition was accordingly made to its reception; though not till several lords had taken the opportunity of discussing the conduct of the committee, by way of attack and defence.

BILL FOR SUSPENSION OF
HABEAS CORPUS.

On February 24th, a bill for the suspension of the Habeas Corpus act was moved in the House of Lords. It was introduced by Lord Sidmouth, who began his speech by an eulogy upon the manner in which the secret committee had laid its discoveries before the House. There were three principal features to which he would advert: 1. That no doubt was left in the minds of the committee, that a traitorous correspondence existed in the metropolis, for the purpose of overthrowing the established government: 2. That the committee are deeply concerned to report their full conviction, that designs of this nature have not been confined to the capital, but are extending widely through the most populous and manufacturing districts: 3. That such a state of things cannot be suffered to continue without hazarding the most imminent and dreadful evils. After descanting upon these points, his lordship proceeded to set in a strong light the actual danger into which the public welfare was brought; and he touched upon the riot in the capital on December 2d, and upon his own active services in suppressing it He was thence led to take into consideration certain provisions of former legislatures, to guard against public evils; and

he

he intimated the intention of the present ministers, to renew some measures of this kind. In fine, he came to the direct point of the suspension of the Habeas Corpus, of which he said he was sincerely grieved to be the instrument, especially in a time of profound peace. But it was one extraordinary quality of the British constitution, that the powers of the executive government could be enlarged, if by such means that constitution would be better se cured. He required the suspension of the Habeas Corpus act, in pity to the peaceable and loyal inhabitants of the country, for the protection of the two Houses of Parliament, for the maintenance of our liberties, and for the security of the blessings of the constitution. It was not merely the lower orders which had united in these conspiracies; individuals of great activity, resolution, and energy, were engaged in the con

test.

The Marquis Wellesley said, that when parliament was called upon to alter the existing laws of the land, ministers should be able to lay before it a plain distinct case, founded upon powerful and irresistible evidence, in order that it should be justified in doing that which in ordinary circumstances would be a direct infringement of the public freedom. Unless the ministers of the crown could un questionably prove, that such a case cannot be restrained by the ordinary course of law, they are not warranted in demanding the extension of extraordinary powers. This subject led him to consider what he must regard as the grand and prominent part of the ques

tion, namely, a comparison between the present day, with the period of 1795; of which there was the leading and undeniable distinction, that in the first case, all the mischiefs against which the enlargement of the powers of the crown went to provide, sprung mainly from the French revolution. From France the dangers were apprehended, and to the machinations of agents from that country, the energies of the government were directed. But to what were the principles of our modern system of policy directed, when our army in Spain was engaged in a succession of triumphs, and when the nations of the continent, in imitation of our example, were resolved to make a determined struggle for their independence? It was to this-that we had actually extinguished the spirit of Jacobinism, and that the war had assumed a different complexion. The peace followed, and it was one which the noble marquis severely reprobated. To the want of stipulations in favour of England, he attributed the revival of Jacobinism; but how did it happen, said he, that ministers, when they had ascertained the existence of a presumed traitorous conspiracy in the metropolis, and were aware, as they now profess, that the provisions of the law were incompetent to control it, did not at once resort to measures to put it down?

After various other observations, which it is unnecessary here to repeat, the Marquis concluded with affirming, that he must conscientiously declare, that up to the moment he was then speaking, he had not seen such evidence as convinced

convinced him that the danger was so alarming as had been represented. Great discontents undoubtedly existed; seditious practices evidently prevailed; yet he was not satisfied, that they existed in that shape and character which justified the suspension of the Habeas Corpus.

The Earl of Liverpool, in his reply to the Marquis, began with absolutely denying, that the discontent and distress under which we laboured, were attributable to the late peace; and he believed it never entered into the heads of any one to imagine that such was the consequence. So far from the fact being such as the Marquis stated, our trade and manufactures were never so extensive as during the years 1814 and 1815. The origin of our distress was to be traced to a totally different case from that of foreign trade; in fact it might be originally tried to the distress of our agrica."ural interest The next topic of the Marquis's complaint was the meeting of parliament, and it as asked, why it was not earlier ied, when ministers must have known the dangers of the ery it did not however follow, that because there were clubs, meet age, and publications of a dangerous nature, that therefore Dere were distinct proofs of a

pracy upon which governmim ght proceed capitally. In fart it was not till within three works of the actual meeting of jament, that ministers were

son of that knowledge. I bari then proceeded to thu won the question more imate before their lordships; madhe sa d, that the real point to

be considered was, whether a sufficient cause now existed for the suspension of the Habeas Corpus? On the present occasion government had the fullest proof (if they were to believe the report) of a treasonable conspiracy in the metropolis to overturn the constitution, and that the same system was spread over a great part of the country. much to contend, that under such Was it then too circumstances it was proper to recur to the course which our ancestors had pursued in similar dangers? He felt all the importance of the measure that was now proposed; but he would not allow any imputations that might be insinuated to preclude him from the conscientious discharge of his duty. What he asked of parliament was to entrust the Prince Regent's ministers with that power for a short time—a most odious one, he agreed—and which ought not to be confided to any man. or any set of men, except in such cases as now, he apprhended, justified him in calling for it.

