presented a Petition from the mayor, sheriffs, and several inhabitants of the city of Cork, and its vicinity; setting forth, "That the Petitioners beholding the daily increase of poverty among the inhabitants of that city, arising from want of employment, which has unhappily induced its necessary consequences, disease and misery, and knowing that similar evils are felt in every part of Ireland, approach the House to state the calamitous situation in which that country stands, and to call upon the House to protect them from that ruin into which all ranks appear to be fast sinking; the petitioners have to deplore the want of sufficient encouragement to their manufactures, the difficulties which stand in the way of agriculture, and the absence of a majority of the nobility and gentry, who receive the produce of the soil, and spend it in other countries; the petitioners shall not presume to dictate to the House in what way their sufferings can be best alleviated; but, as they principally trace them to want of employment for their superabundant population, they would beg most humbly to suggest the propriety of some legislative enactment respecting the non-residence of the nobility and gentry, the encouragement necessary for the increase of their manufactures, the formation of canals, the working of mines and fisheries, the more profitable tillage of land, the construction and repairing of roads, and such other means of employment as the House may think proper to devise; the petitioners would also earnestly solicit the attention of the House to the means of extending the benefits of education to all classes of the community as the best corrective of human depravity, and the most efficient moral engine of state; the petitioners most fervently beseech the House to take the case of Ireland into their early consideration, and to reflect on the urgency of the circumstances under which the petitioners address them, disease making rapid strides through all classes, and no prospect of its decrease, while so large a portion of the population are unemployed and continue in a consequent state of poverty and wretchedness."

said, he felt it due to the extreme respectability of those who had signed the petition, and the importance of the subject, to move that it be printed, and he trusted it would receive from the House that attention to which it was entitled.

presented a Petition from the lord mayor, aldermen, and livery of London, in common hall assembled; setting forth, "That the Petitioners have viewed with the deepest concern the continual encroachments that have been made upon the rights of the subject; they have been called upon to make sacrifices without bounds, and to submit to burthens and privations without example; they have evinced the utmost patience, fortitude, and forbearance under their sufferings, under a persuasion that upon a return of peace they should have witnessed a disposition, on the part of his majesty's government and the House, seriously to inquire into the cause of their sufferings, and to redress their grievances, to diminish their burthens, and to make such necessary reparations in the constitution as would remove the numerous and deeply-rooted abuses, and restore it to full vigour and energy; in all these expectations the petitioners have been unhappily disappointed, and, instead of seeing realized expectations so reasonably founded, at a moment of unexampled distress, when they were representing their grievances to the House, no redress was afforded them, nor were their complaints inquired into, but, upon unfounded alarms, raised and fomented by the hired emissaries of ministers, and for the purpose, as they believe, of stifling the complaints of the people and protecting abuses, and upon no other evidence than the partial documents furnished by ministers to secret committees, the great pillar of the constitution, the Habeas Corpus act, was suspended; that, as the grounds and pretences for such a measure, and in a time of profound peace, were without precedent, so they believe is the wanton arbitrary, oppressive, and vindictive proceedings of ministers without example in the annals of the country; the petitioners will not detail these oppressions, many of the facts have already been stated to the House, and are generally known; but, while they forbear to dilate upon the cruel and vindictive imprisonment and prosecutions of numerous individuals, which have ended in the defeat and disgrace of ministers, the petitioners cannot forbear expressing their decided impression that in the instances where convictions have taken place, those unhappy and deluded men had been led into the commission of crimes through the agency of those infamous and abandoned emissaries who had been employed; that they are farther convinced that the existing laws are fully adequate in those cases, and that, by due vigilance, those acts which led to the forfeiture of the lives of those unhappy individuals, might have been prevented; the petitioners submit to the House, that the justice of the country, and outraged feelings of the people, demand a full, impartial, and rigid inquiry into all the proceedings of ministers, both in obtaining and under the late Suspension act: that no inquiry before secret committees, composed partly of those ministers and placemen, can promote justice or satisfy the nation, and must lead to an inevitable conviction that those, who ought to be the guardians of the property, the liberties, and lives of the people, are guided by other motives and considerations than the welfare and honour of the nation; the petitioners therefore humbly pray, that the House will immediately institute a full, impartial, and rigid inquiry into the conduct of ministers, and all the proceedings in obtaining and under the late Suspension of the Habeas Corpus act, and that the said inquiry may be referred to such committees as are composed of such members only of the House as hold neither places nor pensions under the government, and that the House will not pass any bill of indemnity, nor preclude those who have been the victims of oppression from making an appeal to the legal tribunals of the country.

