Luddite Bicentenary

Michaelmas Term 1819: The Twelve Judges of England uphold Adam Wagstaff's conviction

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Thu, 19 Dec 2019 10:00:00 +0000

At some point during Michaelmas Term of 1819, the Twelve Judges of England considered the case of Rex vs Wagstaff, heard at Nottingham Summer Assizes in July 1819. At that time, Judgment had been reserved for their consideration:

In Michaelmas term, 1819, THE JUDGES met, and considered this case. They held the conviction right. THE JUDGES thought a letter dropped near the prosecutor with intent that it might reach him, was a sending of it to him. They also thought, that although the prosecutor saw the prisoner, yet as the prisoner did not suppose he knew him, and meant that he should not, it was no answer to the charge; and although the letter when read, contained expressions that might make the prosecutor suspect the prisoner, yet as these expressions were not so explicit as to show the prisoner did not mean to conceal himself, the case did fall within the principle laid down in Hening's case, 2 east, P.C. 1116. (a)

From then on, this was known as 'Wagstaff's Case'.

Adam Wagstaff would receive his sentence at the next Nottingham Assizes, in 1820.

The case is quoted in "Crown Cases reserved for consideration; and decided by the twelve judges of England from the year 1799 to the year 1824" (1825; p.401).

I have been unable to find any online references that allow me to pin down the precise date, hence the reference to 'Michaelmas Term', which usually ends before Christmas each year.

30th July 1819: The trial of Adam Wagstaff at Nottingham Summer Assizes for sending a threatening letter in the name of 'Genrall Ludd'

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Tue, 30 Jul 2019 14:00:00 +0000

On Friday 30th July 1819, a 27 year old framework-knitter, Adam Wagstaff, stood trial at Nottingham Summer Assizes, accused of sending a threatening letter in the name of 'Genrall Ludd' to Richard Dennis of Greasley, Nottinghamshire, earlier that year in March. The trial is possibly the last time that offences connected with Luddism were tried in Court.

The Nottingham Review of 6th August 1819 covered the trial:

ADAM WAGSTAFF, aged 27, was placed at the bar, on a charge of having, on the 12th of March, feloniously wrote and sent a letter to Richard Dennis, signed with a fictitious name, threatening to kill and murder him, and burn his property.—To prove the charge, Mr. Denman called Richard Dennis, who stated himself to be a farmer and framework-knitter at Kimberley. Prisoner, who is a framework-knitter, lived near to him, and had worked in a frame of Dennis’s. A man of the name of George Tidy worked with him in March. It appeared from what we could collect, that Tidy had laid an information against the prisoner, under the games laws, and Wagstaff wanted Dennis to turn Tidy away; this he would not do, because he belonged to the parish, and prisoner told him he was as great a rogue as Tidy, and it should be as much as seven times out of his way. On Sunday the 14th of March, in the evening, as witness was coming into his own yard at the bottom gate, prisoner was coming to the other gate, and he saw prisoner drop a letter out of his hand upon the steps in the yard, then he ran away, witness also ran, and saw him go in at his own door, so that he was sure it was the prisoner. It was a little turned seven o’clock, darkish, but light enough for him to see him. He went into his house a good deal fluttered, and told his wife to go and see after the cows.—Cross-examined by Mr. Adams—was always sure that it was Wagstaff; he might see witness; prisoner was dressed in a light coat; what he dropped seemed to be a letter. Question—You know what Luddism means, to break frames or do any other mischief? Answer—Yes, I do; I shall carry the marks of it to my grave. Hannah Dennis, the wife of the last witness, said he came in all of a flutter and sent her to look at the cows; she took the lantern with her. As she passed the garden side, she saw a letter on the ground; upon the steps just under the gate; she read in the hovel, and then took it in, and gave it to her husband. On her cross examination she said, she kept the letter by her till three weeks ago, because Mr. Rolleston, the magistrate, was not at home, but she told the constable immediately, and yet Wagstaff did not run away. She believed it was Wagstaff’s writing, but she never saw him write any but the following words to a petition when they had their frames broken seven years ago:—“Adam Wagstaff, who heard the dreadful shrieks and horrid cries, but dare not come out.”—Francis Saxton, the deputy constable of Greasley, said that on the 15th March, having been informed of the letter, he saw Wagstaff at the Barley-mow, in Nottingham, and told him there was a serious charge against him of dropping a Ludd’s letter, upon the premises of Dennis; and he answered, “why if they don’t mind their own business about me, I shall Ludd them all.” The letter was then read, as follows:—

“Richad Denniss

“If you keep that Rouge in you house Ned shall viset you and we shall be acpt too give you A little could led and you cattle too if you dont get shoot ove him very soon and Need will set you all on Fire And you Promess Need will send them too Hell and Hall ove you too and you sheep Ned will ham string And if you don thay will send me word in the course ove of day

March the 12 I GENRALL LUD.”

(INDORSED.)

“Richard Denniss

I GENRALL LUDD.”

Mr. Adams took several legal objections. The principal one was that he carried, and did not send the letter, and it was the sending which was contemplated by the Act. The indictment also said sent “to him,” which was not made out in evidence. In Hammond’s case it was decided that carrying or delivering was not sending. He also contended, that of Wagstaff was known at the time, or intended to be known, the case was not within the Act on which the indictment was framed. The Judge directed that the case should go to the Jury. A great number of very respectable witnesses were called to his character. The Jury consulted about ten minutes, and brought in their verdict of guilty. The points argued by Mr. Adams being reserved for future consideration, sentence was deferred.

The Chief Justice put the following question to the Jury for their determination—Whether they were of opinion, that at the time Wagstaff carried the letter, he intended that Dennis should know him, or thought he did know him? The Jury answered—He did not intend to be known, and thought he was not known.

12th March 1819: Threatening letter from Genrall Lud to Richard Dennis

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Tue, 12 Mar 2019 19:00:00 +0000

Richad Denniss

If you keep that Rouge in you house Ned shall viset you and we shall be acpt too give you A little could led and you cattle too if you dont get shoot ove him very soon and Need will set you all on Fire And you Promess Need will send them too Hell and Hall ove you too and you sheep Ned will ham string And if you don thay will send me word in the course ove of day

March the 12 I GENRALL LUD

(INDORSED.)

Richard Denniss

I GENRALL LUDD.

This is from the Nottingham Review, 6th August 1819.

24th December 1818: John Slater, the final Luddite convict to be deported, arrives in Australia

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Mon, 24 Dec 2018 11:00:00 +0000

'View of Sydney Cove from Dawes Point' by Joseph Lycett, c.1817/1818

On Christmas Eve, Thursday 24th December 1818, the transport ship 'The Hadlow' arrived at Port Jackson in Sydney Cove, Australia after a voyage of almost 5 months, carrying a total of 148 convicts.

On board was the notorious Nottinghamshire Luddite, John Slater, who had been convicted as long ago as April 1817 for frame-breaking during the 'Loughborough Job' and sentenced to transportation for life. This was Slater's second trial for the raid, having been acquitted of involvement in August 1816 at the end of an extraordinary trial where the Luddites supporters crowded the court room and intimidated the jury into the right outcome.

The Hadlow had left Woolwich on 2nd August 1818, calling at Sheerness 2 days later to pick up more prisoners from the Hulks there. Two of the original 148 prisoners had died during the voyage.

The Hadlow remained moored at Sydney Cove for the next 10 days, and the prisoners disembarked on 4th January 1819.

Slater's wife had applied to make the journey with her husband to New South Wales with their 5 children, but her name does not appear on the manifest, so it would appear permission was refused.

Slater was the final Luddite convict to be deported.

This information is taken from Convict Records and jenwillets.com.

7th May 1818: Francis Raynes writes to Henry Hobhouse

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Mon, 07 May 2018 10:00:00 +0000

No 3 Doughty Place
Lambeth Walk
7th May 1818

Sir,

Presuming on the introduction of Sir Thomas Maitland to you at Huddersfield in the year 1812 I [illegible] to address you. You are no doubt Sir, acquainted with my services at that period, and the light in which I now stand with His Majesty’s Government.

Greatly, infinitely should I be indebted to you Sir, would your benevolence lead you to interfere in my favour with Lord Sidmouth

I should not obtrude my self upon His Lordship or you Sir, if I had not been privately, and publicly attacked in a most cruel and unwarrantable manner

The loss of fortune a man may endure but to be bereft of character is insufferable.

I am driven from my Wife and five infant children to seek redress, which if denied me they must apply for Parochial relief—to witness this would almost turn my hair

My present unhappy situation every one must allow, arises from the service in question—for before my character was unsullied—May I again entreat you will do me the kindness to see Lord Sidmouth in my behalf; and should His Lordship be pleased to take my case into consideration, and rescue me from the impending stain [crossed out text] I shall ever feel most grateful for your charitable interference

I have the Honor to be
Sir
With true respect
Your most obt Humble Sert.
Francis Raynes
Late Captain Stirlingshire
Militia

To,

H. Hobhouse Esqr
&c &c &c

This letter can be found at HO 42/177. The 'public attacks' Raynes refer to may relate to his being mentioned in Parliament the previous February.

5th May 1818: The Luddite Samuel Caldwell (aka 'Big Sam') arrives in Australia

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Sat, 05 May 2018 11:00:00 +0000

'View of Sydney Cove from Dawes Point' by Joseph Lycett, c.1817/1818

On Tuesday 5th May 1818, the transport ship 'Neptune' arrived at Port Jackson, Sydney, Australia after a voyage of 136 days and carrying a total of 183 male convicts.

On board was the prisoner called Samuel Caldwell, aka 'Big Sam', who had been convicted 10 months earlier of frame-breaking during the 'Loughborough Job' and sentenced to transportation for life. Caldwell had avoided being tried at the infamous 'Loughborough Job' show-trial in April 1817 owing to having been taken ill and judged unfit to stand trial at that time.

Clarke and his fellow convicts had left England on 20th December August 1817. Along the way, the Neptune stopped at Cape Town, and picked up 16 more prisoners, who had escaped from New South Wales on board the 'Harriet' in November, and were to be sent back. Three of the original prisoners died during the voyage.

Although Caldwell was the final Luddite to be tried, he was not the last to be deported.

This information is taken from Convict Records and jenwillets.com.

23rd February 1818: Leicester Framework-knitters meet to petition parliament about their distress

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Fri, 23 Feb 2018 19:00:00 +0000

The Nottingham Review of Friday 6th March 1818 carried the following article about framework-knitters in Leicester:

A numerous meeting of the framework-knitters of the town and county of Leicester, was held on Monday se'nnight, at the Fleur-de-lis Inn, Belgrave-gate, persuant to public advertisment, for the purpose of petitioning the Legislature, on the subject of their truly distressing situation, and praying relief: when a number of resolutions and a petition founded thereon, were unanimously adopted.

20th February 1818: The Nottingham Review writes on the plight of Leicester framework-knitters

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Tue, 20 Feb 2018 10:00:00 +0000

The Nottingham Review of Friday 20th February posted the following article about plight of framework-knitters in Leicester being championed in the holiest places:

We learn from undoubted authority, that the framework-knitters of Leicester, to the disgrace of their employers, are now reduced in their prices even lower than last year.—This odious sin of oppression was never more ably exposed than on Sunday week, in the afternoon, by the Rev. Robert Hall, of Leicester, at his own meeting-house, from Ecclesiastes iv.1. “So I returned, and considered all the oppressions that are done under the sun; and behold the tears of such as were oppressed, and they had no comforter; and on the side of their oppressors there was power, but they had no comforter.”—In commencing his sermon, the preacher said, “he did not wish to be personal, but he must ease his conscience, of a duty he ought to have done aforetime;” and we are assured, more independent, sharp, and cutting reproof, rarely comes from the pulpit; and whilst advocating the cause and the miserable state of the starving workman, his eloquent shafts were barbed with more than ordinary severity against the master manufacturers, numbers of whom were present, and we have no doubt but the thunder of this animated address will long reverberate in the ears of many who heard it.

The article was immediately followed up below with the following:

On Sunday last, at Leicester, the same Minister preached his annual sermons for the cause of Baptist Missions. The collection amounted to 47l.

19th February 1818: Charles Mundy says Francis Ward was central to Nottinghamshire Luddism

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Mon, 19 Feb 2018 11:00:00 +0000

Bath Febry 19th. 1818
Thrusday

My dear Sir

I have just recd a letter from Mr. Lockett desiring me to give you the best account I can, from memory, of the statement made by William Woodward a [illegible] [illegible] who recd sentence of death at Leicester at the [last] Lent assizes for a Highway robbery but was reprieved for transportation for Life, respecting the plan laid at the summer assizes preceding (namely 1816) for assassinating Mr. ~~justice~~ Baron Graham before whom James Towle was tried & convicted for the outrage at Heathcotes factory at Loughbr’o.

Woodward having lived for some time at Lambley in Nottinghamshire, he & his Wife being both framework knitters, had contracted an intimacy with the Blackburns who livd at Lambley, & through them with many of the most notorious of the Luddites, but I believe were never concerned in any of the framebreaking jobs.—Woodward’s wife was a material evidence against the Luddites who were tried at Leicester at the same assizes when her Husband as tried for the Highway robbery. After Woodwards condemnation I had frequent interviews with when he did not entertain the slightest hope of mercy. He told me among others things that he had been applied to, I now forget by whom, to join in an attempt to shoot the judge in the court at Leicester ~~in august~~ at the summer assize 1816, & to rescue James Towle & John Slater from the Bar. that several persons from Nottingham also went to Leicester for that purpose. that the Court was so guarded by Special Constables the day Towle & Slater were tried they could not get in in sufficient numbers to attempt any thing.—after Towle was convicted & condemned to death Woodward went to a publick House in Leicester near to the Court where he found Francis Ward of Nottingham & many others from Nottingham, among them were William Towle & William Withers who were afterwards executed for the same offence for which James Towle had that day been convicted. he mentioned Ward said something must be done to put a stop to judges and magistrates going on in this way, that they had nothing for it but to make an example of the judge before whom James Towle had been convicted. that it would be easy to way lay him & shoot him the next day on the road between Leciester & Hinkley. that plenty of money would be collected & that he would give a good medal (meaning as Woodward suppos’d a Guinea) over & above to the man who should do it.—afterwards Ward said he would give ten pounds out of his own pocket rather than it should not be done.—many of the party said they thought it too dangerous an undertaking; & began to leave the room.—Ward then askd Woodward if he did not think he could get some men to come from Barwell, a large manufacturing place between Leicester & Hinkley ~~& a great escort of bad characters~~ of which place, I think, Woodward was a native, & where he had, I know, resided for some time.—Ward told him he would provide plenty of money for the purpose, that they might way lay the judge in a hollow part of the road about a mile from Leicester, & shoot him. Woodward undertook to go to Barwell. Ward paid for the liquor that had been drunk by the party. Woodward went to Barwell, but the people to whom he applied thought the scheme too hazardous and would not undertake it.—Joshua Mitchell, William Towle, & William Withers previous to their execution, separately, gave nearly the same statement.—Joshua Mitchell & Thomas Savage repeatedly told me that F. Ward was the head manager of all the outrages (usually call’d Ludding. Mitchell repeatedly said to me “you may take my word that so long as Frank Ward is at Liberty outrages of this sort will never cease.” Mitchell also said that a few days after James Towle & John Slater were apprehended in 1816 ~~because~~ he went from Nottingham with Frank Ward to Wimeswold near Loughborough, to meet one Francis White, a lace maker from Loughborough, to arrange about a subscription for the defence of the men in custody. Ward askd who the magistrates were that had the thing in hand. & on being inform’d, he added “a stop must be put to their going on taking people up men in this manner. you should ~~right~~ write to them to threaten their lives or those of their families, & if that does not keep them quiet we must see about stronger measures.”—

Savage told me ~~Ward~~ White was the first man who proposed to him the destruction of Heathcotes factory & desird him to communicate to Frank Ward the wish of the Loughborough men that it should be done & their willingness to sucscribe.—White absconded a few days after Savage & Mitchell were committed & is now in France.—Savage told me Ward was, in his opinion, the most dangerous man in Nottingham next to ~~Grosven~~ Grosvenor Henson who he said was his superior in abilities & education & who, to use his own expression, was a perfect Robespierre.—

The above is all I can recollect of my conversation with Woodward & is, I think I can say, pretty accurate.—

I wrote as you recommended to Mrs. Blackburn. I fear by what I learn from Enfield this hypocritical scoundrel Ward will slip through our fingers.—I hope to be able to return to Weymouth early in nest week. illness has detain’d me here. I propose being in Leicestershire but the middle of March if possible.—

I remain dear Sir
Ever yours faithfully

C. G. Mundy

[To] H. Hobhouse Esq

Since writing my letter I have recd the [illegible] by which I find the subject of this Honest Industrious serious person who maintains his mother & sisters & Wife & children by hard Labour is disposd of in the House of Commons..—

This letter can be found at HO 42/174.

17th February 1818: Francis Ward is mentioned in another House of Commons debate about the suspension of Habeas Corpus

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Sat, 17 Feb 2018 13:00:00 +0000

MOTION RESPECTING THE PETITIONS COMPLAINING OF IMPRISONMENT UNDER THE HABEAS CORPUS SUSPENSION ACT.

Lord Folkestone moved, that the Petitions of Francis Ward, William Benbow, John Knight, Samuel Haynes, Joseph Thomas Evans, William Ogden, John Stewart, and John Bagguley, who had been imprisoned under the act for the Suspension of the Habeas Corpus, praying the House to investigate the treatment which they had received, should be entered as read, which was done accordingly.—His lordship then proceeded to observe, that when he presented the petition of Francis Ward to the House, he had stated that he should afterwards move to have that and the other petitions, presented on the same subject, referred to a committee of the House, when they might take into their consideration all the circumstances detailed in those petitions. He was anxious, as early as possible, to bring this case before the House, because it had been intimated, by a noble lord, that a bill of indemnity to the servants of the Crown would be asked for as a matter of course; that the question was to be brought forward, not for the grave and serious discussion of the House, not as a measure that was to depend on its own merits, and to be rejected or approved as the conduct of his majesty's ministers should warrant; but as a measure which the ministers were entitled to demand of the House, and which the House, in its legislative capacity, could not refuse. It appeared to him, that a strange confusion prevailed in the minds of several persons with respect to that bill. They seemed to think, that it' was really due to the ministers of the Crown, as the noble lord had stated, without any previous investigation; but if he knew any thing of the principles of our constitution, he would be bold to say, that it was the duty of the House, on this occasion, to take care, not so much of the ministers of the Crown, as of the liberties of the people. Before they suffered themselves to give any countenance to a bill of indemnity, they should see that the people had not been damnified: they should first appoint a committee to examine the grievances which the petitioners had stated, and to ascertain whether the ministers had not exceeded their powers. Nothing could be more hostile to the spirit of liberty, nothing more destructive of that generous system which our forefathers had delivered down to us, than the doctrine that a bill of this nature should be passed as a matter of course.—The Habeas Corpus act had, within the last hundred and twenty-four years, been frequently suspended—no fewer than nine, ten, or twelve times; but these suspensions had been followed by a bill of indemnity only on one occasion, and it was curious that that bill of indemnity was asked by the same gentleman who now asked for one; for though they did not occupy the same situations which they now occupied, it was the same individuals who applied then that applied now. So that the only instance of a bill of indemnity was a precedent of their own: they acted wrong in the first instance, and now they thought to benefit by their own wrong: they were calling upon the House to screen them from the consequences of their late violations of the law, merely, as they stated, because they had been protected from such consequences before! But he wished to observe to the House, that bills of indemnity, in cases of suspension of the Habeas Corpus act, were altogether of modern date—he had taken some pains to look into the proceedings of parliament, and he could find no precedent earlier than the 40th of the present king. It was always to be borne in mind, that the House had yet had no satisfactory proof of the necessity for vesting ministers with the extraordinary powers which the suspension of the Habeas Corpus had conferred on them. When they applied to the legislature for the bill by which this was effected, they asserted, that sedition and treason prevailed in several counties, and that the ordinary powers of the law were not sufficient to repress them. This was the ground upon which they desired to be intrusted with extraordinary powers. But what had been the result? The only instance which could at all be adduced of any outrage having arisen from the evil spirit which was said to prevail was, the frame-breaking at Derby and Nottingham, followed by the trials for high treason at Derby, where three individuals suffered the punishment of the law. No gentleman had shown that any other case of treason had been found to exist. It was evident, therefore, that the dangers of the country had been exaggerated beyond their proper dimensions; and that they might have been removed, had government taken a different course from that which they had pursued. But as to the manner in which ministers had exercised their powers, the very fact of their asking a bill of indemnity was an admission of their having abused them. From the beginning to the end of the business, it seemed to him that they had violated the law in every respect; and he was at a loss to know how gentlemen would justify themselves in the eyes of their constituents—in what manner they could reconcile it to their, own consciences—to grant an indemnity under such circumstances.

It was admitted on all hands, that ministers had received, by the Suspension act, no new powers of apprehension and release—they had only received the additional power of retaining persons arrested, without bringing them to trial, beyond the term fixed by law for that purpose. They had no new power of taking up persons without warrant issued in the usual manner. There was a regular form and process in which only men could be arrested; they ought to know the accusation against them, and to be themselves examined. This was the case with respect to every inferior crime—the subject was regulated by law-books and by acts of parliament. Not one of the regular forms had been complied with in the present case. He would not at present dispute the power of the secretary of state to issue warrants to apprehend persons on a charge of high treason; but he must observe, that this power, said to be vested in the secretary of state, was undoubtedly an anomaly. It was a usurpation, and not above a hundred and fifty years old. It had been disputed at the time of the Revolution, and it was only by a decision in the time of king William that it was confirmed. One of the judges declared on that occasion (as appeared by sir Benjamin Shower's Reports), that he conceived the secretary of state had power to administer an oath, because he had power to commit. It would have been a much more legitimate conclusion, to have inferred that he could not commit, because he could not administer an oath. Lord Camden said, he founded his opinion entirely on that decision. But, as he had already said, he did not now mean to dispute the power of the secretary of state to commit. It was a right, however, of modern practice, which some of the greatest lawyers had pronounced to be a usurpation, and a perfect anomaly—and if that power was continued, they ought to put an end to the anomaly by giving a power to the secretary of state to administer an oath. But if the secretary of state had the power to issue warrants to apprehend persons on a charge of high treason, he ought not to do this without attending to certain forms. He did not find any statute or any other guide to determine the form to be gone through, before the secretary of state could issue such warrant; but he could not doubt that the same forms ought to be observed in cases of high treason, which were used in the case of all inferior crimes; and he knew that the forms of proceeding, in the case of inferior crimes, were pointed out and directed by law. A justice of peace, before committing, in the case of inferior crimes, must take the examination of the party, and the oath of the accuser, and transmit them to the proper court where the person so committed would have to be tried. Was the law to take all these precautions in the case of inferior crimes, and to be blind in the case of higher offences? and was the secretary of state to be absolved from the necessity of taking the precautions which every magistrate was bound to take? But in cases of treason itself, justices of peace, in ordering commitments, were bound by act of parliament to proceed in the same way as in the case of inferior crimes. A justice of peace could only commit for treason as felony and breach of the peace, and proceed in the same manner as in cases of felony, or breach of the peace.

Now none of these forms had been observed with respect to any of the persons whose petitions lay on the table. With respect to the individual whose petition he had first presented, Francis Ward, the proceedings against him had originated not with the secretary of state, but with the magistrates of Nottingham.—The officers began searching his house without showing any warrant or authority whatever. The proceedings in that case appeared indeed to have been irregular from the very beginning. Next, with respect to the treatment of those persons in prison, he knew he should be told that on this subject there was great exaggeration— and it might be so. He himself had happened to see the directions sent down by the secretary of state to one of the prisons where several of these persons were confined. It was a particular order that irons should not be used unless necessary. But though the secretary of state gave such directions, he took care that the magistrates should not be allowed to see whether these orders were attended to or not—whether or not the persons were subject to ill treatment—and therefore, notwithstanding the order, he would say, that the secretary of state was responsible for every instance of ill treatment contrary to It is own directions. But supposing even that their ill treatment was exaggerated— supposing even that the evils which they endured might be described too emphatically—it was by no means wonderful, that men taken as the petitioners were from their families, and detained so long in confinement, should be very impatient under their imprisonment; and express that impatience in terms of strong resentment. But there was one part of their treatment which was not exaggerated—their solitary confinement —a thing unknown to our old law—and in the opinion of many persons so grievous a punishment, that it was not inferior to death itself. He begged leave to read an entry from the Journals, to show the idea which was formerly entertained of solitary confinement. It was in 1689, and it referred to the case of lord Castlemaine, who was confined in the Tower under a warrant of the secretary of state, on a charge of high treason. In a petition to the House, of which he was a member, he desired that he might have the liberty of the Tower, and that he might not be kept in close confinement; and the House being informed that he was not allowed to see his friends or servants, an order was made that they should be admitted to him, that a bill should be brought in to regulate the imprisonment of the subject, and that Mr. Attorney General should prosecute the keeper of Newgate; such were the resolutions of the Commons at that time; and he hoped that the House would follow the example, and appoint a committee to examine into the truth of the matters alleged in these petitions, and take measures for giving redress.