minary remarks against the pro-
Earl Grey, after various preli-
posed motion, argued in the first
place, that any conspiracy attended
with an utter improbability of
lowed to be, was not a case that
success, as the present was al-
called for a suspension of the
Habeas Corpus
chief actors in this conspiracy?
Who were the
Were they persons of great con-
sequence and co nexions in the
country? No. They were miserable
wretches reduced to the lowest

poverty and distress. What was
their object? To produce insur-
rection by calling persons toge-
ther on the pretext of parliamen-

tary

he intimated the intention of the present ministers, to renew some measures of this kind. In fine, he came to the direct point of the suspension of the Habeas Corpus, of which he said he was sincerely grieved to be the instrument, especially in a time of profound peace. But it was one extraordinary quality of the British constitution, that the powers of the executive government could be enlarged, if by such means that constitution would be better se cured. He required the suspension of the Habeas Corpus act, in pity to the peaceable and loyal in habitants of the country, for the protection of the two Houses of Parliament, for the maintenance of our liberties, and for the security of the blessings of the constitution. It was not merely the lower orders which had united in these conspiracies; individuals of great activity, resolution, and energy, were engaged in the con

test.

The Marquis Wellesley said, that when parliament was called upon to alter the existing laws of the land, ministers should be able to lay before it a plain distinct case, founded upon powerful and irresistible evidence, in order that it should be justified in doing that which in ordinary circumstances would be a direct infringement of the public freedom. Unless the ministers of the crown could unquestionably prove, that such a case cannot be restrained by the ordinary course of law, they are not warranted in demanding the extension of extraordinary powers. This subject led him to consider what he must regard as the grand and prominent part of the ques

tion, namely, a comparison between the present day, with the period of 1795; of which there was the leading and undeniable distinction, that in the first case, all the mischiefs against which the enlargement of the powers of the crown went to provide, sprung mainly from the French revolution. From France the dangers were apprehended, and to the machinations of agents from that country, the energies of the government were directed. But to what were the principles of our modern system of policy directed, when our army in Spain was engaged in a succession of triumphs, and when the nations of the continent, in imitation of our example, were resolved to make a determined struggle for their independence? It was to this-that we had actually extinguished the spirit of Jacobinism, and that the war had assumed a different complexion. The peace followed, and it was one which the noble marquis severely reprobated. To the want of stipulations in favour of England, he attributed the revival of Jacobinism; but how did it happen, said he, that ministers, when they had ascertained the existence of a presumed traitorous conspiracy in the metropolis, and were aware, as they now profess, that the provisions of the law were incompetent to control it, did not at once resort to measures to put it down?

After various other observations, which it is unnecessary here to repeat, the Marquis concluded with athrming, that he must conscientiously declare, that up to the moment he was then speaking, he had not seen such evidence as Convinced

convinced him that the danger was so alarming as had been represented. Great discontents undoubtedly existed; seditious practices evidently prevailed; yet he was not satisfied, that they existed in that shape and character which justified the suspension of the Habeas Corpus.

The Earl of Liverpool, in his reply to the Marquis, began with absolutely denying, that the discontent and distress under which we laboured, were attributable to the late peace; and he believed it never entered into the heads of any one to imagine that such was the consequence. So far from the fact being such as the Marquis stated, our trade and manufactures were never so extensive as

during the years 1814 and 1815. The origin of our distress was to be traced to a totally different cause from that of foreign trade; in fact it might be originally traced to the distress of our agricultural interest. The next topic of the Marquis's complaint was the meeting of parliament, and it was asked, why it was not earlier assembled, when ministers must have known the dangers of the country: it did not however follow, that because there were clubs, meetings, and publications of a dangerous nature, that therefore there were distinct proofs of a conspiracy upon which government might proceed capitally. In fact, it was not till within three weeks of the actual meeting of parliament, that ministers were in possession of that knowledge.

The Earl then proceeded to touch upon the question more immediately before their lordships; and he said, that the real point to

be considered was, whether a sufficient cause now existed for the suspension of the Habeas Corpus? On the present occasion government had the fullest proof (if they were to believe the report) of a treasonable conspiracy in the metropolis to overturn the constitution, and that the same system was spread over a great part of the country. Was it then too much to contend, that under such circumstances it was proper to recur to the course which our ancestors had pursued in similar dangers? He felt all the import

ance of the measure that was now proposed; but he would not allow any imputations that might be insinuated to preclude him from the conscientious discharge of his duty. What he asked of parliament was to entrust the Prince Regent's ministers with that power for a short time-a most odious one, he agreed—and which ought not to be confided to any man, or any set of men, except in such cases as now, he apprhended, justified him in calling for it.

Earl Grey, after various preliminary remarks against the proposed motion, argued in the first place, that any conspiracy attended with an utter improbability of success, as the present was allowed to be, was not a case that called for a suspension of the Habeas Corpus. Who were the chief actors in this conspiracy? Were they persons of great consequence and conexions in the country? No. They were miserable wretches reduced to the lowest poverty and distress. What was their object? To produce insurrection by calling persons together on the pretext of parliamen-,

tary

« ForrigeFortsæt »