said, that the Hall in which the petition was agreed to was one of the most numerous he had ever witnessed, and that only four hands had been held up against the petition.

observed, that all he had to say was, that he had attended the hall in question, and that he disapproved of every word of the petition.

presented a Petition from Samuel Bamford, of Middleton, Lancaster; setting forth, "That at dusk on the 11th of March, 1817, a young man was introduced to the petitioner by Dr. Joseph Healey at Middleton aforesaid: that the said young man stated himself to have been deputed by some persons in Manchester, to propose to the Petitioner and the rest of the Middleton reformers, the burning and sacking of Manchester aforesaid, the storming of the Barracks and New Bailey prison, and the liberation of the blanketeers confined in that place; that the above proposal was by the petitioner rejected with horror, and the petitioner, considering the young man as an innocent dupe to some spy, urged him by every legal, humane, and honourable consideration to have nothing more to do with the business; that the young man appearing affected, promised that he would never more propose such a thing to any person, and he shortly afterwards returned to Manchester, on his way to which place he told a person who accompanied him a short distance, that one Lomax, of Bank Top, in Manchester, was one of the persons who sent him to Middleton; that notwithstanding the above demonstration of the petitioner's reverence to the laws of his country, of his love to the principles of humanity, of his abhorrence to rapine and plunder, the petitioner was, on the morning of the 29th of March, arrested on suspicion of high treason, by authority of a warrant signed by the secretary of state for the home department; that the petitioner was, by the deputy constable of Manchester, handcuffed like a common thief, and by the said deputy escorted by a party of the king's dragoon guards, conveyed to the New Bailey prison in Salford, where he was put into a common cell, in which were four other persons who were charged with felony; that the petitioner frequently requested the governor and turnkeys to let him have a blanket to shelter him from the intense cold, but that the petitioner's request was not attended unto; that on the following morning the petitioner was, with seven other persons, heavily ironed, and put into a stage-coach, in order to be conveyed to London; that the petitioner was accordingly, in company with the above seven persons, conveyed to London, by two king's messengers and two police runners; that on the night of the petitioner's arrival in London, when he retired to rest, he was chained in bed to two other fellow prisoners (Healey and Lancashire); that on the 1st of April, the petitioner was taken to lord Sidmouth's office, at Whitehall, when lord Sidmouth informed the petitioner, that he was arrested by virtue of a warrant signed by the said lord Sidmouth; that afterwards the petitioner was taken to the House of Corection in Cold Bath-fields; that on or about the 8th of April, the petitioner was again examined by lord Sidmouth, who repeated to him the aforesaid charge, and that the petitioner in his defence affirmed, that no just ground of suspicion could exist against him, for that instead of having done, or encouraged to be done, any thing of a treasonable nature, his conduct had always been the reverse; the petitioner at the same time acknowledged himself to be a reformer, and did then, as he still does, take credit to himself for so being, but strenuously denied having ever recommended violence in the accomplishment of a reform; that during the month of April the petitioner was frequently examined, at one of which examinations, lord Sidmouth questioned him respecting his knowledge of a person named Lomax, whether the petitioner was ever in company of said Lomax, upon what occasion the petitioner was in company of said Lomax, and what was the subject of discourse during the time the petitioner was in said company, to all of which questions the Petitioner answered simply and truly, whereupon lord Sidmouth observed, "This cannot be the man," or words to that effect, for the petitioner had understood lord Sidmouth as having alluded to a near neighbour of the petitioner's, residing at Middleton; but when the petitioner in his prison room began to reflect upon every circumstance, he saw the improbability of his former conjecture, and was convinced that lord Sidmouth meant one Lomax, who resided at Bank Top at Manchester, and who, after the arrests which took place at that town, was recognized by the whole country as a spy in the pay of the police, the same Lomax, at whose instigation the young man, mentioned in the beginning of this petition, proposed to the petitioner the burning and sacking of Manchester, which proposal was rejected by the petitioner as before stated; that on the 29th of April, the petitioner was liberated from his confinement in Cold Bath-fields prison, and was allowed 3l to carry him home to Middleton aforesaid; that from the foregoing circumstances, the petitioner ventures to express confidence, that the House will perceive the extreme probability of the petitioner's arrest having taken place in consequence of false information furnished by the aforesaid notorious Lomax; but that whatever may be the opinion of the House respecting this conclusion, they will not fail to express that strong feeling of indignation and abhorrence which ought always to animate the guardians of the lives and liberties of Englishmen, when, as in the case of the petitioner, their lives are basely endangered and their liberties violated; wherefore the petitioner prays that the House will no longer countenance a system of terror, of blood, and of oppression, by granting to his majesty's ministers a bill, indemnifying them from the consequences of the numerous outrages by them committed against the constitution of this realm."