But he contended also, that the manner in which the petitioners was discharged was as contrary to the practice of the law, as the manner in which they had been committed to prison. He would ask the attorney-general how persons could get out of gaol who were committed to be delivered in due course of law, without pardon or acquittal? They could only come out by due course of law, except by pardon. Letting them out on their own recognizances, was only letting them out on an inferior sort of bail. Now, he would contend, that the manner in which the petitioners were allowed to come out was as illegal on the part of the officers of the Crown, as it was unjust towards the petitioners themselves. It was illegal because it was contrary to all the statutes from Edward the first; and unjust, because it left the parties with a stigma on their characters, which, if they had been tried, would most probably not have attached to them. The first statute on this subject was that of the 3rd of Edward 1st, commonly called the statute of Westminster. This act went to replevins, the only sort of bail known at that time; and from this it was argued in favour of the power of a secretary of state to commit, that the power which the king formerly possessed had been transferred to the secretary of state. A magistrate could not bail in a case where he could not commit. By a subsequent statute of Philip and Mary, it was enacted, that all the offences were not bailable which had been enumerated in the statute of Westminster; and that a magistrate could not discharge a prisoner upon his recognizance, if committed on a charge of high treason. So that if it was true that these persons were committed for high treason, they could not be let out on bail, much less on their recognizances.— and their discharge was contrary to law. If it was said, that had this been illegal, the court of King's-bench would have objected to the proceeding— he could only answer, that the court had only then to consider of the recognizances, so that the question of the legality of their discharge was non coram judice; and as to any argument deduced from the voluntary appearance of the prisoners in the court to have their recognizances discharged, and the acknowledgment of the legality of the preceding thereby implied, the answer was, that no subsequent act of the prisoners could have any retrospective effect, so as to render legal what was net previously decided to be according to law. But even admitting that magistrates had the power of bailing for high treason, they did not possess that power as lately exercised; for in the case of the prisoners, one magistrate had taken their recognizances in some instances, whereas by the act of Philip and Mary, in all bailable offences it was necessary that the bail should be given before two justices, and one of those the justice who had taken the examination. The mode, therefore, in which these persons were discharged was contrary to law, as well as their discharge itself. It was obvious, that if this system was pot stopped, the secretary of state would possess a dreadful power of punishing without trial.

An hon. and learned friend of his had lately expatiated, with great truth, on the evils arising from the delay of justice in the Northern counties. Suppose that in one of those Northern counties which had been alluded to—Westmoreland for instance— a man were committed by the secretary of state a week after the assizes; there he might lie for eleven months, and upon the near approach of the next assizes might be bailed by a magistrate, who had no right to do so, and discharged, without having any remedy for his long imprisonment. Such a case might arise at any future period in the four Northern counties, if the principle lately acted upon were admitted to be law. It was true he might bring his action for false imprisonment; but if no more information were given him of the charge against him than had been given the men who had been confined under the late suspension act; that is, if he was not allowed to know the facts with which, or the persons by whom, he was charged—two or three witnesses might be brought forward who would swear to particular facts, and he would have the costs to pay.

It might appear strange, that he who was so decidedly against the state imprisonments—who thought the arrest and treatment of the persons who had suffered by them were uncalled for and oppressive —should yet complain of their discharge; but on a little consideration it would be allowed that he was perfectly consistent. He complained of the manner in which these men were discharged, because it took from them all remedy—because it deprived them of all means of clearing their character, and obtaining compensation for the losses they had suffered, and the hardships to which they had been subjected. But this was not his only motive, nor was it the only duty of the House to see these men righted. It was the duty of the House to take notice of the violation of the laws, and to punish those who were their violators, though the petitioners had had no connexion with the transactions in question, and had no complaints to make against the government. In alluding to what was said in a former debate, that no person of consequence was imprisoned under the suspension act, that no gentleman was arrested who could make his complaints be heard through the medium of his speeches, that no victim was made whose fate and sufferings could excite the attention or call forth the indignation of the country, he declared his belief that such a position was true; and that his majesty's ministers were well aware of the security they derived from the low rank of their prisoners. They seized upon them because they wanted victims of some kind to justify their measures, and it was not safe to lay hold of others who would not have submitted so quietly to their fate, or have accepted of their discharge on such conditions, who could neither have been imprisoned nor turned out of prison without creating some noise. Not only was the rank of these victims such as to preclude them from making their complaints be heard with effect, but the House was told that their complaints ought not to be listened to, because their allegations were false.— It had been argued, that they could not be believed, and that therefore their petitions for inquiry laid no sufficient ground for the present motion. Even admitting the premises of the gentlemen opposite, he could not see the justness of their conclusion. If the allegations of the petitioners were as false as they were contended to be, he still thought his motion ought to be entertained, in order to have them disproved, and to show to the country that ministers, in the exercise of the extraordinary powers entrusted to them, had not proceeded with unnecessary rigour or acted contrary to the authority of law. He had been told that Francis Ward, whose petition he had made the ground of his motion, was a bad character, and therefore unworthy of the attention of the House. But he would ask, on what ground the charge was advanced? Had he done any thing which had been proved against him?—Had he been convicted of any offence? On the old maxim of law, which he was sorry to see discountenanced by some members of the House, every man ought to be presumed innocent till he was found to be guilty; and this person ought therefore to be considered as honest and credible till he was convicted of being the contrary. He would not only rely on this general doctrine, but he would say that he had the authority of government itself for declaring that this Ward was not a dangerous character, if the secretary of state might be judged by his acts. The Habeas Corpus act was suspended in March, and the object of it (an improper object, in his opinion), was declared to be to confine dangerous persons. Yet Ward was not apprehended till late in June, after the disturbance in Nottingham, and the outrages in the neighbourhood, which was represented as in rebellion. He had a right therefore to conclude, that Ward was not a person of a dangerous character, or he would have been previously apprehended (if the secretary of state had not suffered him to continue at large, that he might become one of his victims); and that having been apprehended he would have been brought to trial, instead of being discharged. But he did not think the question of the character of the man, as it applied to the present motion, a matter of any consequence. It might be more advantageous, if an impression on the feelings of the House were regarded, that the first petition which should be brought forward, should be from a man whose character stood clear; as, for instance, the man whose petition had that night been presented by his hon. and learned friend. As a matter of justice, it would be better perhaps, that if the cases themselves were equal, that if this man, whose character was not clear, should be first attended to by the House, because such a person was less likely to receive assistance and protection from others in obtaining justice. A testimonial had been sent to him with the petition of Ward, by persons who stated themselves to be his neighbours, but who were not known to him (lord F.) to the good character of Ward. He should not, however, take up the time of the House with any arguments on this subject, for he did not ground his motion on the character of the petitioners but on the breach of the law which had taken place in their persons, and he thought the House would see the absolute necessity of inquiring a little into the treatment of those who had been apprehended, imprisoned, and subsequently got rid of in the manner he had described, He hoped the House would agree with him, and he should move, "That a Committee be appointed to examine into the truth of the allegations of the said Petitions, and report their opinions thereupon to the House."

Lord Castlereagh said, on rising to make some observations on the motion of the noble lord, he must first ask whether that motion was consistent with the notice which the noble lord had given to the House? He had understood the noble lord formerly to allude to the case of Francis Ward, and to give notice that he would move for a specific inquiry into the allegations of his petition. He had, however, widely departed from that declared intention, and had introduced into his speech the discussion of, more comprehensive topics, connected with the general measure of the Suspension act, and the cases of all those who had been imprisoned under the powers which it conferred. But though the noble lord had altered his course by taking all the petitions for the basis of his motion, it did not follow that he (lord Castlereagh) should alter his; nor would he do so. He would particularly advert to the case of Ward, which the noble lord threw in the back ground, and for inquiring into which, had the noble lord confined himself to it, he would not have objected to a committee. He was willing to allow that, if such a committee had been appointed, the noble lord might consistently have moved to refer other petitions to it; but by his speech he had departed from the grounds of his motion, and had dwelt only on the necessity of a general investigation. The noble lord had alluded to the probability that his majesty's ministers would introduce a bill of indemnity to protect them from any of the legal consequences of the late exercise of the powers intrusted to them by parliament, and he had declared that he had bestowed some attention to the nature and history of such measures; but he could not compliment the noble lord on the accuracy of his reasoning, or the success of his research. The noble lord had said, that though there were numerous instances of the suspension of the Habeas Corpus act, from the commencement of the last century down to the present time, yet that there was only one precedent for a bill of indemnity, and that had been passed as a protection to a cabinet composed nearly of the same persons who were now about to apply for it. Relying on the accuracy of this statement, the noble lord had called upon ministers to produce another instance of the passing of a bill of indemnity after the exercise of the powers conferred by the suspension act; but the noble lord must allow him to set him right, by stating the converse of that proposition; and he apprehended that he should be more correct in challenging the noble lord to produce an instance where it was necessary to exercise the extraordinary powers of the suspension, which was not followed by an act of indemnity. The last precedent, the bill of indemnity in 1801 was pretty extensive, for it extended to acts done under all the suspensions of the constitution from 1793 to 1801. But in the reign of king William there were not less than three bills of indemnity passed. There was one after the rebellion in 1715 and another after the rebellion in 1745. In fact, the noble lord would find, that an act of indemnity had been granted in every case where a suspension act had passed, and where the mischiefs to be provided against had led to the necessity of putting extraordinary powers into the hands of the ministers of the Crown for the stability of government, and the safety of the country.

The noble lord had assumed, that an application for a measure of this kind, after the exercise of the extraordinary powers put into the hands of government by the legislature, amounted always to a confession of the oppressive rigour with which they had acted, and of the commission of deeds which they could not justify to the country on their responsibility. This was an unfair view of the case. The suspension act, which was never passed by the legislature except with the view of meeting a danger which it believed could not be encountered by the ordinary powers of the law, only allowed government to commit suspected persons, and bound them over to prosecute. In the exercise of this authority, he denied that his majesty's ministers had committed any unnecessary acts of severity, or had transgressed the bounds of the trust reposed in them. He denied that his noble friend, the secretary of state for the home department, had been guilty cither of cruelty or injustice. He denied that he had given his warrant for commitment without the evidence of credible witnesses, taken on oath. He denied that he had committed one individual on the testimony of the person (Oliver) so much alluded to by the other side of the House. He denied that a single arrest had taken place without not only having the depositions of credible witnesses, but the authority of the law officers of the Crown. The noble lord, however, went on such grounds as would render any justification of this kind quite inadmissible, and would prove the criminality of ministers in whatever manner they exercised the powers entrusted to them by parliament. He had argued that there was no necessity for the Suspension act. The House had, however, thought otherwise; and after, by a great majority, placing in the hands of ministers extraordinary powers, which they were called to exercise on their own responsibility, ministers would have betrayed their trusts, if, seeing the necessity of exercising them for the maintenance of the public tranquillity, and the preservation of the government and constitution, they had refrained from acting as they had done. Parliament had proceeded to legislate on two reports of committees of the House. Both these reports stated (and the noble lord would allow him to say, that there was not among the members of those committees one dissenting voice on the subject) that a bold and dangerous conspiracy was organized against the frame of government, and the peace of the country; and that this conspiracy was endeavouring to take advantage of the unavoidable distresses of the times, to turn the physical force of the people against the existence of the state, and the order of society. Government had been armed with powers to meet the danger, and had exercised those powers consistently with the tenor of existing laws and the conditions of their trust.

On this ground he would meet the noble lord, and say that there had been no violation of the law. He agreed with him that all the forms of law should be observed, that witnesses should be examined, and that no arrest should take place without proper evidence; but he denied that this principle made it necessary to place a witness, who gave his oath under the Suspension act, in the situation of other witnesses, or that a magistrate was bound to send his informations into a court, as he would be bound in ordinary cases. The ordinary course was for a magistrate to lay the evidence on which he committed, with the names of the witnesses, before the bench; but it was plain that this principle could not be acted upon on the present occasion without defeating the object which the legislature had in view. He would put a case:—supposing a magistrate had offered to the secretary of state evidence on oath, on the truth of which he completely relied, affecting the existence of the government, or necessary to the preservation of the public tranquillity, and supposing that that magistrate could only obtain and transmit such evidence on condition that the names of the witnesses were to be concealed, or that neither he nor they were to be exposed to the consequences of giving such important information—could his noble friend, acting on his responsibility, have refused to listen to such testimony, or could he have re- fused his warrant to commit the person whom it affected? He was convinced that such a principle could not be maintained, and should be glad to be informed in what situation his noble friend would stand, if after having acted on such evidence, he was required to justify, in a court of law the commitment he had made? It was altogether a false view of the bill in contemplation, to consider it as a bill for the protection of the ministers of the Crown: it was for the protection of individuals who had come forward to give information of the utmost importance to the security of the country; but which could not be elicited otherwise than by the prospect of such protection as the measure alluded to held out. Either, then, these individuals must be protected, which protection was of such importance in their eyes, that without it they would not have given their information, or the ministers of the Crown must be exposed to punishment, not for their own misdeeds, but for refusing to give up those who had enabled them to detect the conspirators. If the ordinary course of law had been sufficient, why should recourse have been had to the suspension of the Habeas Corpus? The suspension was for the express purpose of protecting individuals from the hazard which might attend the disclosure, in an open trial, of the information which they had given; and without such protection no information could be had, as none would venture to offer it at the risk of his own safety. On such grounds indemnity was always judged necessary, not to cover ministers, but to protect those who saved their country. If the question were at all inquired into, it would appear that upon every principle of justice such a protection was necessary, and to deny it would be attended with insurmountable difficulties.

With respect to the hardships of imprisonment, of which so much had been said, this was no question to be entertained by the House without great irregularity: for those individuals who thought themselves aggrieved, had always their remedy at hand; the ordinary courts of law were open to them, and he apprehended there would be nothing in the bill of Indemnity to preclude them from bringing their action. The suspension of the Habeas Corpus only prevented trial during the operation of that measure. When that was no longer necessary, there was nothing to prevent individuals who conceived themselves aggrieved farther than by the mere confinement, from seeking redress; but this was a question to be tried only by the judges of the land, and to this they were fully competent. He trusted, therefore, that the House would agree with him in thinking, that there was no necessity for a committee of inquiry. With regard to the hardships of which, those petitions complain, much delusion had been practised, which had been the cause of much inflammation without, and misrepresentation within that House. Some of those petitions were found even not to have been signed by those whose names were subscribed to them. In one of those petitions, heavy complaints were made of the great danger arising to the petitioner's health from the damp state of the dungeon in which he was confined. Upon inquiry, however, by several members of the House, it was found that the accommodations were comfortable, and that the rooms were such as the hon. gentlemen themselves could wish to have if they should be confined in such a place. These petitions were brought, he had no doubt, for the purpose of putting the House into an invidious predicament—for the purpose of creating clamour, inflammation, and discontent, because parliament would not step out of its way to interfere with what evidently belonged to other parts of our system. Let the plaintiffs bring forward their action in the proper place, and there could be no doubt of inquiry. With respect to the number of petitions now brought forward, he had to observe that there was nothing startling in the case. In no one instance had he heard of a bill of indemnity having been contemplated, but similar petitions were' brought forward, and gentlemen opposite were equally ready to vouch for the truth of the statements which they exhibited; but this had never induced the House to step aside to inquire into such ex-parte statements by a committee who should examine witnesses not upon oath.

The statements of Ward, in every part of his case, afforded the most flagrant instances of misrepresentation. The manner in which the noble lord had described Ward's original imprisonment was quite incorrect; but to this he would speak afterwards. The first arrest of Mr. Ward was by the magistrates of Nottingham, upon suspicion not of high treason, but of being implicated in those horrible acts which disgraced that part of the country. When he was within a few days of being dismissed from confinement upon this charge, he was committed afresh upon a warrant from the secretary of state upon charges of a treasonable nature. The complaint of being confined with common felons was applicable only to the first period of imprisonment when he was confined as a felon. With respect to the place of his confinement, it appeared from the affidavit of the gaoler (which his lordship read) that the walls of his room were perfectly dry and free from damp, that there was no offensive smell but what arose from fumigation that he had a bed, bolster, blankets, and a bedstead, that he never made any complaint to the gaoler, nor was he ever loaded with irons or fetters. When afterwards removed to the gaol of Oxford, it could be proved that his complaints were equally ill-founded, and that when he wished for any change it was attended to as soon as solicited, for which he himself expressed his gratitude. This man affected the character of an extremely moral and religious person, and complained much that he had not the privilege of attending public worship. He had been confined there from the 21st of June, and from that day to the 1st of August, he had never once expressed a wish to that purpose; and the first notice they had of such a wish was by a letter to his wife. This letter, which the gaoler never saw, was noticed by the secretary of state. Inquiry was immediately made why the prisoner was not allowed to attend public worship. The gaoler wrote in reply, that there were no objections whatever made, had he expressed any wish to that purpose, and that he could sit in his own scat on Wednesday and Friday mornings and Sunday afternoon. With regard to any other complaints, he never made any remonstrances to the officers of the gaol; and it appeared that another prisoner (Haynes) who bad been treated in the same way, expressed his gratitude for the kindness he had experienced. When he complained of solitary confinement, he was allowed to join another prisoner, and they were permitted the use of a yard. It likewise appeared, that his confinement was not attended with any prejudice to his health, but that he had left the gaol as well as when he came to it. When, afterwards, the gaol became crowded by the number of other prisoners, lord Sidmouth ordered that he should be removed.

It was excessively painful to allude to the moral character of an individual, but it was necessary to prevent the House from being carried away by their feelings. He must protest against the attempt to mislead the House by ex-parte statements. The House, he trusted, would not suffer their feelings to be trifled with, nor call in question the conduct of ministers in the exercise of an arduous duty, on such grounds as the petition on the table contained. As to the morals of the petitioner, he could prove them to be very different from what the petition might lead gentlemen to expect. He must here, however, refrain from entering into all the evidence he could produce on the subject, for the same reasons for which he could not bring forward the evidence against those committed under the Suspension act. The danger of disclosure to those who gave evidence was the cause of concealment. But he could notwithstanding, satisfy the House as to the petitioner's moral character. From the terms of his petition, he might be supposed to be more than ordinarily religious; when complaining of the officers, his expressions were: "Seeing all remonstrance in vain, the petitioner reluctantly submitted to that which he thought diametrically opposed to both law and justice; the petitioner has no doubt but the sequel will prove to the House that he did not oppose the police from motives of fear; no; the man who is guided by this rule 'do unto others as 'you would they should do unto you,' has nothing to fear; and that rule which was laid down by no less a personage than Jesus Christ has long been adopted and acted upon by the petitioner, so that he had no reason to dread the thoughts of ten or twelve constables searching his premises for seditious and treasonable documents; it was not from fear, but from a consciousness of the rectitude of the petitioner's conduct as a man and a subject, &c." Then, to give an idea of his distress and of its peculiar operation on his sensitive nature, the petitioner, after describing his imprisonment proceeded thus: "In the foregoing statement the petitioner has attempted to give the House a plain detailed account of the sufferings, without exaggeration, he has undergone while detained under the Suspension act; but alas this attempt comes far short of giving a full and clear description of the unheard-of cruelty he has been treated with, as no mention has been made of the excruciating torture of mind the petitioner has undergone;—here language fails, and to form any conception of his case it will be necessary to figure to the imagination a man who through life has taken a very active part in it, being accustomed to labour hard for his bread, by frequently having to work twelve, fourteen, sixteen hours a day, and sometimes more, the existence of a family depending on his exertions, which all at once ceases, and the intolerable state of inactivity succeeds; added to this, being possessed of all the finer feelings that adorn human nature, and those are for a long period stretched on the rack by his being dragged away from all that is near and dear to man in life; thus the glowing affection of a son, a husband, and a father, being simultaneously aroused, contributed not to sweeten the bitter cup of life, but to render it insupportable; for such a one, who has never been within the walls of a prison before, to be cut off from society and immured within the walls of a dungeon not fit for a murderer to be confined in; what inconceivable sufferings must such a one experience! nothing but the thoughts of his innocence could enable him to bear up under the intolerable load, &c."

Now, in complete contradiction to all this, he was prepared to show that this petitioner had been engaged in the most atrocious crimes. In 1816, two persons, Thomas Savage and Joshua Mitchell, who had been regularly convicted of being concerned in the dreadful proceedings which had taken place at Leicester and Nottingham, suffered death. These men, on the eve of their execution, had made a last atonement to their country for the crimes they had committed, by a full confession of what they knew of the transactions referred to. Their depositions had been taken by the magistrates of the place, and transmitted to government by Mr. Munday. These depositions he would now read, suppressing all the names alluded to in them, except the name of Francis Ward. The first was the confession of Joshua Mitchell, who was executed at Leicester for a felony committed at Loughborough. In his confession he stated:—"B shot A—C B told me that Francis Ward had urged him to go to Loughborough to destroy the machinery; he had mentioned the thing to him on Saturday evening, and said there would be a deal of money in it; the workmen had offered to give 100l. for the destruction of the machinery. Several of us met at the Navigation-inn, and formed our plans. I received from 3 to 4l. from Ward for acts I performed. Ward gave me 10l. for the part I took in destroying the works at Woodpeck-lane, in Nottingham. Our committee met at the Duke of York in Nottingham, Francis Ward was the treasurer. Ward belonged also to the Loughborough committee. He plotted the outrage at Castle Downington. Ward employed me to shoot a man who had refused to turn out, and offered 4l. as my reward." The House, while listening to this paper, might be disposed to think that what it stated was fabulous. They could hardly be prepared to hear that men had been hired to commit murder. The fact, however, had been clearly proved, that assassinations had been regularly planned, and the price of murder as regularly fixed as that of stockings or any common article of traffic could have been. More than one jury had convicted on evidence which showed that 4l. was often the price for shooting a man. The confession went on. "Ward offered 10l. for shooting some of Kendal's men. He offered 10l. for shooting another master manufacturer; and 5l. for shooting one of his men for working. After the conviction of a man who was tried for felony at the last assizes at Loughborough, Ward offered a large sum for doing out (murdering). We met at the Jolly Bacchus, and when none agreed to do this, Francis Ward took out a golden guinea and said he was determined it must be done." The second confession was that of Thomas Savage, who was executed a few weeks after Mitchell. It corroborated the former confession. He trusted the House would now see the course of proceeding they were called upon to adopt; he trusted they must now be able to form a proper estimate of the real character of this petitioner. Whether this man could be put on his trial for the foul crimes with which he was charged, it was not for him to determine. It was enough for him to say, that he had been committed on the evidence of two credible witnesses; and he would appeal to the House if there was any thing in his moral character that ought to have saved him from being committed to prison, after he had been charged on oath with treasonable practices. The depositions to which he had referred had not been obtained from Mitchell and Savage under circumstances which left them any hopes of obtaining mercy through the disclosures they might make. No such expectation had had any influence over them, when these statements were made by them in the most solemn moments which preceded their execution. He could assure the gentlemen opposite, that there were circumstances which would appal their convictions, as to the whole proceedings of ministers, as much as in this case, in which there was nothing wanting to a moral conviction but the judgment of a jury; but without that every moral mind must be satisfied as to the petitioner's character.

He hoped he had now said enough to prevent the feelings of the House from being run away with by these ex-parte statements of Mr. Ward and others, representing themselves to be the most virtuous and most injured of men; with the view of making a false impression on parliament and the country. The House would not, on such statements, think it necessary to institute a committee of inquiry into the allegations of those whose crimes threatened the country. When the conduct of ministers should be fully inquired into by the committee above stairs, it would, he was persuaded, be the conviction of the committee, and from their report it would be the conviction of that House, that ministers had shown no malignant spirit, no oppressive temper, no disposition to injure or distress any individual; but, on the contrary, that they had manifested every forbearance and lenity consistent with their sense of duty. The noble lord opposite wished, by his motion, to bring forward those who had given evidence on the faith of government, and to subject them to the examination of a committee of that House. He should satisfy the committee already appointed, that no individual had been committed but upon oath, and upon evidence satisfactory not only to the secretary of state, but to the law officers of the Crown, and he would farther prove to the committee the probability of the crimes of which they were suspected. All possible information would be laid before the committee, with the exception of the names of the persons furnishing secret information. That these should be withheld would not surprise or offend the House, unless they wished to deny ministers the aid of secret intelligence in dangerous times. If the House would not allow secret information to be received and acted upon, conspirators, who contracted for assassination with the same precision and formality as for any other engagement, could not be detected or punished. The outrages that broke out in the places from which the suspected were taken, proved the existence of strong grounds of suspicion, and the necessity of such measures as were adopted in order to put down insurrection; for an insurrection it was. It would be seen by the committee, from the limited number of persons committed to prison under the circumstances of the case, that no unworthy motive on the part of ministers had animated them to use unnecessarily the powers entrusted to them by parliament. They had, nevertheless, acted with vigour, and had they not done so, he was convinced the House would have had proofs of the danger which had existed that it was not the wish of the government to afford, as it was their object to prevent insurrectionary outrages. He therefore trusted that the House would not suffer such inquiry as was now required: this he trusted, not from distrust of the principles on which ministers acted, but in justice to those whose names they were bound to keep secret: for the consequence of such an inquiry would be, either that ministers must submit to all the charges brought against them, or abandon those who had given evidence on the faith of concealment, to the vindictive attacks of those whom they had detected.

Mr. John Smith said, he had supposed that the present motion was to be confined to the case of Ward, and with this supposition he had resolved to vote against it. No man could believe one word of Ward's petition. If falsehood was detected in one part, that was good ground for discrediting the whole. The part, then, that reflected on the magistrates of Nottingham was most false. He had no motives for saying of those magistrates what he did not believe, but he appealed to ministers whether those magistrates could be surpassed by any set of magistrates in honour, fairness, and fidelity; and at the same time it was well known that they were old and consistent friends of liberty. Information on oath had been given them that there were arms in Ward's house, and this information was given the clay after the Derby insurrection. Mr. Enfield, the town clerk, a most respectable gentleman, hesitated to give Ward a copy of the warrant at first, because the information was not in writing. This occasioned any irregularity that might attend that part of the case. He was afterwards arrested on strong evidence that he had been concerned in the horrible murders at Loughborough, the most horrible that were ever known in any part of the country. He was grieved to say, that there were still circumstances which made it dangerous for witnesses to come forward in that part of the country. There was one circumstance to prove this man's participation in those crimes which he had occasion to know, but which the noble lord had not mentioned. Previously to the trial, Mitchell confessed the main part of the facts respecting Ward, to a professional man; whether desired to do so in order to prepare for his defence, or whether he had done it to relieve his mind, the hon. member could not say. The professional man felt himself obliged to conceal this while Mitchell lived; but after his decease the obligation ceased, and he then confirmed the confessions read by the noble lord. For these reasons he had come down to the House, resolved to oppose the motion, but he found it to be a different motion from what he had expected. It was not confined to Ward, but included all the petitioners. He did not believe that among all the other petitioners such a case as this of Ward's existed; and though one of these persons had been found thus unworthy, he did not think all inquiry should be on that account precluded. Being connected with such a populous district it had often happened to him to have occasion to apply to the noble lord at the head of the home department; and he believed no man was More likely to do what was fair and humane than his lordship. But it was not equally clear that his intention was always carried into effect. Many who acted under his orders, but not immediately under his eye, might have indulged party feelings, to which his lordship was a stranger. He could not at all see that the falsification of Ward's individual statement afforded any fairground for refusing to go into an inquiry. If any one case of improper severity was made out, the House was bound to inquire into it: he could not, therefore, because one case had been negatived, oppose amotion, the object of which was to go into an inquiry on all. He must also say that if not a single word of all the statements was true, it was surprising that the parties making them had not been brought to account for their misconduct.

Mr. Golding begged to trouble the House for a few minutes, as he was possessed of some local knowledge on the subject of the petition from John Knight. He held in his hand a declaration from Mr. Eastaffe, the gaoler of Heading, which stated that three prisoners, James Sellers, Nathaniel Hulton, and John Knight, were brought to him on the 10th of April, at about nine o'clock in the evening; they complained that they had tasted no provision during the whole of their journey from London (the House would recollect that that journey was only 39 miles); he then conducted them into his own kitchen, fed them on cold roast beef and pickles, with strong beer; they had as much as they could eat. He then provided them with beds in the best apartments of the prison; the beds were featherbeds of the best quality, and Sellers was placed in the state apartment; Knight was placed over the chapel. On the day following he stationed them in a ward, where they had an apartment 16 feet by 14; annexed was a list of luxuries with which they had been supplied. Instead of being separated they continued together for 16 days; and it was not possible that this should have been otherwise arranged, except under the orders of a visiting magistrate. Those orders were afterwards given, and Knight was ordered to the room over the chapel: the deputy-gaoler was removed to accommodate the others, and their apartments were all well furnished: insomuch that the prisoners all expressed to their relations their satisfaction at the good treatment they had received. Knight, who had spent 10s. 6d. in tobacco, and had received many presents from the gaoler, returned thanks for his kindness and generosity. When he was first placed over the chapel, the sashes of his apartment were nailed down, to prevent him from communicating with some workmen, who were employed opposite; but on his applying for a ventilator, it was immediately granted. The apartments allotted to him had since been occupied by gentlemen debtors. Knight's situation was more comfortable than even that of Sellers and Hulton. Sir Nathaniel Duckenfield, Mr. Stone, Mr. Farmer, and many other magistrates, had visited the prisoners continually, and could prove that they expressed themselves entirely satisfied. He held in his hand an acknowledgment of two of them, made to the magistrates of Berkshire, thanking Mr. Eastafte, the governor of the gaol, for his kindness and attention: he had furnished Sellers and Hulton, on their departure, with extra clothing and money for their journey. He had felt it his duty to put the House in possession of these facts, as an act of justice to the gaolers, and to all the persons concerned in the accusations which had been brought forward.

Sir W. Lemon said, there was no man in England less disposed than himself to suspect the noble lord at the head of the home department, of any disposition to oppress. He did not think that his majesty's ministers were desirous of using that law, which he, with other members, had felt it their duty to oppose, for any bad purpose; but petitions- were now presented from different persons complaining of great oppressions. Though the government might not wish to sanction such conduct, the persons acting under them might possibly have been guilty. Some of the petitions appeared not to be borne out by fact, perhaps none of them were, but still the House was bound to inquire into the acts alleged to have taken place under the operation of the measure, as it was their paramount duty to investigate all cases of grievance that were submitted to them.

Mr. Gordon wished to say a few words on the petition from Bagguley. In consequence of that petition, he had written to the gaoler of Glocester, whom he knew to be a man of great humanity, and the reply to his inquiries was a complete contradiction of the petition. The prisoner declared, that on his arrival he had been plunged in a tub of cold water, and that a dangerous fever and cold had been the consequence of this immersion. The gaoler stated, that so far from the water being cold, the rules of the prison required that a warm bath should be always used on such occasions: the prisoner, who had travelled all night, declared at the time, that he found this extremely comfortable, and so far was he from being ill in consequence, that he went into the bath on the 11th of April, and never complained till the 20th of May. The part of the prison in which he had been confined, had since been allotted to gentlemen debtors. He had a separate sitting-room and bedroom, was allowed to walk out whenever he pleased, and was allowed a guinea a week for provisions. The bills brought in to him for various articles were carefully examined by the gaoler and other persons under him, that he might not be imposed upon, and he expressed himself in every way satisfied with his treatment. Notwithstanding lord Sidmouth's circular, the governor had permitted all magistrates to visit him; not visiting magistrates only, but even some who did not belong to the county and among them sir G. Paul. He thought is was but justice to the governor of Gloucester-gaol to state these particulars, but he (the governor) was anxious that an investigation should take place. And even if all the petitioner had stated were false, he thought it no reason against commencing an investigation; for the House ought to know on its own authentic inquiry how far the petitions were true, and how far false; in order at least to punish parties who made false representations, to justify the conduct of those who were engaged in the transactions and to satisfy the feelings of the country.

Sir W. Guise read a letter from a respectable clergyman, a magistrate who had taken pains to investigate the case, confirming the statement that had been made respecting Bagguley, by the hon. gentleman who had just sat down; more especially as to the fact of the warm bath, and the various comforts that were supplied him. His general behaviour, it was added was extremely regular, and the governor had not once occasion to find fault with him. He contended, nevertheless, that the House was bound to go into an inquiry wherever a grievance was alleged, and therefore thought it right to support the motion.

Sir F. Burdett observed, that he could not pretend to come to the discussion of this question with a mind quite so unbiassed and unprejudiced as those gentlemen had professed who had delivered their sentiments before him. He could not but call to mind, that when he first drew the attention of the House to the conduct of the governor of the Cold-bath-fields prison when he was charged will) crimes of the blackest die (of which he possessed the fullest evidence, but was never permitted to bring it forward)—he repeated, he could never forget, that at that time, just as on the present occasion, gentlemen rose up in various parts of the House, some declaring on their own knowledge, others on statements made by Aris himself, that he was a man of the most kind and benevolent disposition; that he had never been guilt}' of any cruelty or oppression whatever; that he was a person indeed in whom the milk of human kindness abounded to an extent almost approaching to weakncss; and that the prison was conducted on a system of uniform mildness. The hon. member for Yorkshire, in particular, had stated, that nothing could equal the attention paid by Aris to the prisoners; that he was a pattern of humanity, and indeed too good for his station; but the House would probably recollect that story, which at the time it was told seemed to excite very little sensation in the House—a story which was paralleled only by the history of the prisoner in the Bastile, and his companion the spider: that prisoner, in the course of a long and solitary confinement, by way of diverting his weary hours, had attached to him a large spider, which, by degrees, became so intimate as to visit him at regular intervals, and receive its food; it served as a companion, and gave an interesting occupation to the wretched prisoner. So forlorn and hopeless was this man's condition, that when the spider perished, he declared he had lost the only tie that rendered existence supportable. The story he had told of Aris was much of the same description. He had confined a prisoner for fifteen months in a solitary cell. In the course of a hard winter, a robin had flown into the window; it soon became a favourite with the prisoner, and? his only solace. After a long interval. Aris, who very seldom visited the cell, entered one morning, and seeing the bird, crushed it in his hand, notwithstanding the most earnest entreaties on the part of the prisoner that its life might be spared. The agony the poor man suffered was that of one who had lost his dearest and most valuable friend: so bitter had been the infliction of solitary confinement.—Aris nevertheless represented himself as the most humane of mankind—a man whose foible, was benevolence, and whose fault always to relax the discipline of the prison instead of resorting to any unnecessary rigour. He had mentioned this only to show that the House ought not to be surprised if he was not quite so ready to believe what gentlemen or what gaolers themselves stated in proof of their own good qualities. He had no doubt that the gentleman who made these statements meant well, and themselves believed all they had advanced; but he could not avoid being himself a little more sceptical on the subject. With respect to the hon. member for Nottingham, he could not avoid saying that all his speech relating to the business of Ward was nothing to the purpose. The question whether he was a bad man or not was nothing to the House; he might be any thing he pleased to represent him, the murderer who committed the late atrocious act at Greenwich if he pleased, but the only question was, whether he had been justly charged with high treason, whether he had been legally committed, and whether he had been legally treated under that commitment; that was the question, and not whether he was a man of good or bad character. He should therefore contend with those gentlemen who said they believed these statements, and yet called for an inquiry, that such an inquiry ought to be instituted: for what could be such scandalous trifling with the public, as to hold out redress for grievances, and yet refuse to inquire whenever a case was brought forward?—The noble lord opposite had left very little for him to do, because he had not in any manner met or answered the arguments of the noble mover; and though he complained, that it would waste the time of the House to inquire into grievances which might turn out to be false, yet he thought it no waste of time to enter into long statements, of which not a syllabic could ever be capable of proof. He put it once more to the common sense and candour of the House, and he would ask, could any person be biassed by the statement of a gaoler in his own favour? It had been said, and it might be true, that a great number of gaolers had not even been accused of harshness; if so the expression of one of our poets, that "the steeled gaoler was seldom the friend of man," should be now applied to the steeled minister; and if any misconduct had been committed by any under the noble secretary of state's authority, he should say that the noble lord was liable, even though he was not privy to such misconduct. It was a maxim of the common law, that "qui fecit per alium facit perse," and the noble lord was answerable for the acts of all who were placed under him. The noble secretary of state's characterestic mildness and benevolence had been urged as an argument for obtaining extraordinary power, and the same character was now thrust forward as a ground for stifling all inquiry. So that this individual character was to supersede the principles of the constitution and set at nought the ordinary course of justice, when the power granted to him had been so disgracefully, cruelly, and illegally applied. Some of the gaolers had themselves stated, that they were sorry they were ordered to proceed more harshly than was necessary, and that they thought there could be no need of irons to secure those who were immured in a solitary cell. An hon. gentleman had said, that many of the statements made were false; they might be so, but there were many of them which loudly called for inquiry. He should be glad to be informed why Ogden's case was not to be investigated—a man 74 years old, who was loaded so heavily with irons as to occasion a rupture, and was, like many others, transferred from one gaol to another, and exposed as a spectacle to their countrymen. It was asserted, and was not contradicted, that two men had been chained together, even in bed, and were besides loaded with heavy irons, where there could exist no pretence of safe custody.—Why was not this to be inquired into? Sufferings from cold and hunger made but little figure upon paper: but they were great miseries to endure, and whether they had been justly or unjustly endured, it became the House to ascertain. Was it any answer to the general charge, for a member to produce in his place, a letter from a gaoler, who stated that the water in which the prisoner had been plunged was warm, and that it was very delightful and comfortable when the prisoner himself declared that the water was cold, and that the consequence of it was a fever, from which he with difficulty recovered? This fact showed that inquiry was necessary; and though in one or two cases it had been admitted that the keepers of the prisoners had behaved with humanity and kindness, yet there were many others where com-plaints were made of a treatment directly the reverse. No doubt, however, the House would decide against the motion, and many members would hold that the statements in the petitions were all false? And why?—because the noble lord had so asserted. The noble lord had great confidence (far too great and too well founded for the interests of the people) in the discernment of parliament—at least as far as respected his own arguments and assertions. The noble lord was sure that hon. members would think with him that all investigation was needless; and in the same confidence that all he said would be implicitly credited, he had gone on to state, that ministers wanted no bill of indemnity, and required no protection. The House could not fail to recollect in what manner the noble lord had talked at the time the Habeas Corpus Suspension bill was first brought forward. He had spoken of the heavy responsibility about to be thrown upon ministers; and he and they had appeared almost to lament that so grievous a burden was about to be cast upon them. Of course he (sir F. Burdett) never believed a word of it. He knew it was a mere pretence, and he had proposed several motions to lighten the weight: first that it should be followed by no bill of indemnity; and next to obtain a declaration by the House, that it was not its intention that under the suspension bill torture should be inflicted by loading the prisoners with heavy irons, or confining them in solitary dungeons. What was the answer given on the other side?—The character of the noble secretary of state for the home department. It was impossible to suppose that such a kind-hearted man as lord Sidmouth would consent to such practices, and the motion was declared an unnecessary imputation upon his character. Many gentlemen thought it was impossible that such things could be done. But had they not been done? Or, if the assertions of the sufferers were disputed, why was not inquiry to be made? The majority of the House undoubtedly entertained high notions of ministers: they could be guilty of no misconduct as long as they were ministers; and because they were ministers, they had not. been guilty of any misconduct in this instance. The bare mention of misconduct on their part was enough to acquit them, in the House; but not out of it; for such notions did not extend beyond the walls of the place where they were supreme. The question was, who broke the law? The prisoners answered—the noble lord and his friends. But assertion would not satisfy the country, and the gaoler of Gloucester himself solicited investigation. The offenders, if such they were, were anxious for trial, even at the risk of their lives. Ministers alone resisted it, maintaining that the time of the House would be wasted, and its character degraded. He should be glad to know what a House of Commons was to do, if not to inquire into the grievances of the people? The noble lord had said, that it could not take evidence upon oath, and so forth; and was for completely de-Stroying its inquisitorial functions, formerly esteemed of such value and importance. The noble lord was a perfect Proteus in argument; he could "confute, change sides, and still confute." When he wished to shield his own acts and those of his colleagues, then, said he, appoint a committee; but a committee of his own selection, of which he was himself a member: where ministers sat to be their own judges, and were aided by those who would ask for nothing but what the noble lord was pleased to show them, and who would credit any thing which he requested them, without inquiring, and out of compliment to himself, to believe. Such a gross delusion would satisfy no man out of parliament: but if a committee was proposed, from which placemen and pensioners were to be excluded, and who would go to work thoroughly and fairly with the delinquencies of the noble lord and his friends, then they were not to be trusted, the time of the House would be wasted, and its dignity degraded. "But," said the noble lord, "it is a great mistake to suppose that ministers want an indemnity; what they wish is, to cover their friends, Oliver, his fellow spies, and informers." In short, the bill of indemnity was admitted on the other side to be for the protection of those secret and infamous sources of private accusation, whose purpose was to destroy the happiness and reputation of every honest man. Was it possible that at that time of day such an avowal should be made? that in England it should be professed that innocent men should be solitarily confined, cruelly tortured, and unjustly accused, and should never have an opportunity of discovering to whom they were indebted for all these deprivations and sufferings? The illegality of letting these unfortunate men out prison with the ridiculous mummery of their own recognizance, was as great as the illegality of their first commitment. He did not rest the question upon the merits or demerits of Ward; that had been already answered, at least as far as was necessary for a fair decision upon a motion which did not respect his petition merely; and he could not help hoping when gentlemen considered the subject seriously (more especially those who had voted for the suspension), and saw what had been done under it, that they would feel themselves bound in honour to vote for an inquiry. They ought to recollect, that this very subject of arbitrary imprisonment on suspicion of treason, had occasioned some of the severest domestic struggles this country had ever known; they ought to recollect that the words of the Great Charter were, "nulli negabi-mus, nulli differemus justitiam;" yet now the answer was, "negatur, differtur," for justice was delayed and denied to those who, in the confidence of their own innocence, had clamoured in a court of justice for trial by the laws of their country. This fact of itself was a condemnation of ministers. The injured men were refused a trial, not from the tender mercies of government, but because they knew that the acquittal of the innocent would be the conviction of the guilty. Magna Charta had become obsolete of late: it was old-fashioned law, not suited to the refinements of modern times; and the declaration, that "nullus liber homo capiatur aut im-prisonetur, nisi per legale judicium parium suorum," had been totally neglected and forgotten. It might not be amiss if gentlemen would refresh their memories, and enlarge their minds a little, by recurring to the wholesome laws of Henry 2nd and Edward 3rd, by all of which it was provided, that no man should be imprisoned without being duly brought to trial. Though not quite so old, the Petition of Rights seemed equally to have escaped recollection: it consisted of four parts;— first, that no tax should be imposed without general consent; next, that no arbitrary imprisonments should be allowed without information upon oath, and subsequent trial; thirdly, that the realm should not be governed by martial law: the fourth provision he did not remember, but they had all been equally disregarded. If this course were pursued, it would be utter nonsense to talk of the happy constitution of England; and if it were to be infringed, far better would it be that it should be done by the King than the Commons. Nothing could be more lamentable than that that House should take upon itself to make unwarrantable innovations in the constitution; if the king made attempts of the kind, the Commons might be resorted to for defence; but it would be a mockery to appeal to the Commons, pro forma, against its own acts. As this would, probably, not be the last time he should have an opportunity of addressing the House on the question, he would not trouble it farther at present.

Mr. Wilberforce acknowledged having represented Mr. Aris, late governor of the Middlesex House of Correction, as a man of humanity, and stated that his authority for having done so, was the rev. Mr. Owen, chaplain-general, who for many months had been in the habit of visiting the prison, and was well acquainted with its condition and management. He requested, in return, that the hon. baronet would deal as candidly with him, and state his authority for the story he had told regarding the bird wantonly killed by Mr. Aris. There were, he confessed, some money transactions in which Mr. Aris was concerned which justified his removal, but he did not recollect that any act was proved against him which amounted to an impeachment of his humanity. With respect to the question before the House, he thought that all the presumptions were in favour of the correctness and legality of the proceedings of ministers, and it was a great mistake to suppose that the character of Mr. Ward had nothing to do with the merits of the motion. If he had stated what was untrue, as was evident, what right had he to ask for investigation, unless indeed that he might be punished as his crimes deserved? Honourable gentlemen from all quarters had borne testimony to the good conduct of gaolers, and in several instances it was established that the petitions contained nothing but a pack of falsehoods. True it was that the House possessed the privilege of inquiry; but nothing was more dangerous to a privilege than its abuse. All ancient constitutions, it was known, had possessed some extraordinary means of meeting extraordinary dangers; and it was the glory of our own, and that which had given it stability, that while sometimes it allowed the infringement of the strict bounds of law, to avoid sudden and imminent peril, it had the faculty of returning unimpaired to its first beauty and dignity. Surely some alteration in the ordinary mode of proceeding was required, when the people of England had resorted to assassination as a trade, as was the case with the Luddites, and when the life even of a judge, venerable for his age, and admirable for his learning, had been threatened, if not attempted, while the perpetrators were to be rewarded by money raised in subscriptions of 5s. each! If from the petitions on the table any truth could be sifted, it would be easy for individuals to make themselves acquainted with the facts, and to bring the matter forward upon a future occasion; but at present he (Mr. Wilberforce) trusted that the House would reject an inquiry, the effect of which might be to mark men out for slaughter, and to send witnesses into the country as victims to private malignity.

Sir F. Burdett, in explanation, said that Mr. Wilberforce Bird, chairman to the committee upon the House of Correction, had related the story of the robin and Mr. Aris to the House.

Mr. Wilberforce. asked, if Mr. Bird had spoken from his own knowledge? but no answer was given.

Sir S. Romilly observed, that a bill of indemnity being about to be passed, the question now was whether it should be done without inquiry, when gross abuse of the power intrusted was imputed to ministers. He begged the House to recollect, that though bills of indemnity had before been agreed to after the suspension of the Habeas Corpus act, yet never in any other instance than the present, after a committee had sat and made its report; the notoriety of the facts was therefore put out of the case, and a sort of grand jury (most extraordinarily constituted, having power to examine all the evidence for the accused, and none for the accuser) was appointed to make some sort of investigation. Why, then, should not these petitions go before them, or before some other tribunal better selected? It was asserted that people had been dragged about the country in fetters, as proofs to the inhabitants of an existing plot; and the question was, whether unnecessary severity had not been employed; than which there could not be a subject more requiring the 'interposition of parliament. His principal object in rising was, to refute a statement made by the noble lord, in the humble hope of influencing some few votes, viz. that if the facts stated in the petitions were true, the sufferers would not be deprived of their remedy by the bill of indemnity. How unfounded this assertion was, was evident from his lordship's next sentence, in which he observed, that the bill of indemnity now required would be the same as that of 1801, which in the first clause expressly enacted "that all personal actions heretofore brought, or which might be hereafter commenced or brought against any person on account of any act, matter, or thing done, recommended, directed, ordered, or advised to be done, for apprehending, imprisoning, or detaining in custody any person suspected of high treason, should be discharged and made void." It was clear, therefore, that the parties who had so severely suffered would be deprived of all redress, if the bill of indemnity in question were adopted. He would now say a few words as to the petitions. There were, he believed, 11 of them, from different persons in different parts of the kingdom, and containing different allegations. Suppose three of these should be proved to contain false charges, was it consistent with justice, would his hon. friend who had just spoken assert, that the other eight should be rejected unexamined, on account of the hollowness of those three? He did not mean to say that some acts described by the petitioners were illegal, although they were grossly unjust and inhuman, for according to certain statutes solitary imprisonment was legalised. But who could justify, upon any principle, the transfer of a prisoner from one prison to another without any appearance of necessity. The noble lord had, it appeared, made some preparation to meet the debate of this evening, but his preparation was evidently imperfect, for the noble lord's statements applied only to two or three cases, while it was known that there were no less than eleven petitions before the House. But surely it would not be admitted that the falsifications of the statements of these petitioners should exclude the others from the right to claim the attention of the House. Such a doctrine would not, he presumed to think, be maintained by any just or rational man. For instance, why should the fallacy of other petitioners be allowed to prejudice the case of that poor man Ogden, upon whose hands, at the advanced age of 74 years, 30 lb. weight of iron were placed while he was suffering from a rupture. There was at least some ground for supposing that his petition contained truth; for he had referred to the surgeon, Mr. Dixon, who had attended, and cured him of the complaint produced by the weight of his fetters? He would ask his honourable friend, whether he thought it just to dismiss that petition without inquiry. There were seven other petitions which stood on the same footing, against the truth of which not one syllable had been uttered; and, when he considered what extraordinary pains had been taken to refute the statements contained in some of the petitions, he could not but think that those which had been impeached, were, on that very account, unimpeachable. Silence was a proof that nothing could be said against them. As to the denial given by a gaoler to the statement of a petitioner, he conceived that nothing could be more absurd than the production of such testimony. The hon. baronet had founded a very just argument on the conduct of the House with respect to Aris, on a former occasion; and his hon. friend had, instead of giving an answer, completely mistaken the object of the hon. baronet's observation. The hon. baronet had intended no imputation on him, when he alluded to his testimony in favour of the humanity of Aris, but had justly inferred, that if a member of such integrity and sagacity had been imposed upon in that case, it was not impossible that the gentlemen who that night had spoken in such high terms of different gaolers might likewise have been deceived. What, then, was the deduction from this? Surely not, that no inquiry was necessary, but that the strictest examination should take place immediately. Aris, notwithstanding, the testimonies to his character, was afterwards convicted of the grossest delinquency: and it was not impossible that similar results might follow, if the proper inquiries were to be instituted on the present occasion. His hon. friend had lately said, when a case of enormity was brought forward, "why had not the hon. mover, the member for Shrewsbury, taken pains to make inquiries, and to examine witnesses as to the truth of the allegations?" The hon. member for Shrewsbury answered, that he had examined; that he had seen the witnesses and questioned them in person: yet his hon. friend, instead of being satisfied with this compliance with his own desire and sense 495 of justice, had voted against a motion so founded and supported. He trusted, however, that his hon. friend would retrace his steps. He hoped he had repented of that vote, and would yet make amends. As to Ward's character, it was certainly a bad one: indeed, the only wonder was, that he had not been brought to justice long ago, if indeed he was as criminal as had been represented. It was said, that previous to the Suspension act, he had been in gaol on a charge of felony; if this were the case, he should like to know why he had not been tried— why his life, if the case required it, had not been sacrificed to justice. But this had nothing to do with the allegations in the petitions some of which, notwithstanding the great preparations which had been made by the noble lord, for the purpose of contradiction, had been left completely unanswered. He alluded particularly to the statement of Ward's having been, every alternate four days, thrust into a loathsome cell, from which he was only taken because it was impossible for him to exist in it more than four days at a time; and yet for all this, and for similar abuses of power, an indemnity was to be obtained: and the report which was to warrant this indemnity, was to come from a committee, before which the accused brought only such evidence as they pleased, while the accusers were not allowed to bring any at all. As to the personal character of lord Sid-mouth, of which so much had been said, there was no man more ready than himself to do justice to the humanity and excellent disposition of the noble lord; but that was no answer to the charges of misconduct in his agents. He would not say if all the facts in the different petitions were proved, that they were in themselves illegal, but he would say that they were unnecessary and wanton abuses of power. For what could be imagined more cruel than that of which some of the petitioners complained—the privation of freedom and food—of sleep and health? What could be a greater mockery and insult than the parading these men from town to town in open daylight, and loaded with chains; and what possible objects could be answered by such a wretched triumph, except to convince some miserable minds that some extraordinary plot existed against the state? The petitioner, to whom the motion principally referred, was so taken through the country chained to Haynes; but according to the noble lord the latter acknowledged some obligations to the officer by whom he was conducted in those journeys. That some humanity might have been shown by the officer alluded to, and felt by Haynes, was not improbable. It was also probable that the conduct of some of the gaolers was humane; and in his conscience, he believed, that one of the main reasons for the transfer of the unfortunate petitioners from one prison to another, was in order to find the gaoler most likely to conform to the wishes of the ministers by whom those petitioners was committed to prison. His hon. friend who had just spoken thought proper, in one part of his speech, to pass a glowing eulogium on the suspension of the Habeas Corpus, and had referred to the history of ancient republics in illustration of the advantages of suspended liberty: but did not his hon. friend know what was the consequence of those occasional dictatorships to which he had alluded? Did they not at last end in a perpetual dictatorship—in a tyranny never to be shaken off? and for his own part he believed most firmly, before God, that these continual and unjustifiable suspensions of the Habeas Corpus would—unless the House of Commons should do its duty, which it had not hitherto done—end in the complete ruin of our liberties.