also presented a Petition from Elijah Dixon, of Manchester; setting forth, "That the Petitioner was, on the 12th of March 1817, whilst following his lawful occupation, apprehended by a warrant issued by lord Sidmouth, and carried to London in double irons, and was on the 15th of the same month committed to Tothil-fields bridewell, by the same noble lord, on suspicion of high treason, and there detained till the 13th of November, although the same noble lord must, or might have known, that he was perfectly innocent of the crime imputed to him; the petitioner therefore prays, that the House will be pleased to consider the justice of making the said noble lord responsible for the loss of time of the petitioner, and for the injuries which his family has suf-

¶

fered, in consequence of his long, unjust, and unredressed imprisonment; he also prays, that they will be pleased to adopt such a reform in the election of members to serve in the House, as shall give each man a feeling sense that he is really represented, and enable him once more proudly to boast of our glorious constitution, in King, Lords, and Commons."

also presented a Petition from Robert Pilkington, of Bury, Lancaster; setting forth, "That on the 18th April, 1817, a king's messenger, attended by three special constables, entered his house, demanding his attendance, and, when he disputed the authority of these intruders to seize on his person, the only authority they exhibited was, the gorget of the messenger; this he considered insufficient, but was under the necessity of submitting, as one of the messenger's attendants seized him by the collar of his coat, and dragged him from his family, which consisted of a wife and six small children, with whom he was about to retire to rest; and when he remonstrated with the messenger's attendants on being conducted in so brutal a manner (reminding them that he had not attempted to escape), only oaths and imprecations added to the disgraceful scene; he also charges these unlawful visitants with robbing his house of a number of papers and publications; also, when he was loaded with irons and seated in the mail, he heard the deputy constable of Manchester say to his emissaries that were to attend the petitioner, that he would give them five pounds if they could hang him; the petitioner hopes that the House will not suffer such violations of decorum in its officers of peace without manifesting its displeasure; after the petitioner arrived in London, he was three times conveyed to Whitehall, and twice given to expect an examination and twice disappointed; at first these officious gentlemen affected not to have sufficient information, and, when this twice-promised examination came on, he had to endure the mortification of only hearing declarations without foundation, without one word or act being specified that he had said or done, and without being asked one question; after this mock examination, he was committed on suspicion of a crime of which he was not guilty, and has had since to endure the torture of solitary incarceration for upwards of seven months, without being permitted to walk in the open air for a single hour; and in opposition to a positive declaration of lord Castlereagh in the House, his wife had been refused the privilege of seeing him during his confinement in Manchester, and that two gentlemen of respectability had met with the same denial from the governor of Surrey gaol; that, in consequence of his late imprisonment, his family has had to endure sufferings too complicated for this statement; his house has been broke up, and his family necessitated to enter the workhouse, and have there been treated in an inhuman manner; although his oldest child was then only eleven years of age, two of them, and his wife, have been confined in the workhouse dungeon, one has been in irons for three days, one has been confined a night and a day without meat, or even water to drink, with many other abuses; and when this inhuman governor was remonstrated with respecting his conduct, he had the audacity to say he had received orders how to treat them; the petitioner now hopes that, after suffering in his mind, body, character, and family, the House will not preclude him, by any bill of indemnity, from obtaining a just redress by virtue of the law of the land; but, should they pass a bill that will indemnify all those that have, under the auspices of government, committed their ravages on society during the suspension of the Habeas Corpus, to the injury of individuals and to the ruin of families, it may be assured that both law and legislators will cease to possess that respect originally paid to the British House of Commons and its admirable laws; the petitioner is of opinion that there are traitors of the blackest hue; if he be one, he refuses not to suffer; and, except the House enters into a rigid inquiry for the purpose of bringing them to condign punishment, the petitioner is convinced that it must in the sight of God, and injured society, be guilty of all the flagrant enormities that have taken place during the suspension of its own laws; the petitioner, therefore, for the honour of the nation, the welfare of society, the punishment of offenders, and the redress of injured innocence, hopes the House will possess its original dignity, in honestly, manfully, and courageously refusing to pass a bill that will indemnify villains who have committed notorious depredations with impunity."