Mr. Ashurst read a long statement taken from a report made to the magistrates of Oxford, relative to the condition of the county-gaol. It described all the accommodations to be most excellent, and asserted, that the state prisoners confined there returned thanks for the treatment which they had experienced, nor was any complaint made, except by one man, who said that his room had a smoky chimney.

Mr. H. Sumner said, it so happened, that he could speak to the falsehood of the allegations in Ogden's petition. With respect to that petition, he could bring forward twenty witnesses to prove, that Ogden himself had contradicted many of the allegations in it. He could speak positively on this subject; for an hon. friend of his, one of the magistrates for the county of Surrey, had visited the gaol, and inquired into the fact of Ogden's case. It certainly was true that the prisoner had been put in irons, but not that he had been heavily ironed: and on a representation being made to the secretary of state, the irons were taken off. It was expressly proved by Mr. Dickson, the most respectable and humane gentleman who was employed to give medical assistance to the prisoners, that Ogden brought into gaol with him the complaint for which he afterwards underwent a skilful and successful operation. So humane had been the attention paid to Ogden, that the man himself had repeatedly expressed his thankfulness to God that being brought to gaol had been the means of curing him of that complaint, which under less skilful treatment than that of Mr. Dickson the prisoner himself said might have terminated fatally—[Hear, hear!]. The prisoner had also expressed much gratitude to the gaoler. So much for the truth of the allegations in this petition, which was the only one among those before the House of which he knew any thing. Some gentlemen, however, wished to persuade the House to believe all that the petitioners stated, and nothing that the gaolers stated in their justification. It must be in the recollection of the House, that an inquiry was instituted some years ago into the state of the gaols of Lincoln and Lancaster, the result of which was, that there was no serious cause of complaint. An hon. baronet must recollect the result of a committee appointed at his instance to inquire into the grievances of a foreigner of the name of Colville, who had been taken up and imprisoned. The result was, that the committee was unanimously of opinion that there was no truth in the allegations of the petitioner, as to cruel treatment.

Sir F. Burdett declared, that his only reason for pressing no objection to the decision of the committee alluded to, was simply this, that he saw all the other members of that committee, were unanimous against him; but still his own opinion was, that Colville had been most cruelly and unjustly treated.

Mr. Sumner, with great warmth, appealed to the House, whether they did not recollect the hon. baronet's concurrence with the report.

Sir F. Burdett —I have just told the hon. member, that I did concur in that report, and I have also just told him my sole reason for so doing.

Mr. Bennet observed, that the complaint made by Ogden was, that the disease with which he had been afflicted, and of which he was so ably cured during his imprisonment, was produced by the chains and irons imposed upon him. The inquiry before the magistrates on this subject was confined to the case of the Evanses. There was nothing in the representation of the hon. gentleman that contradicted the statement contained in the petition. He believed the case of Bagguley was fairly stated, nor did the letter read by the hon. gentleman disprove any of the circumstances which were described as having taken place in the gaol at Oxford. As to the statement that he had been plunged into a cold bath, he could only say that he had conversed with the petitioner since the statement had been contradicted, and that he said he was willing to prove it by his affidavit. As to its being said that the petitioner had refused to attend at church, he begged the House to observe the reason given by the petitioner, which was, that he would not consent to sit in the same pew with a prisoner in a felon's dress. The account of the treatment experienced by Mr. Knight at Reading, threw no imputations on the gaoler. It was of being carried to Salisbury gaol, a gaol of which no hon. member had spoken or would speak in commendation, and of being again removed to Worcester, that he complained. The only reason that he could conceive for thus parading him about the country was, to create alarm, and withdraw him from the observation of the Berkshire magistrates who were not sufficiently subservient to the minister of the day. He believed all the facts stated in the petitions to be true, and he would therefore vote for the motion.

Mr. Philips rose for the purpose of confirming his hon. friend's representation of Ogden's case. The fact alleged was, that the distemper had been so much increased by the treatment he received, as to render a severe operation necessary, though it was undoubtedly fortunate that it had been successfully performed.

The Attorney General said, he had attentively read Ogden's petition, and thought it clear, that the statement in it was intended to create a belief, that an old man had been seized with a violent malady in consequence of the weight of irons which had been imposed upon him. However the detention of persons charged with offences against the state might be justified under the late act, and admitting that a bill of indemnity, on the precedent of that of 1801, should be passed by parliament, he begged leave to say, that such an act would not indemnify a gaoler for any cruelty or excess beyond that restraint which was necessary to the safe custody of the prisoners. He would still remain prosecutable criminally, and liable to answer to the party injured in a civil action. A question might arise whether, when a person so charged was apprehended in a disturbed district, it might not be proper to place fetters on his limbs to prevent the danger of an escape. If done for this purpose, and without any unnecessary rigour or violence, it was legal and justifiable. His hon. and learned friend had, he apprehended, no colour for saying that some of these unfortunate men had been removed to different prisons, and exhibited in different parts of the country, for the purpose of exciting alarm. The secretary of state had two duties to perform; first, that of keeping them in safe and close custody; and, secondly, of rendering their situation in every other respect as comfortable as possible. With respect to their being sent to distant prisons, the motive was, and he took upon himself confidently to assert it, with a view to the comparative comfort of the detained. What complaints would the House not have heard, if these persons had been huddled together in the crowded prisons of the metropolis! The noble lord who brought forward the motion seemed to think, that when a man was once lodged in gaol upon a charge of treasonable practices, the door ought to be hermetically sealed upon him till the day of trial arrived. But by the law of this country although a justice of the peace could not discharge after commitment, and before indictment, a secretary of state might, and, without the assistance of any suspension act, arrest on a charge of treason, and afterwards discharge his warrant if he thought the accusation could not be substantiated.—It had been also said, that were it not for the spies and informers employed by government there would not have been any real disturbance in the country;—that no explosion would have taken place. His opinion was, that the explosion would have been very different. From the information received from those informers, compared with more creditable evidence a great explosion was prevented. The actions of the conspirators were paralysed, the link which connected the chain of treasonable confederacy was broken, and the country was saved from the most unhappy events. At the same time he would inform the House, that not even one individual had been deprived of his liberty for a single hour, on the evidence of any of those informers [Hear!]. The informers served government merely as an index to point out more creditable evidence, and unless where the evidence of such persons was corroborated by undoubted testimony, it was not in any instance acted upon. He contended, that all the allegations of these petitions, as far as they had been examined, were falsified: and that the noble secretary of state had, by his great exertions, broken the link of a confederacy which threatened society with all the evils of universal pillage and disorder. If that simultaneous movement which had been proved to be in contemplation, had been suffered to take place, and the expected multitude from the North had joined the disaffected in other quarters, what justification would then have been received, on the part of the noble secretary of state, for not having exercised the powers with which parliament had armed him, and for a dereliction of duty which had led to such destructive consequences.

Mr. Lamb wished to say a few words in explanation of the vote which he should give. The chief allegations in the petitions were for unjust detention. The allegations of ill-treatment were comparatively few. If the motion had been for a committee to inquire into the truth of the allegations of ill-treatment, he would not have objected to it. But the present motion was in such general terms, that it involved questions which ought not to be sent to a committee, especially while there was a secret committee now sitting by appointment of the House, whose inquiries were directed to the general question. With this view he felt it his duty to vote against the motion.

Lord Folkestone, in reply, observed, that had it been wished by ministers that the committee for which he had moved should be a secret committee, he, for his part, should have had no objection, and would have willingly met the proposal made by the last speaker. Upon a review of the defence made by the members of administration, he felt satisfied there had been no case made out which would warrant a British House of Commons in refusing to refer the petitions to a committee.

The House divided: Ayes, 58; Noes, 167.

List of the Minority.

Althorp, visc.
Atherley, Arthur
Aubrey, sir J.
Barnett, Jas.
Bennet, hon. H. G.
Birch, Jos.
Brand, hon. Thos.
Brougham, Henry
Browne, Dom.
Byng, Geo.
Burroughs, sir W.
Calcraft, J.
Calvert, Chas.
Campbell, hon. J. F.
Carter, John
Coke, T. W.
Cochrane, lord
Duncannon, visc.
Douglas, hon. F. S.
Fazakerly, Nic.
Fergusson, sir R.
Frankland, Robt.
Gordon, Robert
Guise, sir W.
Hamilton, lord A.
Heron, sir Robt.
Howard, hon. W.
Hurst, Robert
Latouche, Robt. jun.
Latouche, J.
Lemon, sir W.
Lyttelton, hon. W.
Macdonald, Jas.

Mackintosh, sir J.

Martin, John

Mildmay, sir H.

Morpeth, visc.

Milton, visct.

Monck, sir C.

Neville, hon. R.

North, Dudley

Ord, Wm.

Ossulston, lord

Philips, George

Ponsonby, hon. F. C.

Ramsden, J. C.

Ridley, sir M. W.

Romilly, sir S.

Scudamore, R.

Sharp, Richard

Smith, John

Smith, W.

Symonds, T. P.

Tierney, rt. hon. G.

Waldegrave, hon. W.

Webb, Edward

Wilkins, Walter

Wood, alderman

TELLERS.

Burdett, sir F.

Folkestone, lord

This is from Hansard.

16th February 1818: Jeffrey Lockett writes to Henry Hobhouse about a confession implicating Francis Ward in Luddism

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Fri, 16 Feb 2018 11:00:00 +0000

Dear Sir

Enfield has applied to me for the confession made by Woodward, (who was tried with Crofts at the same assizes at Leicester (about 1817) as Savage: & capitally convicted of the offence of Highway Robbery) relative to the intended assassination of Mr Justice Graham ~~at [Leicester]~~ on the road from Leicester to Lutterworth at the preceding assizes—it was not, I fear, reduced into writing,—but I was present with Mr Mundy, when it was made, and had two or three interviews with Woodward afterwards. You know that he was not a Luddite, but having lived at Lambley, was acquainted with the Luddite party, and was at Leicester at the Summer assizes in 1816 when James Towle, Badder, & Slater were tried, and was in the company of Frank Ward and the witnesses and associates of the prisoners during the assizes—He thus became acquainted with the plot which had been formerly Ward principally, for the murder of the Judge at Nottingham, & which was prevented only by the unexpected acquittal of the prisoners (Chettle & ano) He confirmed to the fullest extent, the accounts given by Blackburn, & the Luddite prisoners, of F. Ward’s proposal to effect the murder at Leicester,—of his offer of money and engagement of four or five of the party (of whom Ward was one) to commit it,—and of the part going on the road for the purpose and having been prevented from effecting the assassination by the Judge passing them in company with two other carriages. It happened that a party of barristers went with him to dine at Sir Ralph Noels.

I have written to Mr Mundy (who is at Bath) and have requested him to supply you with all the particulars which he can remember. In consequence of the confession he applied to the Judge (the Chief Baron) and Woodward was reprieved.

I am Dear Sir
Most truly Yours
Wm Jeffery Lockett
Derby Feby 16th: 1818

[To] H Hobhouse Esqr

This letter can be found at HO 42/174.

11th February 1818: The Spy System is discussed at length in Parliament - Francis Raynes is mentioned in passing

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Sun, 11 Feb 2018 14:00:00 +0000

MOTION RESPECTING THE CONDUCT OF CERTAIN SPIES AND INFORMERS.

Mr. Fazakerley said, he rose in conformity to the notice which he had a few days since given, to make his promised motion for an instruction to the committee of secrecy now sitting, to inquire whether any and what measures had been taken to detect and bring to justice those persons who were described in the Report made by the Committee of Secrecy on the 20th of June, 1817, as individuals whose language and conduct might in some instances have had the effect of encouraging those designs which it was intended they should only be the instruments of detecting.—He was sensible how much he should require the indulgence of the House in the few preliminary observations which it would be necessary for him to make on a subject that had so strongly excited the interest of parliament and the country—a subject to which the public attention had been particularly directed by the circumstances which had transpired in the recent trials connected with it; in conjunction with the passage in the Report of the Committee of Secrecy of last year, to which he had just adverted. Not having precise local knowledge, he did not wish to be understood to refer to any particular individual, but to ground his motion on the general statement in the Report. There were some persons, whose names were mentioned as being the most conspicuous members in the honourable confederacy to which he alluded, but he had not had any precise information on that subject to enable him to investigate the particular cases. He trusted, indeed, that neither the name of Oliver, nor the names of any other persons, would be considered as in any way connected with what he had to lay before the House; for he merely grounded his motion upon the report of the House itself, and he only desired to know whether any measures had been taken to detect and bring to justice the persons to whom the report alluded. He wished the House to recollect the course of proceeding that had been adopted by his majesty's government. For several months, during which the suspension of the Habeas Corpus had existed, the powers with which it invested government were by no means sparingly used. The gaols were filled with suspected individuals, apprehended probably on the information of spies; and many persons were thus, in all probability, made the victims of the crimes of others. The various provinces witnessed the novel sight of stale prisoners, itinerant state prisoners, carried about from one place to another. Not that alone—they saw them loaded with irons, and placed in close confinement—The strongest and the weakest measures were contrasted with each other. There had been a most absurd demand for recognizances, and the most absurd conduct consequent on that demand. On the one side, the gaols were crowded with unfortunate persons, dragged from distant parts of the kingdom, and treated with the utmost severity; while, on the other, the most puerile steps were adopted, assuming at last the shape of an admonition to a parent to attend to the good government of his son. When so many persons were thus taken up and imprisoned, and it subsequently appeared that there was nothing of reality in the charges that had been brought against them, was it right and fair that no measures should be taken to detect and prosecute those spies and informers, whose conduct a committee of that House had pronounced suspicious? Was this a fair and impartial administration of the criminal justice of the country? Me wished, however, to guard himself against being supposed to express an opinion generally against the employment of spies. It was most unfortunate that such measures should ever be necessary; that public treason could sometimes be detected only by private treachery; that vice must occasionally be rendered subservient to the safety of the state; but it was most especially important, whenever such measures were resorted to, that they should be accompanied with the greatest caution and vigilance. Persons so engaged ought to be closely watched, lest they overstepped the bounds of their office, and instead of only discovering, encouraged the bad designs of others. It appeared, from the Report of the Committee of Secrecy of last session, that that committee did apprehend, that some of the persons employed to detect the designs of others, had done more than their duty, and had fomented that which they were employed only to discover. If there were such persons, they ought to be detected and prosecuted. The hon. gentleman concluded by apologising to the House for the inadequate manner in which he had brought the subject under their consideration, and by moving, "That it be an instruction to the Committee of Secrecy now sitting, to inquire and report, whether any and what measures have been taken to detect and bring to justice those who were described, in the Report from the Committee of Secrecy presented to this House on the 20th day of June, 1817, as persons who may, by their language and conduct, in some instances have had the effect of encouraging those designs which it was intended they should be only the instruments of de-struments of detecting."

Mr. Bathurst was sure that the House could require no apology from the hon. gentleman for the manner in which he had introduced his motion. Nothing could be more moderate, judicious, and correct. But he could not pay a similar compliment to. the motion itself. It was to instruct the committee to adopt a precise line of conduct, which the powers they already possessed would enable them to adopt, if necessary. They were already armed with powers to send for persons, papers, and records. The hon. gentleman, by merely quoting the earlier part of a passage in the Report of the Committee of Secrecy of last year, had given a bearing to it which it did not warrant. The motion of the hon. member assumed the truth of a proposition which he begged leave to deny as being at all founded in truth, and still more as being found in the Report of the Committee; for it, in fact, assumed that that committee had asserted, that a certain crime had been committed. If the whole of that passage of the Report to which the hon. gentleman alluded were read, it would be seen plainly that he was mistaken.

That passage ran thus:—"Your committee have not been insensible to the jealousy with which the testimony of persons originally implicated in the designs of the conspirators, or even of persons who, never having engaged in those designs, have attended their meetings, in order to discover and report their proceedings, ought to be received; but the facts stated by your committee rest not only upon confirmatory evidence, but on distinct, substantive, and satisfactory testimony; and although your committee have seen reason to apprehend that the language and conduct of some persons from whom information has been derived, may, in some instances have had the effect of encouraging those designs, which it was intended they should only be the instruments of detecting; yet it is perfectly clear to your committee, that, before any such encouragement could have been given, the plan of a simultaneous insurrection in different parts of the country had been actually concerted, and its execution fully determined on." There was here no assertion that such a crime had been committed as the hon. gentleman's motion would intimate. The hon. gentleman asked, whether had any steps been taken to detect and prosecute the persons to whom he supposed this passage in the report was applied? To this he would answer, that no such steps had been taken; and for this plain reason, that no criminality was imputed to those persons, but that the simple meaning of the committee was, that individuals so communicating information must necessarily profess themselves to be the accomplices of those whose designs they were detecting, and might, in that sense, be said to encourage the designs themselves. The report of the committee, therefore, contained nothing which required any active measures of the nature alluded to by the hon. gentleman, nor had any farther grounds appeared for such measures. It was confessed that, in certain cases, it was the duty of government to avail themselves of the information that might come into their hands through the quarters to which the hon. member had alluded. What had occurred, then, was nothing but a necessary consequence of the conduct of such persons. He did not mean to say that the hon. member might not have been furnished with proofs of delinquency, in certain cases; and whenever those proofs were produced, or any questions asked respecting them, a satisfactory answer would be given to them; but no such had as yet been brought forward. If proofs could be adduced upon any forcible grounds, the case would certainly be altered; but at present nothing could be alleged from what had been stated by the committee. It was certain, and the hon. gentleman could not but know it, that the moment it was discovered that an individual was engaged in procuring information, a certain number of persons took that course which, under all circumstances, it was natural for them to take. They said, "this is not the man with whom we have been contriving, this is the man who contrived the whole." The person to whom he alluded had held out that 70,000 men would assemble, or would join the persons amongst whom he was: and it was known, that he had so said by a right hon. gentleman now no more, who, however, never suggested that government should punish him. He had encouraged the designs in quest ion no farther than as the assertion that there were 70,000 men in London prepared to support them—an assertion which was necessary to the maintenance of his character as a deputy from the metropolis—might be said to encourage them. But whatever might be the amount of the encouragement thus afforded, nothing was better established than that the details of the conspiracy had been formed, and the particular insurrection postponed from time to time, long before the person alluded to had any concern with the business. Government, indeed, knew all that he had done: they knew all the man stated himself to have done, and they had an opportunity of knowing precisely the truth or falsehood of his account of the transactions that had occurred. There was nothing, however, but that he had described himself to be a delegate from London; and it was impossible that he could have done otherwise. If he said, that the people in London were well inclined to the cause, it was only what it was necessary for him to say in order that he might not destroy the confidence that was reposed in him. But government knew, from all that they had heard of him, that there had been no mischief in the manner of his conducting himself; and that he had taken no farther part in any of the proceedings, of the disaffected, than that he professed to be one holding the same sentiments with themselves, and that of course he must have shown himself to be as sanguine as they were in their expectations. That person's intentions were not to procure information for government alone, as such, but to communicate from time to time to the magistrates whatever of importance he might have learnt. He had not originally gone amongst the people for the purpose of giving information; it was accident entirely that brought him amongst them; but being amongst them he thought it his duty to see what was doing; and having made communications to government, he (Mr. Bathurst) wished to ask, what would have been thought of government had they declined to avail themselves of such communications from a person whose character was unimpcached, except by those whose designs he had exposed? He repeated, that that person's character—his private character—was to that hour unimpeached by any man, and if any inculpatory evidence were to be brought against him, he hoped the House would well consider the characters of the individuals by whom it would be furnished. He trusted, if any such persons should be brought forward, that they would be men not at all connected with that horrible system of which they had heard so much; that none of them would be Luddites. Upon a complete examination of the subject, he was persuaded it would he found that no undue motive had influenced Oliver in any part of his conduct. The character that had been given of him, indeed, had originated from the people themselves; and it had been their plan, from that time to the present, to try to turn the tables upon him, and to say "we have detected you." This character bad been heard first from people who never told what the real fact was; who took care never to state what they had done. Something they had done certainly; though many hon. gentlemen, he supposed, would say they had done nothing at all, and that all that had happened was quite innocent talk. If the trials had taken a different turn from that which many of them had taken, the real state of things would have been manifested; but as it was, it appeared to be contended that nothing that had been alleged had really existed in the country. If it were at all seriously questioned whether or not there had been a conspiracy, he would say, that it could be proved by evidence through all its various ramifications, to which, however, he should not at present refer the House. They need indeed only look to the report of the committee, where it was stated that the plan of a simultaneous insurrection was concerted, and its execution fully determined on. He had a right, from particular circumstances, to assert, that the whole plan of the conspiracy was matured, long before the occurrence of the transactions which caused the motion of the hon. gentleman. What was the real nature of the encouragement that the individual in question might be supposed to have given, supposing that it had been previously determined to undertake such a plan? Suppose the intention had been to rise on the 10th, and he had said, "the 10th; yes, rise on the 10th;" he asked the House whether that was the conduct that would be said to have caused such a conspiracy; though he denied even that to have taken place? The whole plan being concocted could it be asserted that any man by adopting the line of conduct which he had described, would have committed any such crime as had been insinuated? The hon. gentleman had not exhibited the candour which pervaded the other parts of his speech, when he talked of the crowded state of the gaols. If it was true, as had been proved, that there was an organized plan of insurrection, surely the imprisonment of thirty or forty persons, thus disarming the disaffected, and depriving them of their leaders, could not be charged on government as an abuse of power. And he could inform the hon. gentleman that not one man had ever been apprehended upon the information of Oliver. That was a statement which would come before the House in another shape; but it was a fact that not a single man had been apprehended upon information received from him. There had been no connexion, he wished to state, between certain persons who had been executed, and the individual to whose conduct it was said that their fate was attributable. He alluded to the declarations of one of the persons who had been executed at Derby. That declaration was utterly unfounded. But it was the great foundation on which the disaffected were obliged to rest. They had nothing else to argue, but "it is you who have done it," and by that and such like exclamations they endeavoured to make their case as plausible as possible. Contrary to all their declarations, contrary to the declaration of one individual in his dying moments, he would venture to assert, that the assertions contained in those declarations were totally unfounded, and were no doubt put into the unfortunate man's mouth by some designing individual—

Mr. Fazakerley said, that he had made no allusion to the trials at Derby, and that his remarks related solely to what had taken place in the metropolis.

Mr. Bathurst expressed his surprise at this declaration, and said, that if that was the case, the motion of the hon. gentleman was wholly unconnected with the observations by which he had introduced it. The report of the secret committee, on which the hon. gentleman founded his motion, had no relation to the trials in London, which had taken place long before that report. The information contained in that report related solely to the country. Oliver stated nothing that had occurred at Derby, or any thing relating to Brandreth, to government; for one very good reason, that he never saw that person. As he had already said, there was nothing in the transactions which had taken place in the country, that afforded the slightest reason for suspecting that any criminal encouragement had been given to the designs of the disaffected by the individual or individuals alluded to.

Lord Milton observed, that if by any chance hereafter, which he did not at present anticipate, he should be engaged in the honourable employment of a spy, he hoped it would be in the service of the right hon. gentleman [a laugh]. He could not, however, refrain from stating, that he thought the right hon. gentleman's course of argument calculated materially to mislead the House in their view of this question.

Mr. Bathurst spoke to order. Did the noble lord mean to say that he intended to mislead the House?

Lord Milton said, that the speech of the right hon. gentleman was calculated to mislead the House with respect to certain parts of the transaction. The right hon. gentleman had stated, that the first connexion of Oliver with the disaffected was without the concurrence of government.

Mr. Bathurst observed, that what he had stated, was, that Oliver was not sent by government, but that being found in connexion with the disaffected, he was desired to continue that connexion. He had not, then, received any instructions to ingratiate himself with those who might be suspected of evil designs, but to make himself acquainted with their proceedings,—a task in which he must necessarily appear sometimes as an accomplice.

Lord Milton proceeded. He could not agree with the right hon. gentleman, that no injurious consequences had arisen from the employment of Oliver. On the contrary, he thought his mission calculated to produce the effects which had actually ensued. Its object was, to determine, by objectionable means, the real character of the evil upon which the propriety or necessity of the measures adopted by the legislature depended. The right hon. gentleman had said, that it was necessary that a person so employed should assume the character of an associate of those whose conduct he was investigating. But the character assumed by this Oliver was one of no ordinary nature. It was a character, on the appearance of which a great deal was likely to turn, and on which a great deal did turn; for Oliver appeared as the representative of the disaffected in the metropolis. It was not unparliamentary, he conceived, to refer to a paper which, though not regularly before the House, might be looked upon as a document of authority: he meant the report of the secret committee of the House of Lords, presented to their lordships on the 12th of June last. In a passage of that report it was unequivocally stated, that "the disaffected in the country appeared still to be looking to the metropolis with the hope of assistance and direction."* By whom was that hope held out? By whom was the connexion between the disaffected in London and in the country kept up, or in appearance kept up? By a person sent down to the country by his majesty's secretary of state!—By an individual, who assumed a character, on whose appearance the magistrates in the country knew that the disaffected in their neighbourhood rested for support! He could never review this transaction, without feeling convinced that much mischief had resulted from the interposition of the individual in question. That person's appearance, whenever it was made, was the immediate forerunner of disorder and confusion. He (lord Milton) had not had the advantage of investigating, personally, the disposition of that part of the country, at the period when the danger was supposed to be most imminent; but the abundant testimony which had since been laid before him coincided with his knowledge of the general feeling of the magistracy, whose predominating fear was, lest the presence of this person should, by supplying the fuel, nurse the exiting heat into a flame. And this, he said, without attaching the least truth to the declaration made by the unfortunate persons who suffered at Derby of their connexion with Oliver; for he knew how easy it was to induce persons to declare that which was false, for the purpose of lessening the imputation of their own guilt. Without stating any positive opinion, therefore, on the subject, he was inclined to believe that the assertion to which he had just alluded was destitute of foundation. He thought, however, that he had a right to complain, that in such a place as the House of Commons, the right hon. gentleman should venture to say, that the charge against Oliver was brought by those against whose practices his information had been directed. This was not the fact. In his conscience he believed, that the substance of the greatest part of the charges against Oliver was furnished by persons who were no more engaged in those transactions than he himself was. Another part of the speech of the right hon. gentleman was calculated to mislead the House. He had stated, that no men were taken up in consequence of the information of Oliver. It was true that no persons were taken up on the information of Oliver, strictly speaking, but it was going too far to say that the arrest and subsequent confinement of many persons did not take place in consequence of the information furnished by Oliver; for from his information government were able to avail themselves of the testimony of others, so that in common sense the arrest was in consequence of such information. He was not now complaining of any particular individuals having been so arrested and confined—a time would come when an inquiry into this subject must be made; but he wished much that the House should attend to one striking circumstance. It appeared that in some parts of the country—Nottingham for instance—the people were ready to assassinate Oliver. And what was the consequence? No rising ever occurred at Nottingham. But in those parts of the country where the people bonâ fide, believed in Oliver, there insurrections actually took place—for instance, in the west riding of Yorkshire, in Derbyshire—

Mr. Bathurst observed, that there was no evidence of the person alluded to having been in those parts of Derbyshire where the insurrection took place.

Lord Milton expressed his astonishment that the right hon. gentleman's recollection should not serve him from the hour of two to that of eight of the same day. To return to the course of his observations,—he felt himself bound to say, that the House would not discharge its duty to the country, if it did not enter into a substantial and efficient inquiry, not only into the conduct of the agents, but into that of their employers. It was no very flattering compliment to the English character, to hear the subject of espionage spoken of as it was in that House—it was a little too much that the character and conduct of that description of people should be mentioned in that House with so little disesteem—not to say detestation. Perhaps he was carding his candour beyond what, as an honest man, might fairly be required of him, but he really thought that in their proceedings on this subject, the ministers were principally chargeable with imprudence. They might have subsidiary motives for endeavouring to excite to the extent they did, alarm throughout the country; but he thought imprudence was the basis of their conduct. Whatever obloquy he might draw down on himself, he wished to state the precise point of view in which he saw the transactions. As a member of the committee, be it remembered, he was but a single individual. Nothing but an imperious sense of duty, and a wish to obey whatever commands the House imposed on him, could induce him to submit to be a member of a committee for such a purpose: having, however, placed their commands on him, it was his duty to obey; but if this duty was a burden in one respect, it would be grateful to him if they alleviated it, by adopting the motion of his hon. friend.

Mr. C. Grant, jun. thought the noble lord had not answered the arguments of his right hon. friend. It was quite unnecessary to give such instructions to the committee as those proposed, because they were competent to recur to the subject without them. It would be a complete novelty, under such circumstances, to send such instructions to a secret committee of that House. But if they went so far, and took the ground of the noble lord, it became necessary to see whether the House could find a primâ facie case of delinquency on the part of government to authorize the proceeding. Never had public disturbances occurred in which parties had not charged government with being the authors of them. From 1793 to 1801 those charges were perpetually reiterated; yet it had never been proposed to make them a subject for the consideration of a secret committee. Such a proceeding was wholly unprecedented, except in the case of some peculiar combination of circumstances. Had, then, any extraordinary case been made out, such as to warrant the adoption of a special proceeding of this nature? He begged leave to say, that there was no evidence of any instigation to mischievous purposes beyond mere words. Now, what he should contend was, that something more was necessary to establish such a case as that upon which the motion ought to be founded. To come to another point—the trials at Derby—it had always struck him as singular, if the learned counsel for the prisoners could have proved that the insurrection had been instigated by the emissaries of government, that they did not prove it. The person, Oliver, was present on the spot; he might have been subpoenaed; they could have introduced him to the court: this was, indeed, the only ground on which the case of their clients could have stood; and their experience and duty would have led them to bring him forward, if his evidence would have been of any service to them. If Oliver had been put into the box, and if, upon his examination, these facts had been established, would the jury have found the prisoners guilty? And if they had returned a verdict of guilty, he would ask any man whether a British jury under such circumstances would not have recommended them to mercy, and whether it was not more than probable that such a recommendation would not have been listened to? If that learned counsel who had so greatly distinguished himself on those trials (Mr. Denman), did not think proper to bring Oliver into court, it was a proof, that that person had not been concerned in exciting the disturbances for which the prisoners were then upon their trial. With respect to the present proposition his argument was this—that unless a case of delinquency was fast made out, the House was not called upon to accede to the motion of the hon. member; and he must, therefore, express his dissent from giving any instruction to the committee on the subject.

Mr. Bennet said, he was placed in a considerable dilemma by the present motion, to which he meant, however, to give his support. But the House must not think that the country could look to the secret committee with any expectation of an impartial investigation, when they considered who the members of that committee were—who were the persons tried in that committee—who furnished the evidence. Ministers themselves named the committee—they were the persons on trial—and they furnished the evidence. Still, however, he should vote for the motion, because he wished that a test might again be proposed to the House—that if the House refused their assent to the motion of his hon. friend, the public might be completely satisfied, that this committee was neither more nor less than one of the grossest juggles ever attempted to be played off on any people. In the last session, his majesty's government had drawn up a bill of indictment against the people of England—two committees had been named by ministers, who, on evidence furnished by those ministers, pronounced the people of this country to be disaffected to the constitution. From those committees, however, the people had been shut out; before them the case of the Crown was heard; but, up to that moment, the case of the people had never been heard. All that he asked for was, that the cause of the people should be heard—and no cause was more entitled to be heard. The people of England had been visited by one of the greatest plagues with which a people could be afflicted-that government, which ought to have been their protector, had sent persons among them to stir them up to acts of violence.

A right hon. gentleman, who seemed to be the common voucher for the character of all the spies and informers in the employ of government, had told them that Oliver was a person of unsullied character. It appeared to him, however, that the right hon. gentleman had himself furnished the best argument against the employment of spies; for he had told them that the natural consequence of the employment of spies was, their doing things which furnished an accusation against them of fomenting the disturbances they were employed to prevent. He wished to remind the House of the terrible case which was produced by his hon. friend near him of the mischief caused by those wretched fiends in human shape, the spies employed in Manchester and its neighbourhood. He wished to give no general opinion as to the employment of spies. It was a nice point, and he would not then discuss it; but this he knew, that they were edge-tools which required a very cautious handling. It was one of the mischiefs attendant on their employment, that they had to look for their reward in the continuance and not the termination of disturbances. He knew that that sort of persons who were employed as spies in this country, had done acts which he could not think of without shame, or mention without horror and indignation. Lancashire, and the district connected with it, ever since 1812, had been traversed by whole hosts of spies. The magistrates had, by their system of espionage, thrown the whole of that country into the greatest alarm. While the poor people engaged in the manufactories there, after working fifteen hours a day, could only obtain for the support of themselves and families six or seven shillings a week, these spies were earning, by the more profitable employment of selling the blood of the people, 10s. 12s. and 15s. a week. A person, whose name was Raines, who was a captain in the militia, and had served under a gallant officer now no more, whose name it would not be proper to mention, had published a book giving an account of the transactions in which he was engaged; of the instructions under which he acted; and of the claims which he conceived himself to have on government in consequence. He would appeal to the hon. member for Bramber, whose opinion he wished to have on this subject. Instructions, it seemed, were given to procure persons to be "twisted in," as it was technically called, members of certain societies. This was to take oaths imprecating the destruction of body and soul in case of disclosure of any of the proceedings of these societies, oaths conceived in the most horrible and offensive terms; and this officer, agreeably to his instructions, actually persuaded persons to take this oath, and to enter into every engagement with these societies, for the purpose of betraying them. He did not wish to set up for a great moralist, or to make professions of superior sanctity; but he should think himself the basest of human beings if he were to lend his countenance to such infamous transactions. And, to support what? The law—by the breach of every law, human and divine.

But to come particularly to the point. The right hon. gentleman had challenged any person to bring forward any charge against the character of Oliver. He was prepared to meet that challenge. The House should be judge between them. He had accidently become acquainted with certain particulars of the history of that person, which he should state to the House; and when they heard the case they would not dare refuse giving instructions to the committee. He said they would not dare refuse, because he knew that they felt the importance of upholding their character, and supporting their reputation in the minds of the people. He had no doubt that the right hon. gentleman who now bestowed this panegyric on Oliver would last year have been ready to bestow the same panegyric on Castles. Castles was believed by the right hon. gentleman and by the attorney and solicitor-general—but thank God he was not believed by an English jury. This favourite witness of the government was paid and clothed by them. This was enough to mark their system. This Castles, this bully of a brothel, this wretch who had been tried for uttering forged notes, this worthless scoundrel, who had been a spy before under the transport office, the police magistrates thought fit to clothe at a considerable expense that he might come into court like a gentleman, and give evidence against persons who, though not guilty of high treason, had certainly committed some acts for which they might have been punished, if tried for a minor offence. Now with respect to this Oliver, this man of exemplary morals, this man for whose character the right hon. gentleman had so stoutly vouched, without gratifying him with the particulars of his history, he could tell the right hon. gentleman, that so far from his character being unsullied, he had begun his career by an act which not unfrequently marked the outset of persons who rose by degrees to the summit of crime—he began by commiting that fraud on women which Mr. Castles had also committed—like Mr. Castles, he had been guilty of bigamy. There were other parts of his character, which, whenever the right hon. gentleman put this witness into the box, he was ready to take up. He could produce sufficient evidence to show, that so far from Oliver being a man of unsullied moral character, he owed to the mercy of others, to the mercy of a benefactor whom he had basely and wickedly injured—the miserable and infamous life which he then held. He should say no more on that subject at present, although he had taken great pains to ascertain the truth of the circumstances to which he had alluded, which came to him from a most respectable source. Oliver was, he believed, first introduced, to a small society in London by a person of the name of Pendrill. On the 24th of April, Oliver departed from London with a person of the name of Mitchell, to see Mr. Pendrill at Liverpool, who was on his way to America. On their reaching Birmingham, Oliver was introduced to a Mr. Jones, of that town, by Mitchell, with whom Mr. Jones had been acquainted many years, and of whom he had a very high opinion. He invited a few of his friends, who were also friends of parliamentary reform, to spend the evening at his house with the London delegate. Four persons answered the invitation. He would tell the right hon. gentleman, that witnesses could be produced to all the particulars which he might state, who were ready to come forward to be examined, if the House should consent to the appointment of a committee of inquiry. The conversation at the house of Mr. Jones turned generally on politics. Oliver stated, that after he had seen his friend Pendrill safe on board he should immediately enter on the business for which he was delegated from London—that he was going to set out on a sort of tour through Derby, Leeds, Sheffield, Wakefield, Manchester, and other manufacturing places in the north—that the great object of his tour was to get petitions for reform by tens throughout England. He said he should endeavour to get persons from the different towns through which he passed to meet him at Wakefield to take the subject into consideration. He very much urged the individuals present to send a person to meet him there, as a delegate from Birmingham. At this proposal the persons present only laughed. The}' told him of the absurdity of five individuals taking upon themselves to delegate a person from so large a town as Birmingham. He smiled at the objection, and observed to them, "You are very green in the country yet." A few days after Oliver's departure, he sent a letter to Mr. Jones at Birmingham, informing him, that a meeting was fixed on at Wakefield for the 5th of May; that there had already been one meeting there, and requesting some person to be sent from Birmingham to attend. Oliver then went to Leeds, Manchester, Sheffield, and other places in that part of the country, and they had evidence that at all those places he had called on the most respectable persons, whom he had stimulated to attend the meetings. He represented himself as a man who had been long actively employed in important transactions—as concerned in the business of 1792, as connected with Despard, as having facilitated the escape of Thistlewood and young Watson, and as having collected money for them. He stimulated them to enter into engagements to send delegates. To Wakefield he went first, by himself—his companion had been arrested at Huddersfield. The hon. gentleman said, he had in his possession a narrative, drawn up by two persons, of what had taken place there; and he had opportunities of authenticating the most minute circumstances of this narrative. On the arrival of the delegate from Birmingham, he called on Oliver at his inn, and found him in the parlour alone. He expressed great grief at the arrest of Mitchell, and after deploring for some time the loss the cause would sustain through it, he looked at his watch, and observed that it was time to attend the meeting. As they were walking towards the place appointed, Oliver said it was his firm conviction that, "their new plan of petitioning would have no effect on their oppressors, and that nothing short of physical force would do any good." The person to whom he said this, observed, "I come here for no such purpose." Oliver afterwards asked this person, "should there be any necessity, do you think all who attended a meeting at Birmingham would be ready to fight for their liberties?" The Birmingham delegate was astonished at the question, and observed, it was a subject on which he had never entertained a thought, nor did he know of any person in Birmingham who had any such ideas. Oliver told him, it was highly necessary, he should give as good an account as he possibly could from Birmingham, to strengthen and keep up the spirits of those who should attend the meeting. The delegate answered, he could but state facts; he should be sorry to deceive any one. On their entering the place of meeting, he was surprised to see only a few poor creatures who appeared to be in want of the common necessaries of life.—At this meeting of delegates on the 5th of May, ten were present; one from Birmingham, one from Liverpool, two from Huddersfield, one from Halifax, one from Sheffield, one from Leeds, two from Wakefield, and one front: Manchester. Oliver was called to the chair, but declined. The delegate from Birmingham was then selected, and he took the chair. Oliver opened the proceedings of the day, by observing, that the distressed condition of the people was unparalleled at any former period—that the voice of the people was entirely disregarded by the parliament:—he said that it was useless to petition any more—that London was looking to the country—that they must now recur to physical force—that for that purpose it was necessary to ascertain what men and what number of arms they could obtain. He then pulled out a number of cards from his pocket, and proposed that each person there present should write on a card the greatest number that each town could raise, if called upon; and that each person should sign such card with his own name. This proposal gave general dissatisfaction; upon which Oliver said, it was highly necessary that the body in London from which he was delegated, should have as correct a report as possible of the force which could be collected in the country; but as they still objected, he said, "O, never mind, I will do it myself." He then asked what each place could raise if called upon, and he wrote it down on a piece of paper. This he (Mr. B.) in his conscience believed was the foundation for what was stated in the report, with respect to the arrangement of the quotas to be furnished by the several places. This could be proved on the oath of credible witnesses. After this they had a statement from Oliver himself of his proceedings: he had written a letter to his friend Mitchell, coloured in the most base and infamous manner—base towards Pendrill, his benefactor, who had saved him from prison, and who was a high-minded and excellent character: and in that letter he said, we had a most excellent meeting—"we had that excellent fellow, Bacon, there." He knew that Oliver subsequently visited Mitchell three times in Coldbath-fields. He proposed to Mitchell in prison, that he should write to his friends in the north, entreating them to make an appeal to arms: Mitchell said, "I beg you will quit my presence." How long Oliver stayed in London he did not know; but he knew, notwithstanding what the right hon. gentleman had said, that he made his appearance at Derby and Nottingham—

Mr. Bathurst observed, that he had never denied Oliver's being at Nottingham; and with respect to Derby, he only said he was never in the place where the insurrection was.

Mr. Bennet continued. He said, he might not be in the particular barn; but he would show by-and-by, what the connexion of Oliver was with Derby. On the 26th of May he went to Derby. There a person, whose name he should not mention, from whom he had a statement, saw him. On that day the 26th of May 1817, one James Birkin came to him, and told him there was at the House of a person in Derby, a gentleman who was sent to the country by a committee of gentlemen in London, to ascertain the sentiments of the people respecting parliamentary reform. This person went to the Talbot inn, and saw the gentleman from London, who said his name was Oliver, and received him politely. Soon after, a person present observed, that the town was confused with the cavalry, and other soldiers, ordered out in consequence of some expected disturbance. Oliver said it would be another grand hoax on the government, and when the time arrived they would be asleep A conversation then ensued respecting parliamentary reform, and the distressed state of the country. Oliver said, that "all legal means had been tried to no purpose, and that the London people never meant to petition any more." Oliver asked for a person who had been talked of the night before. It was replied, that it was not certain that he would conic. He however came in. After some observations on sir Francis Burdett's motion for reform, Oliver said, that it was evident that petitioning parliament was of no use. He was then asked, if he considered reform to be altogether impracticable? To this Oliver said, No, not in London, as there were other means to be tried; and that in London they were more active than ever to obtain their rights. Oliver was then asked, what way they meant to proceed? and he said, "they meant to try those means they had left, which was physical force; and that they were only waiting the determination of their friends in the country." He was told that the country would not do any thing. "In that," said Oliver, "you are mistaken; half the country is in an organized state, particularly Birmingham, Sheffield, Leeds, and most of the manufacturing districts." He added, "that the people about Leeds were all armed, and with difficulty kept down until the appointed time." He was then told, that Derby was a very loyal place, and that he must not expect any thing of the kind there. Oliver said, "it was of little consequence, but it would be better if something could be done; but that if the country would come forward, and stand with knobbed sticks in their hands, the business would be done in London, where GO or 70,000 armed men would be raised in an hour or two's notice." He thus, it would be seen, repeated what he had before stated on the 5th of May at Wakefield. He then said, "I have been at several meetings in Yorkshire, and have there engaged a press for the printing of the proclamations, which are to be posted up in every conspicuous place in the kingdom. Mr. Wooler, the publisher of The Black Dwarf, has undertaken that part of the business, and I am now going round the country to strengthen the hands of the people in the cause. I am for Nottingham to-day, for Sheffield to-morrow, for Leeds on Wednesday, for Manchester on Thursday, and, if possible, I mean to go to Liverpool the day after, as they are not quite so forward there as I could wish." It was probable he went thither, as a letter was received from him, dated there, on that day. "But," he said, "I must be back to Birmingham on Sunday next. They are forward there, and have plenty of arms. But," said he, "you are not deficient in arms in Derby. You have a depot there." He was told yes; but that the arms were sent to Weed on. Oliver then said, the Wolverhampton men would knock Weedon over. One of the party said, "I have a brother there who is very ill." Oliver inquiring what he was, was told a bricklayer. Oliver asked if the man had ever been there? The man answered, No, sir, it is a place I should like to go to, and have wished it for some time, but poverty has prevented me. Oliver then asked him if he would go over, "as it would be serviceable to the Wolverhampton men? For," said he, "as you have a brother there, and are a bricklayer, you would not be suspected." The man answered, that he could not raise five shillings in the world, and that besides, his brother was averse to every thing of the kind, and he dared not introduce any thing of the sort to him. "Well," says he, "you need not say any thing to him about it; you can go, and get him to go round the place with you and make your own observations, unknown to your brother. If you will go, you must go and come back by Birmingham; and I will give you a letter to a gentleman who will give you plenty of money." A letter to this purpose was written, which was destroyed by the person, who saw several of his neighbours taken up; but it would be sworn to by the person who had it, and others who saw it.

Could any one doubt, that if any man had gone to Weedon, in pursuance of the plan of Oliver, that he would have incurred the guilt of high treason? Yet this person, it was said, did not stimulate per-sons to illegal acts! This person did not stimulate the people at Derby, Nottingham, Liverpool, Leeds, and Birmingham! From this place Oliver goes to Nottingham; the same day, according to his own previous declaration; and there he appears as the London delegate. He tells them that Yorkshire, &c. were all in arms—and that day Oliver saw Brandreth—he had an affidavit in his possession as to that fact, ["What is the name?" From Mr. Bathurst.] He should not name him; but if the right hon. gentleman would consent to an inquiry, he would produce the witness. Besides, he held in his hand the statement of Brandreth himself, made in confidence to his solicitor before the trial. He had it in the solicitor's own writing. The meeting was at the House of a person of great consequence. Among the few persons who were active in these transactions, was a Mr. Stevens. He believed he (Mr. B.), from his information, knew more of these proceedings than the secret committee. The meeting took place at the Three Salmons public-house. The witness he spoke of there met Oliver with Brandreth, "who appeared to be the most concerned with Oliver of any one, put the most questions to him, and listened attentively to his answers." In the course of conversation, Oliver said, he had been to see Wooler in prison, the last thing before he left London, and that Wooler would be the man to write the proclamations. He said there would be 10,000 printed. He said, he wondered what the people of Nottingham were about. The people in Yorkshire and Lancashire were hardly to be kept down. Oliver said the people were ripe in London, and were now determined to carry their complaints to the foot of the throne, for petitioning (meaning to the House of Commons) was of no use. He requested some persons to explore Weedon barracks, and observed what a large store of arms and ammunition was there. This was the statement which a man had delivered on his oath:—"Jeremiah Brandreth—He states, that he attended a meeting at Nottingham, at the sign of the Three Salmons, at which several persons attended, and, amongst the rest, Oliver. That this meeting was on Whitsun Monday, or Monday after. That he told the persons assembled, that he had been round the circuit, at Manchester and Yorkshire, and was then going to London by Birmingham. That he stated that every person was perfectly ready to rise, and that he could raise 70,000 men in London; that the people in London would not be satisfied unless Nottingham was perfectly secured; for it was the rallying point for Nottinghamshire, Derbyshire, and Leicestershire; and that if that was not secured, the passage over the Trent would be perfectly stopped for the Northern forces; that they must proceed forward to London as soon as they could raise sufficient men against the loyalists. Nottingham was to be continually supported by Northern forces in succession."