presented the following

wished to put two questions to the noble lord,—when he proposed the report should be taken into consideration,—and what measure, if any, he intended to found upon it?

said, that as to the first question, he apprehended it was not usual for ministers to be required to state their intentions upon the presenting of such a report: with regard to the second question, he could only state that it was not his intention to propose any day when the report should be taken into consideration.

professed himself very much puzzled to find out the noble lord's reason for moving that it be printed. The noble lord had declared, that the report was not to be taken into consideration by the House; and if so, why it was worth while to print it passed a reasonable man's comprehension. The noble lord was quite right, perhaps, in his avowed opinion of the report; for it was really nothing but a jumble of nonsense. Every syllable that had been foretold had been verified: all the absurdities that satire had invented as likely to form part of this precious document were here embodied in writing, for the amusement of the country. Who the author of this valuable production was, it might be hard to say; but for any information it contained, it would have been much better if the Derby trials had been taken in short-hand, and presented to the House. It was no- thing but the old story. And well it might be, for what else had ministers to offer? There was, however, one material point, and with the other side that might constitute the chief value of the report, namely, that it was a complete whitewashing of the administration: it was related, not to the internal state of the country, but to the internal state of the administration. The whole object of it was to induce the House to believe without evidence (or rather with evidence all the other way), that ministers had exercised the powers intrusted to them with the utmost moderation and humanity. Would the House take that fact for granted, merely because it was so asserted in the curious specimen of composition just read? For what purposes had the committee been appointed? First, to defend the conduct of the former committee; and, next, to defend the conduct of ministers. Very properly for such a task, the members of the former committee, and the members of the administration, had been selected. What could be better when a man was accused, than to constitute him his own judge? Yet, after all, what had they to say? Nothing; but that the Derby trials had taken place; and that, if an insurrection had begun and proceeded, no man could tell the consequences. All had been taken for granted—not a tittle of evidence had been produced to show that there had been any such insurrection. In fact, all that had occurred, had been occasioned by the backwardness of ministers in availing themselves of the powers they undoubtedly and constitutionally possessed of arresting those on the Sunday who were about to rise on the Monday; so that, in order to have the Derby trials, it was necessary to have an insurrection; and there could be no insurrection unless ministers neglected their duty by not putting into effect the ordinary laws of the country. Contrivance and artifice were evident on the face of the whole business; and yet the report concluded with the assertion, (which every man expected, of course, from a body so constituted), that ministers were a most meritorious set of men, and had preserved the constitution from ruin and destruction. Did the noble lord really flatter himself that he could impose upon the House; or if he could, that he could juggle men of sense and independence out of doors? The noble lord was as expert as any man at such things, and the delay of this notable report had been a part of the contrivance. The committee had sat for three weeks; public curiosity had been stretched from day to day; only the day before yesterday the right hon. gentleman opposite, (Mr. Bathurst) had stated, that a new point of the utmost importance had been started, which occasioned a new delay, and the postponement of the report until long after it had been presented in the other House, naturally led to the conclusion, that there would be at least something in it. But who could assert that the report now launched upon the public contained any thing? It was unworthy to be taken into consideration, even according to the noble lord: and no measure was to be founded upon it. It arose from nothing—it was in itself nothing—and it was to lead to nothing. Nothing could come of nothing; or if the noble lords ingenuity could make something out of nothing (as, perhaps, had been very nearly accomplished when he himself was made a minister), he was afraid to avow it: he was ashamed (a quality in which he he was not always abundant) to own that a bill of indemnity was to be founded upon such a thing as now laid upon the table. Mr. Tierney said he did not believe a syllable of it; he would not believe assertions unsupported by proofs, and when all evidence to the contrary was rejected. It was not very usual for men to be judges in their own cause; but that course had been here pursued. On other occasions, when a green bag had been sent down, the aid of parliament was required; but here nothing was asked, excepting that the Crown wished for the opinion of the House, while the ministers refused the means by which only an opinion could be formed. No man in his senses would give credit to a body constituted as this committee had been. While the table was covered with petitions demanding inquiry; while the whole country demanded to be satisfied why the constitution had been suspended, this notable report was put forth. He defied the noble lord to state any reason why the report was made, but that a bill of indemnity might be founded upon it; or to show any precedent of a committee named like the present, without purpose or result; or, in plain English, without bead or tail. Where were the vouchers for this singular, not to say ridiculous production? Not one had been produced, and it would give no more satisfaction to the country, than if every member of the committee had separately risen in his place in the House, and declared, that in his opinion (having, in truth, no opinion of his own) ministers were very wise men, had acted most discreetly and impartially; and had entitled themselves to the everlasting gratitude of the country. It was scarcely worth while to oppose seriously the motion for printing a document so absurd, contemptible, and ludicrous. It would, no doubt, be a waste of the paper on which it was printed, and it would also be a waste of the time of the House to make farther comments upon it.