So far Brandreth's statement. Oliver was not satisfied with this. He returned to Nottingham on the 6th of June, and said he would raise the standard there himself; but, said he, "I am obliged to be absent to support our friends in Yorkshire, who are now in arms to support the cause which you are so slack in defending."—But to conclude the statement of Oliver's journies. On the authority of the same witness, he could state, that Oliver returned to Birmingham. There he put forth his usual assertions. He told them that he had paid several visits to Mr. Wooler, that he was a hearty good fellow; and that nothing could daunt his intrepid spirit; that it was a terrible misfortune he was in prison, for he would have assisted the cause wonderfully; that he would have printed some thousands of proclamations for distribution in every large town, to rouse the people into action. That the people in the North of England were already ripe for the onset against their oppressors, and that they could scarcely be kept down from rising before the appointed day; that vast bodies of men were ready to pour down from Scotland, that would overwhelm every thing before them; and that the day of retribution to their most unfeeling tyrants was near at hand. That sir Francis Burdett, major Cartwright, and many others, whose names it. would not be proper to disclose, were well acquainted with the whole of these things. That several officers of distinction would take any post to which they might be appointed by the people; the disclosure of whose names, however, he told them, would be very improper, but that they might depend upon it, that all that he had told them was very true.

It was to be remembered, in the delegation at Thornhill Lees, how anxious Oliver was to get together delegates. To give a colour to this proceeding, he seemed to think it essential to procure a person who might call himself a delegate from Birmingham. The report of the secret committee, last session, spoke of persons acting with assumed or delegated authority. As if there was no difference between assumed and delegated! Whereas in truth, in the ascertaining of that fact, was all the importance of the question; for though these persons might be formidable if they had a delegated authority, yet, if they merely assumed their authority, they would be of no importance at all. Oliver could prevail on no person to pretend even an assumed authority from Birmingham. For as for delegates, the eight or ten paupers assembled at Thornhill Lees, were just as much delegates from the people as Oliver was a delegate from major Cartwright and sir F. Burdett. But he was very anxious to get a show of a delegation. Pressing letters were sent to Mr. Jones, and Oliver's agent and associate. George Crabtree was also sent to Birmingham, to induce some persons to attend; but the persons to whom he addressed himself knew he was a mischievous man, and told him he could expect no aid from Birmingham in such a cause. Yet Oliver had represented Birmingham to be in a state approaching insurrection, in order to excite the people in Nottingham and in Derby.

He had now laid before the House a small portion of the statements which he possessed. There was one remarkable fact, however, to which he requested their particular attention. From the day Oliver was detected and ceased his misionary tour, the public tranquillity was restored. That there had been disturbances was well known. There was much discontent in the country, because there was much distress. It was easy for those who enjoyed in tranquillity every comfort and luxury that opulence could bestow, either out of their private fortunes, or out of the sums which for their services or their no-services they took from the public purse, to recommend patience, and to reprobate in strong terms that insubordination, the causes of which they very imperfectly understood. They had never heard the cries of wife or children clamouring for food which they could not give them. They were ignorant of the feelings of a man who found himself almost of necessity linked to any companions who could hold out a hope, however dangerous and precarious, of saving himself from the pit of perdition that yawned before him and his family. Nine-tenths of those who had been disaffected were in that condition—he did not deny that there were some mischievous men who wished to take advantage of that distress; but was the mischief so deep, so combined, so extensive, as to afford ground for rational alarm? It was loose, scattered, undefined, unregulated discontent. But with Oliver to stimulate and direct them, the business took quite another turn; and while he was setting one town and one county against another, proclaiming to one district that its neighbour was ready, and upbraiding all with timidity and delay, the consequence was almost unavoidable, that these miserable wretches would, if possible, have resorted to that physical force so strenuously recommended to them by the missionaries of government. He would put this question to the House. According to the random estimate of Mr. Colquhoun there were 30 or 40,000 people who lived by depredation in London; persons who rose every morning without hopes of obtaining any regular employment, or of securing a bed for the ensuing night, and who of course were always ready for any mischief that might offer. There were at any rate many thousands, and a proportionate number in other great towns. What would be said if government sent missionaries among these thieves—who would tell them it was now time to rifle the rich and plunder in union—at Manchester, Liverpool, Leeds, and Sheffield, and to make a combination of those plunderers whom it was the object of the law to keep disconnected? And why had the government acted towards the discontent which had arisen out of want in a manner which would be deemed madness towards the spoilers of the public Before he sat down, he wished to say a word as to an argument he had been sorry to hear urged as a proof of Oliver's absence in these transactions; the argument urging the use he might have been of to the prisoners as a witness for them, if all these facts were true. "If Oliver had any such concern in these transactions, why," said the hon. gentleman opposite, "did he remain concealed? he was on the spot and might have been called." It was true he was on the spot ready to purchase the blood-money of Brandreth also; but the reason he was not called was, that he would have been too dangerous a witness for the prisoners; he would have proved, not that they were not guilty of treason, but that they had been seduced into it; and that would have furnished no defence, that would only have forfeited their blood with greater certainty to the avarice of government missionaries. The judge himself must have stopped such evidence, and have told the prisoners they only confessed their guilt by calling it. Just as, in the last century, it was held to be no excuse to the tenants of the earl of Derwentwater, that they had been led into rebellion in obedience to their lord. An argument thus urged against the prisoners was a disgrace—he would call it so again, a disgrace—to the justice of the country. It was on that account that the trials took the course they did. It was on that account that Bacon was not tried first. Oliver would have been an important witness against Bacon; but Bacon's trial would have had a most important effect on the trials of the other prisoners, it was for that reason that this master traitor was kept back, and suffered to escape with a milder punishment than less guilty persons. He was sorry to have detained the House so long on this subject, but he believed he had exaggerated nothing, and treated the matter with no more asperity than it called for. He was actuated by a strong wish to save the country from the farther progress of a system, the natural consequences of which the right hon. gentleman had shown—which he (Mr. Bonnet) had shown. He was prepared to substantiate every material fact he had stated on the oath of witnesses—aye, of credible witnesses; not such witnesses as Castles [Hear! hear!]. The hon. gentleman might well say hear, and then refuse all inquiry. They might carry it by their majorities, but this would not do with the country. They stood before the country, and a verdict would be given, not only on the system, but on the House itself, such as the enormity of the case required.

Mr. Wilberforce, notwithstanding the latter words of the hon. gentleman's speech, could not help protesting against the distrust he had expressed against the committee, and which tended to raise a prejudice against it before the result of its inquiry could be known; he should not, however, feel embarrassed while sitting in that committee; but the reason why, as a member of that House, he objected to the motion of the hon. gentleman was, that it was founded on a false assumption; it was founded on an idea that the late committee had attributed some specific part of the disturbances in question to Oliver; whereas, that was not the meaning of the committee. After stating that certain disturbances had existed prior to the employment of Oliver, it did not choose to throw out of view what effect the language of Oliver might have had towards continuing those disturbances, lest, by so doing, it might have incurred a charge of disingenuousness; not that the committee believed the influence of Oliver had had any particular effect, but only that general effect always consequent on the employment of such means for the detection of crime; if, therefore, he rejected the motion on that ground, it was because it proceeded upon a false hypothesis. If the hon. gentleman contended that some specification of Oliver's particular offences was intended to be conveyed by the language of the committee, he, for one, could assure him that he had no such meaning. He never meant to say, that nothing in these disturbances was attributable to Oliver; but what had just been stated by the hon. gentleman if considered as having some weight, was also to be received with some distrust as coming from a doubtful source. He remembered when an account was formerly given in that House of some diplomacy between lord Malmesbury and M. de la Croix, very much in favour of lord Malmesbury, that Mr. Fox had said he should like to hear M. de la Croix; so he (Mr. Wilberforce) should like to hear Oliver—he did not mean in the committee, but by some other means, to ascertain the truth of what had been alleged against him. If those things were so, he conceived that if any man could be proved to have acted the part this man was represented to have done, he could be, and ought to be brought to justice. It would be a service to the public, to bring to justice a person who had acted so differently from what was expected from him. But as to the character of such persons, they were always indifferent; and it was necessary to entertain suspicions of a man, who would volunteer, by fraud and treachery, to discover the designs of other people—who could put on their language and habits for the express purpose of betraying them; and it was, therefore, very proper in the committee to say, that something of the disturbances might be attributable to the language and conduct of this man. But he was astonished that men of honourable feelings, who did not condemn the employment of spies, who admitted them to be necessary in certain cases, for surely the hon. mover had said "he would not decide whether spies should or should not be employed, or whether they should go about to tell lies—"he was astonished that they did not see that such a character could not go about with any prospect of obtaining information, unless he acted in that manner. If he forbore to do so, he must relinquish his views altogether. But he did think it unfair that, persons who did not disallow the employment of such persons, should vent their whole indignation on them if they exceeded their instructions by never so small a degree. It was not at the falsehood, but at the degree, that exception was taken. He was astonished that gentlemen did not sec that these were crooked paths; and he was convinced that he would do a most material service to his country, who could succeed in exploding the system altogether. But they were inconsistent who admitted it to be allowable, and then were indignant if spies happened a little to exceed their instructions. Certainly, the employment of such engines was not allowable in a religious view. The God of truth abhorred falsehood, and all the ways of deceit. It was equally repugnant to any notions of honour or morality, or to the feelings of a gentleman; and on the mere ground of political expediency, the objections to it were almost as strong. Though the employment of spies might, in some particular instances, be attended with short and temporary advantages, and government might be able to detect some treasons which would otherwise escape punishment, yet he thought those advantages were much more than counterbalanced by the inconveniences that ensued. When he considered all the mistrust that such a system must occasion, even to the disturbance of domestic peace and confidence; when he considered the temptations to false information of every description; the misconstructions that might be put on the most innocent actions; and the suspicions and disaffection that must be excited against the government itself, he thought the general confusion that such a system would excite, must, in the long run, impede much more than further the cause of good order. He had no hesitation in saying, that he condemned the use of all such instruments. The country and the government would lose more than they would gain by them; the former, in that confidence which, in superintending the execution of the law, it should command; and the latter, in that abhorrence of all attempts to disturb the public tranquillity, for which the employment of such agents furnished something like an apology. One of the greatest evils they produced was, a distrust in the administration of justice, which they polluted, and a false sympathy with the violators of the law, and the disturbers of the public peace. Notwithstanding all that had been said by the disaffected or the discontented; notwithstanding the real sufferings which had been felt in the late season of distress, and the unequivocal breaches of the law which had taken place, he was proud to say, that there never was, in any age or country, a greater share of real liberty enjoyed; there never was a more prosperous, a more moral, or a happier nation; but by the use of such agents, the people, instead of being proud of their constitution, and clinging to the blessings which they possessed under it; instead of feeling an anxiety to preserve them, and a detestation of those crimes which tended to undermine them, would have their principles perverted, and their sympathies turned in favour of their worst enemies. This he regarded as most injurious to the country. And after all it was impossible to get at truth by such means. As an instance, he had never heard two stories more different than that which he had heard that night, and that which he had heard on the committee. Before the committee Oliver was described as being, so far from one of those extraordinary villains who snatch a grace beyond the ready of art—much too little of a rascal for his profession; and that, on that account, he was always open to detection. Let the practice not be defended on the ground that it was necessary for the preservation of the public peace. No! no! the British empire did not stand in need of such assistance to maintain, its security; it claimed no protection from such allies. Our liberties, our rights, and our tranquillity, stood on the principles of law and the constitution, and despised the aid or the countenance of such base associates. He must say, however, that with those sentiments of the persons alluded to in the motion, he was against the motion itself. He was against the motion, because it involved an inquiry that could not well be carried on in the committee, and for which the committee was not the proper place; and he must say, that he, for one, would not take a seat in the committee to which such an inquiry should be referred.

Mr. Bennet observed, that he had not expressed himself at all in favour of the employment of such instruments. All he had observed was, that it was most difficult to distinguish between repentant sinners, and those who were actuated by hopes of lucre.

The Solicitor General said, he felt himself called upon to answer some observations which had been made by the hon. gentleman on the conduct of his hon. and learned colleague; and but for this attack, he should not have been induced to trouble the House. With regard to the motion itself, he did not think that it required much reasoning to show that it ought not to be entertained. The motion was grounded solely and exclusively on a passage in the report of the secret committee, which could not bear the construction put upon it. It proceeded on the supposition, that the passage alluded to imputed criminal actions to those spies into whose conduct it was its object to recommend the institution of a criminal inquiry. The report, however, could bear no such construction: it imputed nothing that could be the foundation of a criminal indictment: yet the whole of the hon. opener's speech rested on such a construction. He would read the passage, and the House would be convinced of the erroneous use made of it. "Upon the whole," it said, "your Committee have been anxious neither to extenuate nor exaggerate the nature and extent of the danger. They have not been insensible to the jealousy with which the testimony of persons originally implicated in the designs of the conspirators, or even of persons who never having engaged in those designs, have attended such meetings, in order to discover and report their proceedings, ought to be received; but the facts stated by your committee rest not only on confirmatory evidence, but on distinct, substantive, and satisfactory testimony; and although your committee have reason to apprehend, that the language and conduct of some persons from whom information has been derived may, in some instances, have had the effect of encouraging those designs, which it was intended they should only be the instruments of detecting, yet it is perfectly clear to your Committee, that before any such encouragement could have been given, the plan of a simultaneous insurrection in different parts of the country had been actually concerted, and its execution fully determined on." This passage attached no criminality to the persons alluded to, which could be made the subject of a criminal prosecution. If a design had previously been formed, which it was determined to carry into execution, and if persons who were sent to detect it had only taken the means of ascertaining its existence by seeming to join in its conduct, such a proceeding could not be made the subject of a criminal charge. If these persons had themselves formed the plan, and endeavoured to procure persons to sanction and to execute it, the case would have been altered, and the present motion for their prosecution would have been just and proper. No such criminality was here imputed; and the hon. member, as if aware of the fact, had filled his speech with other topics, and introduced many statements both extraneous and unauthorized. The hon. member had not given the names of the individuals from whom he derived that information on which he seemed so implicitly to rely; but he (the solicitor general) suspected the sources, and one name, that of Mitchell, introduced inadvertently into his statement, gave him almost a certain clue to the rest. This person had been suspected of high treason, and had been taken up and imprisoned on the charge; and was he therefore to be thought a proper witness in implicating the character of those who might be employed to detect his designs, or in making charges against the government who prevented him from earning them into execution? Then there was Pendrill who had fled to America. And Stephen who was likewise in America, who might have furnished the facts of the statement which the House had heard. Mitchell had been charged with high treason [Hear, hear!]. He would ask the hon. gentleman opposite, who cheered this statement, if a charge of treason increased the credibility of the person who furnished the narrative against his prosecutors. He knew that now-a-days persons who had been brought before the courts of law on the gravest charges, had been considered as persecuted individuals; that they had been held up as proper objects for public bounty; that they had been looked upon as martyrs in the cause of liberty, and that that odium which ought to have been directed against those who had violated the law, and were endeavouring to destroy the moral principles, or to disturb the general tranquillity of the country, had been attempted to be turned against those who had exerted themselves to preserve them, as if they, and not the country, had been the sufferers, and ought to receive redress. Individuals who by their conduct had made themselves amenable to the law, thought that by raising a cry against Oliver and the spies, they could shift the criminality from themselves, and impute the whole to a conspiracy of the government. They, poor innocent souls, never harboured a design to disturb the public peace, or to commit treason; they were merely deluded by the artifice of government spies, and had never hatched any plots themselves; the whole was the fabrication of their tempters; and yet this came from the very person, Mitchell, who, by his own admission, went with Oliver from London with the intention of agitating the country. But on the scene he did nothing—Oliver (by-the-by a total stranger in the place) was the sole agent—Oliver organized the plans—Oliver arranged all the movements of the disaffected—he inspired the disturbed districts with the design of overturning the government, and arming for the purpose of general confusion. The manner in which the hon. gentleman alluded to the administration of justice, and the conduct of his learned and hon. friend, the attorney general, seemed calculated to countenance such representations, and to prejudice the minds of the public against the prosecution of the violaters of the law. He had mentioned the name of Castles—a witness that was called on the late trials for high treason in Westminster, as the attorney general's witness; whereas he must have known that be was the witness of the Crown and the country. Did not his hon. and learned friend mention to the jury the character of this person—did he not tell them not to believe one word of his testimony, unless it was confirmed by other witnesses? Castles had been called a spy: but the hon. gentleman must have known, if he had read the trial, that this person had never been employed in that capacity by government, and not one syllable of his testimony was known to his hon. and learned friend till long after the transactions to which it referred. It was never even hinted that he was a spy on the trial; he appeared there in the character of a witness, and was introduced as an accomplice who had turned evidence. He did not think, therefore, that those charges were fair; or, at least, they must have been known, upon the slightest consideration, to have been unfounded. Then the hon. gentleman went to the trials at Derby, and he (the solicitor-general) would beg of him to be more guarded in his statements, and not advance charges which might prejudice the public mind without a shadow of foundation. He had said, that his hon. and learned friend had brought Oliver to that place, and had him ready to produce on the trial to sell the blood of the prisoners. The hon. gentleman upon the slightest examination, might have learned that Oliver could not there have been Produced as a witness by his hon. and earned friend, as he was not in the list of witnesses given to the prisoners. Yet, with such a fact, so easily accessible to any person on inquiry, the hon. gentleman had said, that he was brought there to receive the blood money on the conviction of the traitors. Had his hon. and learned friend produced this person, the cry that would have been raised against him might easily have been anticipated. Those who now find fault with the crown-officers for not examining him, would have been the first to exclaim.—"You have sent a spy to organize rebellion; and now you convict the victims of his artifice on his polluted testimony." As he was not produced, it was said that if he had appeared a conviction would not have been obtained, so that in all cases censure must be thrown on government; and they must be wrong whatever course they pursued. The hon. gentleman, in speaking of the crimes for which one of the prisoners had been convicted and punished, had used the gentle term of illegal acts. Such were the words that he applied to the conduct of a man, who, in prosecution of treasonable purposes, had committed the crime of murder! The expressions, he would appeal to the House, were used, and he had himself taken them down at the time.

Mr. Bennet begged to explain. He had more than once, in the course of his observations, called the prisoners at Derby, traitors.

The Solicitor General, in continuation, said, that whatever other expressions the hon. gentleman had used, and he did not mean to deny his use of the word traitors, he had likewise employed the terms which he had quoted. The hon. gentleman had said, that as the attorney-general had not produced Oliver, he could not have been called by the counsel for the prisoners, because his testimony, if received at all, must have gone to convict them. He allowed this, so far as regarded the effect of his testimony to acquit them; but if it could have established the fact that they had been deluded by him, might it not have operated favourably in their behalf, when, after conviction on competent evidence, they were called up to receive judgment? But so far were they from thinking they had any such evidence reserved for a mitigation of punishment, that it appeared on the trial they did not even know of the name of Oliver. Their guilt had been contracted even before that person went among them. According to the statement given to-night, Oliver and Brandreth did not meet, it was said, till the 26th of May; but meetings of the conspirators had taken place before that date, and the plan was arranged which afterwards ended in the insurrection of the 9th of June. Nothing appeared in the hon. gentleman's narrative that tended to show that Oliver had arranged the conspiracy. The reason given by the hon. gentleman for not trying Bacon first—namely, that if that trial had been first proceeded in, Oliver must have been produced—was wholly groundless; and was a representation which should not go forth to the country uncontradicted, notwithstanding the strong asseveration with which it was adduced. Oliver, the hon. gentleman should have known, was not on the list of witnesses served upon the prisoners, and could not, therefore, have been produced. He (the solicitor-general) had now vindicated the proceedings of the law-officers, and shown that the motion was grounded on a mistake of the report. He therefore saw no reason for complying with the motion.

Sir S. Romilly said, he was surprised at the course pursued by the two last speakers, in addressing themselves more to the mode of inquiry than the substance of the charges. His hon. friend, the member for Bramber, had objected to a reference of the inquiry to the committee of secrecy; and his hon. and learned friend, the solicitor-general, had contented himself with showing that the passage in the report to which the motion alluded did not bear the construction put upon it so as to render a reference to the committee necessary. He himself had no particular desire that the examination proposed should be referred to the committee of secrecy; but he would vote for his hon. friend's motion, because he thought some course should be adopted to sift the alleged charges, and this was the one that had been suggested. He wished for a committee of inquiry, but it did not matter with him whether this committee or another should be instrusted with the inquiry. Indeed, after what had been said by the noble member for Yorkshire, that he stood alone in the secret committee, and that he merely attended it because he wished to fulfil a duty imposed upon him by the House, and not with any hopes of doing any good in it, he would have preferred another mode of inquiry. Some inquiry was, however, absolutely necessary; and after the charges which had been heard from his hon. friend that night, with the pledge which he had given that he could substantiate them by witnesses upon oath, if a proper opportunity were allowed, he would repeat the words which his hon. friend had used, and say, that he thought the House would not dare to resist inquiry into the truth. This parliament was drawing near to a dissolution; and how could the members who composed it meet their constituents at a new election, if they heard such grave charges, and resisted an examination into them? His hon. and learned friend thought he had got quit of the charges, because he said the statements came from a polluted source; and he must say that, since he had a seat in parliament, he never heard a man treated more unfairly than his hon. friend had been by the solicitor-general. He (the solicitor-general) had suspected that the narrative came from Mitchell, and because Mitchell had been arrested by government on suspicion of treason, therefore his evidence was said by his hon. and learned friend to come from a polluted source. He was arrested on the 21st of June, and because he was arrested, no matter on what evidence, therefore his evidence was to be inadmissible, and his oath to be discredited. His hon. and learned friend had found out a new expedient for the use of government, and promulgated it on the high authority of one of the first law officers of the Crown, to disqualify a witness who might be brought against his majesty's ministers. According to this new plan, government had only to throw the obnoxious individual into prison, and then his testimony would cease any longer to be credible. The moment he was taken up, he not only would lose his liberty but his character, and could never afterwards be believed. Once adopt such a principle, and every minister would find it his interest to take the widest possible range of accusation, as the most effectual step to his own security, by disqualifying all the witnesses that might be brought against him. His hon. and learned friend had said the whole of the evidence came from a polluted source, and he had not used the phrase inadvertently, as his hon. friend used the words illegal acts, as applied to treason, but had frequently repeated it. But then there were another or two contributors to the narrative, according to his suspicion, who were not imprisoned, but who had gone to America. They had, however, gone thither before the events mentioned in the narrative took place. The charges were not, however, to be destroyed upon such reasoning; the country would not acquit government upon the mere allegation that they proceeded from a polluted source. When his hon. friend, with his high character for honour and integrity, came forward and said that he could support them upon oath—that he had inquired, into the testimony on which they were founded, and believed it entitled to credit—he would again use the phrase, that the House would not dare in the face of the public to resist inquiry. Adverting to the trials at Derby, he (sir S. Romilly) said that his hon. and learned friend had dealt unfairly with the House, in what he had stated regarding them. He had said, that it appeared on the trial of Brandreth, that meetings and plots had taken place or been formed before the 26th of May, and he wished this statement to go forth to the public as a satisfactory answer to the charge that Oliver had arranged the plan of the insurrection which took place on the 9th of June. Now not one word came out in evidence that any plots had been formed previous to the former date. The testimony of the witnesses there examined did not relate to any proceeding anterior to the 8th of June. The hon. and learned solicitor-general had turned the speech of an hon. friend (Mr. Ben-net) rather invidiously against him. It was not pretended by him, and no man could so have understood, that the traitors at Derby had not been guilty of crimes for which they merited death by law. Brandreth had committed murder, and others had not less deservedly suffered. No man of common candour could have so mistaken and misrepresented his hon. friend. It looked like an intention on the part of the learned solicitor-general, to throw a stain upon an honourable and unblemished individual—an attempt to prove that he was a suborner of improper evidence, [the solicitor-general said that he had not used the word suborner.] Unquestionably not, but his language implied as much; that the hon. member had examined witnesses and taken evidence from polluted sources, and that he had as it were made common cause with traitors and murderers by justifying their crimes. [The solicitor-general denied having said, this.] Perhaps the expression of the hon. and learned gentleman had not been quite so strong, and perhaps he would have the goodness to explain presently, what it was he did say, to which might certainly be applied the mitigated phrase, that it seemed dictated by some degree of malignity. The hon. gentleman who spoke last but one had censured, with the utmost warmth, the employment of spies and informers under any circumstances. He (sir S. Romilly) was not casuist enough to be able at this moment to decide whether their assistance ought never to be required—whether private treachery might ever be encouraged for the sake of discovering public delinquency; but at the same time he was still farther from agreeing with the noble lord, who, on a former occasion, had not only justified but applauded their employment. It was singular, however, thinking as the hon. member did that they were pests to society; that they betrayed the confidence of friendship, and broke the ties of blood; that they took advantage of the wants of their fellow citizens, and led them on under colour of co-operation, from discontent to sedition, and from sedition to treason—that he should object to the motion, and upon a matter so imperiously demanding investigation, resist all inquiry. Would not this reference to the committee at least tend to diminish the use of spies, and to remove this plague from the bosoms of the peaceful and well disposed inhabitants of the country? It was a subject of vital importance, yet the hon. gentleman refused to take a step that would accomplish an object so desirable. Still the hon. member had expressed a wish to hear Oliver tell his own story; and why could not this be done before the committee? Did he think that the unhappy man would be unequally matched, and that he would not meet with due support from the noble lord and his other friends upon that committee! When the hon. member spoke of prosecuting Oliver, did he mean that the prosecution should be undertaken by private individuals, and that government, the public prosecutor in all other cases, should defend instead of accuse? Some members of the committee it seemed entertained a good opinion of Oliver; they thought that he was not wicked enough for a spy—that he was a bungler in his business—that he had not "snatched that grace beyond the reach of art," which accomplished villains had attained: but he who was so well able to deceive his enemies, might perhaps have imposed upon his friends. Recollecting the thinness of the House at the time the hon. member for Ilchester made his important statement, and observing the crowded state of the benches now, he put it to gentlemen, whether they could reconcile to themselves the refusal of an investigation without having heard the facts on which the demand for inquiry was rested and justified? Would they venture to risk the impression that might be made by the rejection of this motion upon the public and their constituents? He would not now occupy more of the time of the House: but if the proposition of that night were negatived by a majority, which he shrewdly suspected, he hoped that the hon. member for Bramber (and no man could do it with more weight) on an early day would come forward with a motion consistent with his speech, to inquire into the recent encouragement of spies, whose employment was destructive of the happiness, morality and religion of the community.

Mr. Canning rose, but sir Samuel Romilly called upon the solicitor-general to explain the supposed misrepresentation: Mr. Canning, however, persevered.—If he had recognised, he said, in the hon. and learned gentleman a right to regulate the order of debate, he should not have persisted in claiming the attention of the House before the explanation, so extraordinarily called for, had been given [Hear, hear!]: he used the term, "so extraordinarily called for," not with reference to the hon. and learned member's speech, but to the colloquial and irregular mode in which he had demanded a reply. The hon. and learned gentleman's practice, both here and elsewhere, might have taught him, that there might be two reasons for not giving an explanation—the one, where what had been stated was so clear as to make explanation unnecessary; the other, where a statement had been—he would not say so wilfully, but certainly so grossly misrepresented, that it might safely be left to the audience to do the speaker justice.

He agreed, that it was most expedient to recall the attention of the House, both to the state of the question, and to the question itself, as there might he those present who, not having enjoyed the benefit of hearing the statement of the hon. member opposite (Mr. Bennet), or of listening to the question from the chair, would be left, by all that had passed very recently in the debate, in total ignorance of the point under discussion. From the speech of the hon. and learned gentleman who last addressed the House, they would be led to conclude that the proposition was, that an inquiry should be instituted, not only into the alleged, but the proved misconduct of spies employed by government. The hon. and learned gentleman had not even stopped here; for, whether distrusting the facts detailed by his hon. friend behind him, or the force of his own reasoning upon them, or invited by a hoped-for, attempted, but unachieved triumph over his hon. and learned friend (the solicitor-general), he had thought fit to put in a plea in bar, and to call upon the House to consider whether it dared to put a negative upon a question before it. Happily the time for that topic was not arrived: to whatever millennium some persons might look forward when parliament should be overawed and intimidated from without, that time was not yet come: the House and the country, thank God! were not yet ripe for the discussion of a topic, launched heretofore from the tribune of Robespierre. Hon. gentlemen opposite might smile; they might thus attempt to give him the only answer he could receive; but he hoped, before he sat down, to show beyond contradiction, that he was not the single person, that the members of the government were not the only set of men, nor the majority of the House the only body, monopolizing the sentiment, that not long since there was in this country a real tendency to revolution. He flattered him-self that the House was not to be intimidated, in any sense that the word "dare" might convey, whether of force from without, or of argument from within, from looking the question fairly in the face, and deciding it upon its merits. The members of the British parliament had neither lost their reason nor their coolness, but would proceed in the path of their duty, unbiassed by clamour, and unawed by menaces. All this was surplusage; but the introduction of the topic into the debate called for this reply. If gentlemen on the other side, either by their organized shouts or their unorganized speeches, by their exaggerations and misstatements, expected to interrupt the quiet march of just argument and solid reasoning, they would be as grievously mistaken as the hon. and learned gentleman had been when he hoped to repress or extinguish the growing ability and power of the hon. and learned member who preceded him in debate [Hear, hear!]. All this, however (as he had said), was but surplusage to the real matter in discussion—the motion of the hon. member for Lincoln.

He knew not whether that motion had been framed by the hon. gentleman himself, or whether he had been assisted by others. If he had framed it himself, he had been imprudent not to consult his friends: if he had taken the advice of others, and this motion was the result, God help him with, and deliver him from, such friends! Personally, he entertained for the hon. gentleman the highest respect, and he was happy to see him gradually rising to that station in the House to which his talents entitled him: but he must speak of his motion as it appeared to him. If the hon. member had acted by himself, he alone was responsible for its absurdity; but if he had taken the opinions of those around him, never was unlucky individual so deceived, betrayed, and deserted! If he had not acted alone, at least he now stood in melancholy solitude; for not one speech had been delivered, not one argument had been offered, under pretence of supporting the motion, which, properly viewed, must not have the effect of chasing it from the table. The motion was not, as some supposed, that a committee should be appointed to inquire into facts—it was not that a prosecution should be instituted against those who had sinned against morality and religion;—but merely that the committee of secrecy should be directed to inquire, whether any, and what, proceedings had been instituted to bring to justice those persons whose conduct the committee had censured in a former report. And who were those persons? The hon. mover had interrupted one speaker, to state, that he did not refer to Oliver and the trials at Derby, but to Castles and the trials in London. Yet his friends, if such they might be called, had all directed their attacks against Oliver, while the hon. gentleman protested that he meant Castles. Yet that was impossible: Castles could not be alluded to in the second report, because the trials in London were at an end, before the second report was made: the shouts on the enlargement of Mr. Thistlewood were heard under the very windows of the room where the committee, which was framing the second report, was sitting. What, then, could this report have to do with Castles and his associates? His functions were finished, and it was notorious that the report related only to Oliver. This was a plain and convincing proof that the motion meant nothing, if it did not apply to Oliver. It might, however, be said, that it was intended to have a retrospective as well as a prospective application. But how would its condition be at all improved by the assertion? Castles was a man taken with other persons supposed to be guilty of high treason, and admitted an evidence against them. And was a motion made for an inquiry by a committee of the House of Commons into what had been done against a king's evidence—what steps had been taken to prosecute him? Did any man upon earth ever hear of such a motion? Was it not the notorious practice of all courts of justice to admit accomplices as witnesses? And why, in this sanctioned, hallowed, and dignified crime of treason, was a different rule to prevail to that which governed the vulgar offences of murder or robbery? But why had the name of Castles been thrust in at all? The reason was obvious—because the learned solicitor-general having given a complete answer to the case of Oliver, the hon. mover in his distress, had resorted to the subterfuge of applying his proposition to Castles [Cries of No, no!]. To whom, then, did it apply; or had it indeed no application at all? If Castles was not the man, as he clearly was not, would the other side revert to Oliver? ["Oliver & Co." from the opposition benches]. Then be it Oliver & Co. [Hear, and a laugh]. They should have it either, or both ways.

The motion, then, before the House was, not for the purpose of directing the committee to inquire what ought to be done;—but it was for the purpose of directing them to inquire what had been done,—though his majesty's ministers had stated that nothing had been done [Hear! and a laugh]. That nothing had been done might be blameable; that nothing had been done might be a ground for impeachment; if so,—habetis confitentem reum;—let the impeachment be brought forward, and it would be fairly met; but, in the name of common sense—in the name of consistency—let not the House direct a committee to inquire whether any proceedings had been instituted in a case in which it was notorious that there could be none—the case of a man who had turned evidence for the purpose of saving himself; or in a case in which it was avowed that nothing had been done, and in which therefore if you only want the fact for a ground of an accusation, it is furnished to you by free and voluntary admission.

To such a proposition it was an insult to the understanding of the House to call upon it to give its assent. The present was the first instance that he recollected of a motion, the success of which would be equally inconvenient to its supporters and opponents. What would the other side gain by its adoption? They said that the inquiry was of vital importance—that the peace of society was at stake—that the morals of mankind were invaded, and religion outraged. It might be so. It was impossible to tell what transcendental interests might be involved in the issue of the question of this evening: but granting all the importance of the proposed inquiry, to what body would wise men confide such an inquiry, and to what body did the other side of the House propose to confide it?—To those whom they had uniformly represented as utterly incompetent to the functions already delegated to them—who, in their opinion, possessed neither common talents nor common honesty—to a committee consisting of the friends of ministers, who were themselves culprits—of ministers themselves, who were to be their own judges; of persons, in short, who were assembled merely for the purpose of cheating and deluding the nation [Continued cheers]. He thanked the hon. gentlemen on the other side for their applauses, since he collected from them that he was correctly expressing their sentiments. This, then, was the committee to which it was now proposed to intrust these mighty matters—men, whose labours were injurious rather than beneficial, and whose report would be a tissue of false facts and erroneous opinions. An inquiry on which morality, religion, happiness, tranquillity, and all sorts of blessings depended, was to be placed in the hands of this proscribed committee: utterly incompetent to discharge the functions already assigned to them, they were to be burtherted with fresh tasks, and matters of still greater solemnity. And supposing that this expected report, like that relating to Oliver, should be unsatisfactory to them—as it most likely would be—the consolation of the hon. gentlemen opposite was to be that they might still tell their constituents, that they had put this stupendous subject in the best possible train of investigation, and that it was not their fault if the issue did not bring to light all they hoped to discover [Hear, hear!].

It was a waste of time to say more on such a subject. If the hon. gentlemen were ripe for assuming the character of accusers, why not bring forward some motion of A more daring and original cast? Most assuredly this would not be difficult; for the present motion was, in truth, a humble and servile following up of that vote of the House which had been so loudly denounced—the vote which constituted the committee of secrecy; it showed the most implicit and abject deference to persons who had been declared unworthy; it went to intrust the highest matters to those who would betray; to commit inquiry to those who were the instruments of delusion, and elucidation to professors in obscurity. Surely the ingenuous mind of the hon. mover, when made sensible of the absurdity into which he had been led, would be the first to laugh at the awkwardness of his own predicament; he would discover before the end of the debate, on comparing his motion with the speeches of his friends, that, instead of appearing in his own true colours, as an independent and enlightened man, he had been put forward, not indeed as an Oliver, but as the paw of a certain humble domestic animal, for the purpose of feeling the pulse of the House preparatorily to some more effectual and decisive attack.

Turning, then, from the hon. mover's proposition, which was the small end of the wedge, he would now advert to those who followed him, and whose projects of more vigorous hostility the present motion was calculated to introduce. Of the noble lord (Milton) who spoke early in the debate, he meant not to utter one disrespectful word; yet it was with the utmost surprise he heard the statement he had made. To the committee the noble lord professed to impute no sinister motive;—yet he (Mr. Canning) did conceive that some such had been faintly adumbrated rather than described. It had been alleged, that, last year, alarm had been not only propagated through the country, but industriously exaggerated by the agents of government; that ministers had procured the suspension of the Habeas Corpus for purposes of their own, by exhibiting the country in a state of danger and disaffection. But it could be satisfactorily shown, that government, instead of out-stripping the informations they had received, rather lagged behind them. It was clear, that governments could not go on if they refused to receive information of plots formed against the security of the state. It was equally clear that they must build their belief and shape their conduct, on such information as they receive. He agreed that that information was the best which came under the sanction of established authority, or from an unsuspected channel; and if the noble lord or his friends could prove that ministers had, by option and preference, accepted the communications of obscure agents, in lieu of regular reports from established authorities, then they would make a real case against them. But this had not happened. He presumed that none would differ from him in thinking, that of all the sources of information, local information was best entitled to credit. He should be glad to know, then, what accusation that government would be liable to, who should receive information of the following description, and yet should obstinately refuse to give credit to it. Suppose a justice of the peace should, in the month of December 1817, have written to the secretary of state to this effect:—"I cannot conclude without calling to your recollection, that all this (the tumultuous assembling, rioting, and so forth) is not the consequence of distress, want of employment, scarcity, or dearness of provision, but is the offspring of a revolutionary spirit; and nothing short of a complete change in the established institutions of the country is in contemplation of their leaders and agitators." If this information had come from some petty authority of an obscure district—. had it come, as Johnson expressed it, from "the wisest justice on the banks of Trent," from one who had heard only of changes and revolutions by report, while he himself sat securely beneath his own fig-tree and his vine, if the country produced any such—would government, even in such a case, be warranted in passing it over? But coming as it did from agitated districts, and not only from a justice, but from a master of justices, from the lord lieutenant of the West Riding of York, could government refuse it credit? would they not deserve impeachment if they had done so? Nothing was more common than, when threatened danger was once past, to look back upon it with contempt. When the alarm was once over, fear subsides, and cavil and distrust return with the means of safety. He challenged the historical knowledge of the gentlemen opposite—he challenged the learned research of the hon. and learned gentleman who spoke last, and the more discursive reading of the right hon. gentleman whom they were to have the pleasure of hearing as soon as he (Mr. C.) should sit down (Mr. Tierney)—he challenged them to produce one single instance of a conspiracy not successful, where, when the danger was over, doubts had not been entertained of its existence. When he had made this challenge, he barred all disputed successions to the Crown. He alluded to internal conspiracies conducted by obscure individuals; obscure, he meant, in comparison of princes, statesmen, and peers. He knew that it would be said that earl Fitzwilliam, the lord lieutenant of the West Riding of Yorkshire, had since retracted his opinion; but at the time when it was delivered, the government were bound to take immediate measures upon it. Such measures had been taken, and had received the approbation of the House. To be sure it was the approbation of a majority, and it might have been wiser originally to have settled that a minority should carry the point. But that was a prejudice—a mere arithmetical prejudice, he would allow—which we had inherited from our forefathers, and by which it therefore would be perhaps better at present to abide [A laugh!].

The measures which had been adopted with reference to the documents received, were such as were judged necessary to meet a partial, indeed, but a spreading contagion; and if government were blame-able, it was in acting rather below than beyond the necessity of the time. It was not just to say, as had been stated by an hon. gentleman whom he did not then see in his place, as well as by other gentlemen, though in different words, that the government had been employed in drawing up an indictment against the people of England. The people of England, they believed to be sound in their allegiance, and relied on their spirit and their good sense. This appeared evidently from the sentiments expressed in the Speech from the throne; wherein the great body of the people were warmly and justly represented as sober, loyal, attached to the constitution, and ready to uphold it by any necessary sacrifices. But as disaffection did exist, it was right to probe the ex-tent of the danger; and, in the imperfection of human means to dive into human actions, it was necessary to avail themselves of such means as were within their reach to ascertain the designs of the disaffected. According to the doctrine of gentlemen opposite, a simple traitor was a person entitled to much forbearance, and perhaps respect; but if once he repented of his treason,—if once he turned his back on his fellow traitors, he became altogether execrable. No individual, having the feelings of humanity, or the principles of moral correctness, could set a man on to seduce persons into courses of sedition. But what else could government do to detect conspiracies, than receive information from whatever characters were able to give it? Were they to make it a rule to accept no intelligence but from persons of the purest virtue? From the husband of one wife, the truest of friends, the most independent of men, who was not even bound by the duties of a profession, but could give all his time to the detection of conspiracies for the good of his country? In this degenerate age so faultless a monster could hardly be found. And if conspiracies were to have head until such a character should detect them, the poor I country would not be far from that refined state in which the bloody philosophers of the eighteenth century had wished to place her [Hear, hear.!].

If the hon. gentlemen on the other side were those who had occasion to employ spies, and they were informed that the Bank or the Tower were about to be attacked, they would of course laugh at the intimation; but if their informant Stated that he could bring proofs of what he said, their first question would be "Have you a family?" If their informant answered, "I have six children;" the next question would be, "How many wives have you" To this, perhaps, he might answer, "Gentlemen, I am not certain as to their number; my first poor woman eloped from me, and not having inquired after her, I married another, and I really cannot tell whether the former is living or dead." No doubt, if such were the answer, the moral feeling of the gentlemen would dictate this remark: "Be off, you infamous scoundrel; how dare you, a bigamist, presume to give information as to any treasons or plots. You are not worthy of becoming an informer."[A laugh.] Such gentlemen might do a great deal for the cause of morality, but they could never be entrusted with the care of a nation. Their plan might be the best barrier possible against polygamy; but it would do little to save the state. He agreed that government should not act on the information given by an indifferent character, unless it was corroborated. But, was information to be received or rejected on the score of character merely? Was it necessary that a man should never have been in drink, or in debt, or in love, in order that his intelligence should be received, investigated, and acted upon, if found to be correct? With respect to Castles, he observed, that he was quite out of the reach of any inquiry which might be made, he having only become an evidence to save his own life. With regard to Oliver, government having received voluntary information from him had found it necessary to employ him afterwards, for the purpose of discovering the intentions of the conspirators, for which object he was obliged to become one of their society. Government would not have had recourse to such means if any other could be employed by which the necessary information might be procured. Oliver had not in any degree fomented those disturbances he merely gave information of what he saw and heard in the committees of the conspirators. It was the measures which the House after deliberation had taken that had prevented all the mischief which might otherwise have ensued from a too blind security. The motion must be defeated from its very essence, if it was what its object professed to be, namely, the punishment of Oliver. What grounds were there for such punishment, except those which were attempted to be founded upon the authority of the report of the secret committee? That report assigned no crime whatever. If the report had said, that the conduct of Oliver had had the effect of occasioning the insurrection, still it would be no crime, for the effect might have followed without any criminal intention. It imputed no crime to Oliver for which he was amenable to the laws. But in the performance of that odious and disgusting duty which he had undertaken for the safety of the country, it was certainly possible that, not his words and representations, but his very existence amongst the disaffected, might have operated to a certain degree as encouragement. The accession of a single new face was an accession of strength, and therefore tended to encourage. Neither could it be expected that a man who ventured amongst conspirators in disguise, should not he obliged to tell them falsehoods to support his character. If ministers had their option to detect conspiracies by unexceptionable means, or by the employment of betrayers, they would not hesitate to prefer the first. But the question was, whether they would employ the only means which offered themselves, or suffer the state to go to wreck. He had, however, to state, that not one single individual had for one hour been deprived of his liberty on the testimony of Oliver. Oliver's testimony led to the obtaining other testimony less exceptionable than his own, and with respect to which he had acted only as an index. There had been a question much agitated, why Oliver had not been called as a witness on the trials at Derby, some saying that the one party should have called him, and some the other. It had been replied for the prisoners, that they could not have produced him, for that would have been to admit the guilt with which they were charged. But could they not have called him, and disclosed the whole truth, when they were brought up for judgment? As to the trials at Derby, they did not indeed prove that extraordinary measures had been necessary; but they proved that the general statement on which those measures were founded, was correct.

On the whole, he thought that the House could have no hesitation in disposing of the motion of the hon. gentleman. If his object was the condemnation of ministers, he had a shorter method, as it had been avowed that as to the adoption of which inquiry was proposed to be made, the measures had not been adopted. Let him make that his ground of impeachment. If he only wished to punish Oliver, the authority to which his motion referred—the report of the secret committee—assigned no crime whatever to that individual. The hon. gentlemen professed to build their proceedings upon the report. Let them take it, then, for what it was worth—but in its own sense and meaning. How often had it been said, in the warmth of debate, that the effect of language made use of in that House would be to make the people disaffected; but did that cast any imputation of evil design on the person who made use of such language? All that it went to impute was the effect and not the intention; and in like manner, all that the report brought home to Oliver in the present instance was, an unintentional effect, not a deliberate and criminal design.—He thought, therefore, that there was no occasion to push the House to a division on a motion which, if carried, must disappoint the object for which it appeared to be framed, leading to no useful information, and tending to no practicable end.—The right honourable gentleman sat down amidst the loud cheering of the House, which lasted for a considerable time.

Sir S. Romilly was sure the House would excuse him for saying one word strictly in explanation. He might, indeed, be satisfied with saying, that some misrepresentations were so gross as to require no refutation; but as several members, who had come in while the right hon. gentleman was speaking, might really give credit to the expressions he had ascribed to him, he felt it incumbent upon him to correct the misrepresentation. He never did say—the House must be aware that he never did say—he was astonished how the right hon. gentleman could have understood him to have said—that the House would not dare to reject the motion. He had used the word dare, but it was in this way: An hon. gentleman, in opposing the motion, had said, that the House would not dare, for the sake of their consistency and character, to contradict their own former acts by agreeing to this motion. In allusion to this expression, and as a general election was soon expected, he had said that he could not conceive how gentlemen could resist this motion, and dare to meet their constituents. Sir Samuel concluded with observing, that the right hon. gentleman did not appear to be aware of the difference between spies and informers, because, though it might be right to attend to the latter, it might be utterly unjustifiable to employ the former.