said, that though he did not intend to propose any thing to the House founded upon the report, yet the right hon. gentleman was, of course, at perfect liberty to do so if he thought it proper or prudent. The opinion just expressed was undoubtedly strong, and considering, that the report had been only once read, it was sufficiently summary: it was no less than that the right hon. gentleman did not believe a syllable it contained, and he of course endeavoured to excite a feeling in the House, and in the country (in both of which he would completely fail) that the report was a production wholly unworthy of notice. What reliance would be placed upon this hasty judgment, either in doors or out of doors, experience would make evident. This was not the first time the country had reason to think the right hon. gentleman not the profoundest oracle that ever sat on the other side of the House. It was not difficult to prophecy, that on the present occasion, as on many others, the right hon. gentleman would not succeed in deluding the public, and in persuading them that there had existed no danger, and that ministers had deserved no credit for their promptitude and their decision. Though the report was not to be taken into consideration on any particular day, yet occasions would be afforded for discussing it. The right hon. gentleman and his friends need not despair of occasions when they might endeavour to renew discontent and alarm. As to the assertion, that the opinion of the committee was nothing but the opinion of government, the right hon. gentleman must know too much of the constitution of that body, to suppose that the resolutions would all be passed without opposition; and it was quite a sufficient ground for appointing a com- mittee to say, that it was desirable that the country should be informed of its real situation. The danger had been great, and was now happily diminished; but it was not yet so far past, but that it might return, unless vigorous precautions were adopted. The moral and well-disposed part of the community had a right to know, as they did from this report, from what dangers they had escaped, and what yet remained to be encountered. It was no humiliation of the government or of the House to name a body for such a purpose; and while dangers still remained, they would be met by ministers with the same firmness that had hitherto distinguished them, recurring at the fit season to the salutary principles of the ordinary law. No man could deny that much had been accomplished by the powers with which the wisdom of parliament had invested ministers; and the country, now the danger was in some degree gone by, were not to be imposed upon by being told that their fears had been idle, and their precautions unnecessary. Information had been given in the only mode in which it could be communicated, and when the bill was before the House would be the more fit time for objections to or observations upon that mode. At least, however, it was fit that the report should be printed, for he did not apprehend that the House would carry the spirit of economy so far as not to consent to the printing of the report.

said, that if the noble lord was so well informed as to the feelings of the House and of the country; if he thought the disposition of the one or of the other was so favourable to him and his friends, it was singular that, instead of submitting the whole inquiry to the whole parliament, he should have picked out a body for the purpose composed almost entirely of his own special associates and adherents. The noble lord had said that his right hon. friend was at liberty to submit a motion upon the subject of the report if he thought fit to do so; but the noble lord seemed to forget that the whole objection to this document was, that it was unworthy of any attention; that it was futile in its progress, and ridiculous in its conclusion. One objection which he had to this committee was, that it was selected in such a way, and carried on its labours in such a manner, that the country was not likely to derive any benefit from its deliberations. In what way had they proceeded to obtain information? The noble lord would not tell the House how they had inquired. It was essential, however, that some farther explanation should be given on that point. Had any parole evidence been adduced? Had any person been examined viva voce? This should be stated to the House. Another reason why no confidence could be reposed in this report was, the manner in which the committee was constituted. The noble lord had professed a desire that the state of the country should be ascertained in a fair and impartial manner. But how was this proof of impartiality exhibited? The noble lord, it was true, had proposed the names of two or three gentlemen who sat on his (Mr. Brougham's) side of the House; but, with the exception of one, his noble friend (lord G. Cavendis), who could not attend, they were those who had supported the very measures which the noble lord introduced in the last session of parliament [Cries of Hear!]. He would maintain what he had said; for, as to one of those gentlemen, if there was any man to be found who, for respectability of talents as well as of character, deserved the attention of the House, it was that very gentleman (Mr. Lamb), who was selected from this part of the House, but who had recommended those measures which were mentioned in the reports of last year. He came recommended to the noble lord, not only by his character and talents, but also on the authority of the opinions which he had formerly delivered; and, therefore, he thought the nomination I of his hon. friend one of the most insidious acts which the government had practised on this or any former occasion. With respect to another hon. and learned friend (Sir A. Piggott) whom the noble lord had named on the committee, it was well known that he did not attend on the former investigation; and it was anticipated, therefore, that he would not devote his attention to the present inquiry. In point of fact, this was a committee of the last secret committee; and they were selected in this way to whitewash the government, and to justify the reports of last year. If any thing were wanting to satisfy the House and the country of the mockery of nominating a committee in this manner, it was the refusal of the noble lord to fill up the vacancy occasioned by the non-attendance of lord G. Cavendish, and of sir A. Piggott, who refused to attend on the former occasion, and who could not be expected to attend on this. Ministers attempted to make it appear that four members were taken from the opposition to sit on this committee; but the fact really was, that they had taken but one. With respect to the report, he would rather it were printed, and the country, who were anxiously watching their proceedings, and who had seen the way in which the committee was named, might also see the manner in which they had executed their duty.

maintained, that sir A. Piggott had attended the whole of the sittings of the first committee. He had no reason to know that that learned gentleman would be more engaged this year than he was last year. He knew that he had been several times in the second committee, and therefore, as far as that learned gentleman was concerned, he maintained that there was no information given to the House that he would not attend. Why, it was asked, was the inquiry carried on in a secret committee? The answer was obvious. It was necessary to have a committee of secrecy, as the evidence to be submitted to it was secret. If they acted otherwise, they would not only be breaking faith with the persons who gave them that evidence, but they would prevent the present, or any other government, from ever availing itself of similar evidence. It was impossible to examine the persons who had complained to the House, because it would in that case have been necessary to bring forward also the persons who gave evidence against them. All that was necessary, was to see that there was a primâ facie case to justify the government. This was quite different from the guilt or innocence of the persons arrested. The object was to see whether the powers entrusted to the government were executed in an arbitrary manner, or with as much moderation as the nature of the circumstances would admit.

wished to ask, whether the committee had examined any vivâ voce evidence? If no person from the opposite side of the House thought proper to answer this question, he should move that the committee be directed to return an answer as to what was the fact.

wished merely to observe, that he had stated to the House lately, that there was no precedent of a bill of indemnity after a suspension of the Habeas Corpus act, except in 1801. The noble lord had then contradicted this statement, and had told the House, that it would be more difficult to find precedents of suspensions of the Habeas Corpus act which were not followed by bills of indemnity, than of suspensions which were followed by bills of indemnity. Since that time he had examined into the subject, and he now positively repeated his assertion, that in the statute book there was no precedent for any bill of indemnity on such an occasion as that on which it was now proposed to introduce it, except in 1801.