Mr. Tierney observed, that among the advantages which the right hon. gentleman had over him was this, that he had had full two hours' start of him. Of this, however, he would not complain, nor of the length of his speech, although three quarters of it consisted of epigrams, spangles, and fantastical embroidery. He would pass over the right hon. gentleman's allusion to the Millenium, to Robespierre, and the organized shouts; but he could not overlook the right hon. gentleman's angry remark upon the words of his learned friend, that the House dare not do so and so, without adverting to the language of the right hon. gentleman's threat upon a former occasion, that if the House acted in the manner which he then deprecated, an appeal would be made to the people. He meant in 1807, when the right hon. gentleman menaced the House with dissolution if it opposed his opinion, and when his words were ordered to be taken down.* The right hon. gentleman had said, that he would chase away the motion before the House, which he thought proper to characterize as quite preposterous; but if the right hon. gentleman had not succeeded in his effort, he would call upon the clerk to read it. Now, what was the motion? Why simply this, to refer a reference to the Secret Committee, which would ascertain whether that Committee was good for any thing? This, indeed, he and his friends were willing to try; and it was strange that the right hon. gentleman should object to the experiment. The right hon gentleman had asked, what would gentlemen have, but the fact, that no proceedings had taken place? He would, however, answer, that it was his wish to have that fact formally avowed as a ground for farther measures. But it seems, according to the right hon. gentleman, that nothing had been done by government against the fomenters of disturbance alluded to in the Report of the Committee, because, as he said, nothing could be done. But it appeared extraordinary to his mind, that it would be impossible to maintain an indictment against a man, who being employed for a good purpose, had, on the contrary, directed his exertions to a bad purpose. But he now understood why no proceedings were taken against Oliver; for he apprehended that that person's retort upon his employers was such as they could not conveniently withstand. The government, he was persuaded, durst not touch a hair of Oliver's head. Oliver was not, however, he supposed, the only person alluded to in the report of the Secret Committee of the last session, or such strong vouchers would not that night have been adduced to his morality. The right hon. gentleman had stated, that if ministers could find a moral man to become an informer, they would not of course resort to men of such infamous character as had been deprecated in the course of the debate: but it would seem, from the testimony of some gentlemen on the other side, that ministers had found precisely such a man in the person of Mr. Oliver. Such, however, was not the information received and communicated to the House by his hon. friend (Mr. Bennet), whose statement of that night was of such a nature, that it was impossible it should not become the subject of consideration before a distinct committee—that was, If the House regarded its own character, and desired to be regarded by the country, as in any degree solicitous for the cause of morality and freedom. Great praise was, in his opinion, due to his hon. friend, for his industry and infinite trouble in collecting the materials which he had communicated to the House. But his hon. friend was always on the alert in the cause of humanity. He had no hesitation in pronouncing his hon. friend one of the most humane, useful, and honourable members that had ever adorned the annals of parliament. For without ever resorting to any expedient to entrap popularity, his hon. friend was always active in the cause of benevolence. With the spirit of the philanthropic Howard, he entered into the dungeon of the prisoner, the cell of the maniac, and the asylum of the destitute; and sought, by every means in his power, to diminish the sum of human suffering [loud cries of Hear, hear!]. It was in perfect consistency with his character, that his hon. friend had been induced to make inquiries into the proceedings of Oliver; and after the statement which they had enabled him that night to submit to the House, it was clear that the whole matter must undergo investigation.—Against the interesting statement of his hon. friend, the right hon. gentleman had not, amidst all his gay and gaudy eloquence, ventured to say one word. And here he must pause for a moment to declare, that he had that night heard the hon. and learned solicitor-general within-finite pain. He was himself, perhaps, the very first man who had noticed the rising talents of the hon. and learned gentleman, and had foretold, on an occasion which he could not have forgotten, that he would one day make a figure in public life. He had subsequently inquired of a lamented and common friend, the late Mr. Horner, what was his character, not only as a lawyer but as a man; and the information which he received, made it a melancholy spectacle to him to sec him treading in his present, might he not say, bad courses. If, as he might presume, it was the pan-city of legal talents which the minister found he could enlist in his service that had raised the hon. and learned gentleman to his present eminence, and had enabled him to make such an extraordinary stride, the same reason might cause him to be elevated to the bench. Was it not then alarming to find the lawyer, who might hereafter be a judge, holding in that House the monstrous doctrine, that an individual, who had been accused, was thereby disqualified from being a witness? Look at the case of Mitchell. Mitchell was discharged, instead of being prosecuted; and were they to be told by a solicitor-general, that because he had been arrested on the suspicion of some person, his testimony was not to be believed? Was he to be debarred the right of proving his innocence? This was strange doctrine at all times; but what epithet did it deserve, proceeding from those very persons, who denied to these accused men that trial by which they could prove their innocence [Hear, hear!]. He defied them, even in the annals of Turkey, or of those of old France, pregnant as it was with these oppressions, which led to the bloody revolution that convulsed the world, to produce any thing more monstrous than this. But mark the turn which the gentlemen opposite take between the case of this night, and that which was brought before the House yesterday. You must not, said the noble lord (Castlereagh) last night, listen to the charge against the law officers of Scotland, because it proceeds from a polluted source. What was the pollution there? It was, that the unfortunate man Campbell refused to forswear himself. If you do not take that little step which we want, namely, commit an act, which is nothing less than perjury, any other statement you may make, must be discredited, because it proceeds from a polluted source! But there were other witnesses to his hon. friend's statement besides Mitchell, as he himself assured the House. Then came cries of "Name, name!" In the candour of his hon. friend's nature, he was about to name, but his cooler judgment arrested him, because he knew that some one would immediately go to rake up some charge of pollution against these witnesses also. The House must not disguise from themselves that it was impossible, after that statement, to get rid of it without a full investigation; it must be set at rest. There was a load of guilt, which would be affixed to the highest quarters, unless it was placed upon the shoulders of the real criminal.—In one part of the right hon. gentleman's speech, by much the most solemn as well as the most dull, he had endeavoured to answer the observations of a noble friend behind him (lord Milton), professing that here he meant to deal in nothing but argument. He had, however, soon found it necessary to resort to a little stage effect, and had produced a paper from the bag [No, from Mr. Canning]. Then why was it not in the bag if it contained important information? [Mr. Canning said something across the table.] It would appear, then, that it had been taken from old bags, [a laugh] and was, in point of fact, a letter of earl Fitzwilliam, dated December, 1816. It contained the judgment which at that time the noble earl's intelligent mind, had formed; and which his candour induced him to communicate to his majesty's ministers, respecting the internal state of the country. His impression then was, that very serious agitations were in existence, and that there was ground for entertaining considerable alarm. What, said the right hon. gentleman, and will you contend after this, that strong measures were not necessary? But let it be recollected, that these strong measure were not proposed till the February following, nor till an unfortunate pebble was thrown in the park [Murmurs from the ministerial benches]. He had a right to assume so, as no mention of their necessity was made in the speech from the throne. Now he wished the House to advert a little to the practice of this dealing, on the part of his majesty's ministers, with papers to which nobody but themselves had access. Let it be supposed that the very production of this letter was of all their attempts at delusion, the grossest and most palpable. [Hear, hear! from lord Milton]. What, if there had been subsequent letters from earl Fitzwilliam? [Hear, hear!]. If such letters had been received, was not the right hon. gentleman, when he read the one, bound in fairness to read the other? When he read the previous, ought he not to have communicated the subsequent? It was impossible that he should not know of their existence, for he presumed his colleagues were at length disposed to trust him [a laugh, and cries of hear!]. Indeed, the right hon. gentleman himself felt that he ought to have done so, from his endeavour to explain the motives of earl Fitzwilliam's subsequent change. "It is easy," said he, "to change one's opinion when the danger is over." Here again the facts contradicted the right hon. gentleman's assertion. It was not when the danger was over, but when ministers themselves declared it to be raging, that earl Fitzwilliam communicated his change of opinion. It was at the time that he was sent down to Yorkshire as lord lieutenant, to examine into the alleged outrages on the spot—when ministers were hurrying the Suspension bill through parliament, that such a change was expressed. Was that subsequent letter in the present bag? He could not say, as they took special care to exclude him. But this he begged to tell them, that if it was not in the present bag, the ministers of the Crown were wilfully deceiving the country, and the report of their committee would be another attempt at delusion. But the right hon. gentleman affected to feel sore at the insinuation of the government wishing to take advantage of alarm. He, for his part, believed it was their aim to excite it. The firm belief of his mind was, that ministers did wish and intend to excite alarm: and his reason for so believing was, that instead of giving the evidence on both sides, they had submitted only a mutilated account of what information was before themselves to the committee. He believed moreover, that these poor innocent and unsuspecting ministers, whose utter simplicity was so well pourtrayed by the right hon. gentleman, according to whose representation they had no political object in view, but acted altogether from the impulse of kindred sympathy, would have continued the alarm, if it had been found possible to do so. As he had already once observed, alarm was their daily bread; and, if they could have succeeded this time in dividing the opposition, he doubted not that the continuance of the Suspension act would have been proposed. Such would one day, when dispassionately viewed and examined upon its true merits, appear to be the conduct and character of the present government. However firm and durable at present, it would soon crumble into nothing. The lord advocate had last night made it a matter of boast, that no man had been arrested in Scotland, without being brought to trial in the regular course of law. This, then, satisfactorily showed, that the Suspension act was not required in Scotland. Every man had not the frankness of the hon. member for Hertfordshire, although he might have a similar conviction, and could not persuade himself to make a voluntary and immediate confession that he had been deceived. But tens and hundreds in that House would, in no long space of time, admit, that the disaffection which had been proved to exist, fell far short of what they dreaded when they gave their consent to the Suspension act. He did not himself deny the existence of a disaffected spirit to a certain extent; but he considered it as springing from a distress which he hoped was now removed, and that it had been inflamed by the acts of the agents employed by government. Not one man among the disaffected was of a higher rank in society than that of a weaver, and the far greater part of them were paupers, excepting always the moral Mr. Oliver and Co. If there had been evil machinations before Oliver arrived, it was clear to his mind, that his arrival caused them to terminate in an explosion. If he had not excited the disaffection, he had turned it into the only course in which it was likely to prove mischievous. Strange, that agents of this description should be employed by a government which boasted of its preventive policy? The attorney-general had asked, what could be thought of Brandreth, a man who had fought his way through murder to treason? He agreed that Brandreth was better out of society than in it; but the question now was, whether the explosion in Derbyshire was not the work of Oliver; for if it was, Oliver was guilty of the murder which the hand of Brandreth committed. On the question of treason he would say nothing, for he thought that was a matter of doubt. Why did the vigilance of the magistrates sleep on the 9th of June, when Brandreth might have been arrested? The worst that could, in that case have happened would be, that four more persons would have probably been alive, than were now living. For his own part, he could easily conceive what an impression must be made upon a discontented populace in the country, en being informed, by a person calling himself a London delegate, that 70,000 men were prepared to rise and join them in establishing their rights. But even these arts, calculated as they were to inflame and mislead, had gone no farther than to cause an insurrection of a hundred men here and a hundred there, armed with a few pitchforks, and about twenty muskets. Was this a sufficient ground for depriving the people of England of their liberties? His persuasion was, that there had existed no necessity for vesting such formidable power in the government, and that they had been exercised in many places, more particularly at a distance from the metropolis, with harsh and needless severity. Did the House believe, that by the vote of a majority that night this question would be set at rest? He wished to speak in measured terms; but he must warn the House not to trespass too far on the temper and patience of the people. They would not I bear to have their liberties scouted at in the tone of the right hon. gentleman [Hear, hear!]. Every unhappy victim of the Suspension act would have to relate in his little circle the tale of his sufferings, his innocence, and his wrongs; and would have to close all by adding, that a majority of the House of Commons refused to listen to him, or inquire into the truth of his story, because the minister declared that it was better as it was. If his majesty's ministers refused to face the inquiry, the universal impression would be, that they dared not face it. The right hon. gentleman might shake his head, but he would advise him and the noble lord to beware how their conduct provoked future and more serious disturbances. The statement of his hon. friend, until met by a full and intelligible investigation, must remain a deep stain upon the history of this country. A majority might appear a very triumphant thing, but it did not always excite very triumphant or satisfactory feelings; and he was persuaded that there was not one of that night's majority, who would not say to himself as he went home, "the ministers certainly made but a poor figure." As for the learned lord, he perhaps consoled himself by the reflection, that like the charge against M'Kinley, it was "not proved," and that he was the more innocent of the two [A laugh]. The noble lord (Castlereagh), indeed, well knew the difference between a real triumph, and the act of a majority, which might not choose to desert him in the hour of his distress. But he could assure him that the question would be revived; that an inquiry, though now refused, was only postponed; and that the result must exhibit what was the real nature of his triumph.

Mr. Canning said, that with respect to the letter of earl Fitzwiiliam, he would appeal to the recollection of the House whether, in the debates last session on the second suspension of the Habeas Corpus act, one of the strongest arguments against that suspension was not the change of opinion in earl Fitzwilliam.

Mr. Tierney said, the fact was, that one letter had been received which was thought convenient to be communicated, and another had been received subsequently which was kept back, as it was thought not convenient to communicate it.

Mr. Canning disavowed any the slightest intention of wilfully keeping back any thing that might tend to throw any light on the state of the country.

Lord Milton trusted that, from the argumentum ad hominem, or rather the argumentum ad filium of the right hon. gentleman, he should be allowed to say a few words. It was really his opinion that one letter had been produced, while another had been withheld. The right hon. gentleman had stated, that the danger being over, earl Fitzwiiliam had been glad to get back to those whom before he had felt himself bound to abandon, or something to that effect; but that was by no means the real statement of earl Fitzwilliam's change of opinion. He had moved for a paper in the committee, which did not appear to be forthcoming. There had certainly been another letter which had not been produced, and in the letter which had been brought forward, there had been enclosed a document which was not now found in it, and on which his change of opinion had been considerably founded. He was a member of the Secret Committee, and as such he felt that it would not be becoming in him to disclose any of the information laid before it. But he thought he owed a duty to that House, to state to them the conduct of the government in one particular. Many letters had been laid before the committee from lords-lieutenant of different counties, but there were no letters from the lords lieutenant of the West Riding of Yorkshire. He did not know what the reason of that could be, but he trusted that the letter to which he had alluded, as well as the other document, would be laid before the House, for them to form their own judgment thereon, without any communication.

Lord Castlereagh thought, that the situation of the noble lord, as a member of the Secret Committee, ought to have precluded him from making a most odious, and in his opinion, a most unfair statement. It was a thing that he could not help complaining of. The noble lord had given notice in the committee of a motion, for the production of a paper, on which he (lord C.) had stated, that he did not suppose there would be any difficulty in granting the production of any papers; but he thought it proper, as he did not belong to the department from which that paper was to be received, that the question should be reserved for a future day. The noble lord, therefore, had given a very unfair colouring to the circumstances relative to that letter. As to the general question before the House, after the very able and unanswerable speeches which had been made from his side of the House, it would be unnecessary for him to trouble the House with any argument upon it. He should therefore content himself with protesting against the system of general inquiry, which seemed now to be proposed from the other side of the House.

After a short reply from Mr. Fazakerley, the House divided: Ayes, 52; Noes, 111.

List of the Minority.

Abercromby, hon. J.
Althorp, visct.
Atherley, Arthur
Birch, Jos.
Brougham, Henry
Burdett, sir F.
Burrell, hon. P. D.
Byng, Geo.
Calcraft, J.
Calvert, Chas.
Carter, John
Duncannon, visct.
Douglas, hon. F. S.
Fergusson, sir R. C.
Fitzroy, lord J.
Folkestone, visct.
Gordon, Rob.
Grant, J. P.
Hamilton, lord A.
Heron, sir Robt.
Hurst, Rob.
Lemon, sir W.
Latouche, Rob. jun.
Lyttelton, hon. W. H.
Methuen, Paul
Macdonald, Jas.
Markham, adm.
Martin, John
Mildmay, sir H. St. J.
Milton, visct.
Monck, sir C.
Morpeth, visct.
Neville, hon. R.
Nugent, lord
Ord, Wm.
Ossulston, lord
Philips, George
Pym, F.
Ridley, sir M. W.
Romilly, sir S.
Smith, John
Smith, W.
Smyth, J. H.
Sharp, Richard
Symonds, T. P.
Tavistock, marquis
Tierney, right hon. G.
Waldegrave, hon. W.
Warre, J. A.
Webb, Edward
Wilkins, Walter
Wood, alderman

TELLERS
Bennet, hon. H. G.
Fazakerley, N.

This is from Hansard.

11th February 1818: The Reverend C.W. Ethelston vouches for the anti-Luddite spy, Samuel Fleming

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Sun, 11 Feb 2018 11:00:00 +0000

My Lord

Your Lordship’s letter of the 6th instt I had the honor of receiving on Sunday evening but delay’d my answer in expectation of being able to write more fully on the subject of the enquiries contain’d in it—Unfortunately our Deputy Constable, from whom I might have receiv’d accurate information as “to what extent & with what degree of utility Fleming was employ’d” in 1812, is absent from Manchester on a trial of some importance.

For that reason, my Lord, I can only speak to the point from memory. To the best of my recollection Fleming was an evidence against the Luddites, who were brought to trial before Baron Wood, but were not convicted on his Evidence—at the same time he was thought worthy of a remuneration & receiv’d it—To what amount I cannot speak with certainty—With regard to his services last year I must say that up to a particular period his Intelligence was faithful & important, for which according to the entrusted to my management he always receiv’d in my opinion an adequate compensation—In the expedition to Huddersfield for the discovery of arms conceal’d, he fail’d thro misconduct, but afterwards redeem’d his Character by some important Information relative to the Insurrection in March last.

Whether upon the whole Fleming has been sufficiently remunerated is not for me to determine. I can only say he has been constantly in the habit of receiving occasional supplies from me, ‘till very lately, since Jany 1817; but, as he only shar’d a limited Sum with several others, I will submit now to your Lordship’s judgment recommend him to your further notice.

I think he might be employ’d as a subordinate Agent in a Police Office but in no situation when Education is requir’d—The letter to your Lordship has evidently been written for him & his statement is exaggerated.

I have [etc]
C.W. Ethelston

Longsight
Manchr
Feby 11th 1818

[Written on reverse by Home Office clerk]
Answer to Enquiry whether
Fleming had any claim
for remuneration on
Government for his
Services

This letter can be found at HO 42/174.

9th February 1818: Jeffrey Lockett tells the Home Office Francis Ward is 'Ned Lud'

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Fri, 09 Feb 2018 11:00:00 +0000

Derby Feby 9th: 1818

Dear Sir

I understand from Birkin, that S. Haynes has made a long Affidavit, in which he has brought Oliver & Brandreth together at the three Salmons, in Nottm., on the 26^ of May; & swore very recently, as to the representations made by Oliver to induce the meeting to attempt an insurrection;—and that the affidt with many others to the same effect, is sent to Lord Folkestone, or Mr Bennett. Every attempt has been made to induce Birkin, to make an affidavit to the same effect;—but he positively asserts, that Brandreth was not at the meeting to his knowledge, and has refused to lead himself to the party. You will remember, that Brandreth never pretended to have seen Oliver, except in the false assertion which he made that it was Oliver who took him to Pentridge on the 4th of June, when it is notorious that he was in Yorkshire—and that after Mr Pickering shewed him, that he was aware of the falsity of the assertion, he never claimed the least knowledge of Oliver;—& that Turner & Ludlam positively disclaimed every having seen him.—As to Haynes, I have thought it right to send you the original letter, in which you are already in possession of a copy. It is unnecessary for me to request you to make a cautious use of it. Be good enough to return it to me;—as I have thought it right to apprize Lord George Cavendish, & Mr Abercrombie of the attempt which this villain is making, to mislead the House, & the public, I have offered to shew them the letter. It is a very satisfactory key to his affidavit. You perhaps may not be aware, that Haynes was one of the witnesses who was called by [illegible] John Slater on his first trial, & swore positively to a conversation with him in Nottm., at eleven o’clock in the night of the outrage at Loughbro’;—and that Slater on his second trial, pleaded Guilty—As to F. Ward, I need not tell you, that he may be called emphatically, Ned Lud—having been the promoter of every Luddite Outrage—You have probably received from Enfield or Allsopp to confession of Mitchell & depositions of the Luddite convicts, which shew that “this friend of social order” as I think he is called in the auxiliary petition, was the proprietor of the intended assassination of Mr Justice Graham, both at Nottm., & Leicester.

Do no consider me officious in reminding you of these matters.—You can have no idea of the revived activity of the party, since Hone’s trials, and the meeting of parliament.—The character of Ward & Haynes [should] be made public.

Have you any of the publications of the trials of Brandreth &c to spare? If you have, I can make a very good use of them by distributing them, more largely than I have been able with those which you have sent me, amongst the witnesses.—How the verdicts & confessions made by the prisoners on their trials stick in the gizzards of the opposition!

I am Dear Sir Yours truly

Wm Jeffery Lockett

[To] H. Hobhouse Esq

This letter can be found at HO 42/174.

3rd February 1818: Gravenor Henson writes to the Home Secretary, asking for expenses

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Sat, 03 Feb 2018 12:00:00 +0000

Nottingham Feby 3. 1818

My Lord

Not having received any answer to my Letters addressed to you on the 10 June last, or & the 19 ult, and not having received any answer to a Letter addressed to Sir N Conant some time in May; I am still under the necessity of making the same request to your Lordship; namely for a supply of Raiment; I certainly did receive during my confinement of 31 weeks in the House of Correction Cold Bath Fields the following Articles Two Shirts, one Pair of Gaol Shoes, a Pair of Pantaloons and a Flannel Waistcoat; but Mr Adkins the Governor informed me that he had received no orders from your Lordship to procure them but merely verbal instructions from Mr Hay to let me have them and he “would see him paid somehow or other;” Mr Adkins informed me in a casual conversation sometime before my discharge, and I think a few weeks after he had received it, that your Lordship had sent him a circular Letter in which it was stated that he was to procure for the Prisoners confined by virtue of your Lordships Warrants such Clothing as to Persons charged with Felonius Offences; I refused to believe it, Mr Adkins assured me that those were his instructions and said he would find the Circular but it afterwards appeared he had lost it; he added that Mr Benbow had heard it and had made no objections. I told the Governor that I did not square my actions by Mr Benbows Rules; and that I could not imagine your Lordship ever supposed that I should accept of Clothes on such Terms; I then told him that I was determin’d not to have them without a special Order from Lordship and desired him to acquaint your Lordship with the circumstances Mr Adkins though in a very polite manner refused to make such a communication; on the morning of the 13 Novr the Governor acquainted me that he had received an Order from your Lordship for my Liberation that day upon entering into my own recognizance; and further that your Lordship had ordered him to give me 9£ to pay my expences to Nottingham; I desired him to return thanks to your Lordship for my Liberation which I knew was entirely optional then, and to assure you that I felt no resentment as but at the same time I told him the Sum was too small as I had been under the necessity of expending nearly that Sum while in Prison; he said he thought it was of no consequence as I might write to your Lordship sometime after I got home on the subject with that I became satisfied; when I went before Sir N Conant to enter into the Recognizances he told me that your Lordship had sent for me to discharge me upon answering with a smile that I expected it sooner Guess my astonishment my Lord when the mild Sir N Conant burst out in a tone of Thunder in which he was joined by Stafford, “You expect your Liberation sooner take him back! take him back! I must acquaint Lord Sidmouth with that you say; Stafford immediately exclaimed “I am sorry this Man was not indicted for though we could not have proved any Overt Acts against him he might have been indicted generally for a Conspiracy I thought he would have been thankfull, but he will now go on as he has done travelling over and disturbing the Country; your Lordship I dare say will be aware the answer such a [prvt] Gentleman as that must ~~must~~ receive who seemed by his Language to arrogate to himself the power and knowledge of the whole Privy Council, I told him that I had not been travelling over the Country; that for his better information a I had only been twice out of Nottingham in last 3 years once to ask that respectable Gentlemans Opinion Mr D P Coke at Derby and my present journey and to give himself no uneasiness for that as I had told Mr Hay I did not intend to interfere any farther on public business; I then applied to Sir N Conant for an allowance of Money to enable me to go home decently shewing him my [Coat] which then hung greasy on Hand with a hole [through] it; Without answering me he turned to Mr Adkins in a tone and manner which I shall long Remember [“]Pay his Coach Hire by the Heavy Coach, Give him a Pound or if he has a mind to buy Clothes let him walk home; Never my Lord will I believe that you authorized such a scene as this unless I have it from your own Lips or your own Hand, Thus my Lord was I sent home in querpo, a Hat with two great Holes in it a Coat greasy and crackt at the elbows; no Shoes, Boots that took up both Wet and dirt and in short in a situation not much superior to a common Beggar and Vagabond!!

I have been thus prolix to give your Lordship an opportunity of thoroughly understanding the affair, and I have yet confidence that you will do me justice, I think you cannoy object to placing me as far as regards Clothing in the same situation as when I was [arrested], for if we are to be in Opposition which I can assure you is by no means my wish let us act generously

I am My Lord, Notwithstanding all that has passed your Obt Servt

Gravenor Henson

Independent Hill Nottingham

[To] Rt. Hon Vict Sidmouth

[Home Office notes on reverse]
Acqt him that his [Letter] has been considered
that he has had the same Allowances as
other Persons in similar Circumstances &
that nothg fur can be granted
him

This letter can be found at HO 42/174.

2nd February 1818: Henry Enfield responds angrily to Francis Ward's petition to parliament

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Fri, 02 Feb 2018 11:00:00 +0000

Private

Nottingham Feby 2d. 1818

Dear Sir

The impudence & hypocritical Cant of Frank Ward’s petition (that meek follower of Jesus Christ; for so my Globe states the Petition to describe him) has excited our particular Attention—& presuming (hoping) that Lord Sidmouth will think the House of Commons next Thursday the proper time & place for letting out the nature & Character of this wily adept in mischief, by disclosing the Declaration relative to him & his various Acts given by Jos. Mitchell, Blackburn, Burton & Woodward, I beg leave also particularly to draw his Lordship’s Attention to our Secret Report of the 6th of June last, wherein Stevens is reported to have Spoken of Frank Ward as “one of the party” & again afterwards as “one of the Chief Men”.—

The Accounts given of Ward by Mitchell, Blackburn, Burton & Woodward, without Concert of Communication with one another, are excessively Strong & convincing—I Yesterday heard that Preston (one of the men at the Demolition of Orgill’s Factory at Castle Donington in April 1814 & who, no doubt, has since confirmed one of the Conspiracy) spoke of the late Examinations of Christopher Blackburn & John Hill; & said, that “they would Say nothing—but Jos. Mitchell had let it all out.”—

I have thought it rigt to make a particular Affidavit from the Keeper of the Gaol here as to Ward’s dank Dungeon & prison Treatment—& beg to enclose it for the perusal of Lord Sidmouth & to be made use of, or not, as his Lordship shall choose—

With respect to the search of Wards House the facts were (as I believe Lord Sidmouth knows) that, on the 10th June after Intelligence was brought to Nottingham of the Insurrection having broken out in Derbyshire, the Magistrates did (as was their bounden duty) search for Arms in the House of two or three persons, of whom they had Secret information as persons engaged, &, amongst them the House of F. Ward—It is true no Arms were found—In the Evening of that day he boldly came to the Magistrates & demanded (verbally) the Warrant by which his House has been searched—The Magistrates then, still acting upon their private Information relative to Ward, & then particularly referring it to the Loughbro’ outrage, thought it necessary to detain him on a charge of being suspected of having been an Accessary in that Felony—The further Course of this Lord Sidmouth knows—

I have sent, by the present post, to our member, Mr. John Smith, in confidence, a Copy of Jos. Mithcell’s Examination—, telling him that I have apprised Lord Sidmouth of my having so done—I request you therefore to mention this to his Lordship—& I do so, to prevent his Lordship & John Smith from any untoward Consequences of mutual ignorance of each other’s knowledge—

I am fearfull of losing the post—& therefore, in haste, conclude,

I am Dear Sir
Very faithfully Yours

H Enfield

P.S.

I have only spoken
of Ward to Mr. Smith
in relation to Jos. Mitchell’s
Confession—& no farther

H. E.

[To] H. Hobhouse Esq

This letter can be found at HO 42/174.

29th January 1818: Francis Ward's case is raised in Parliament, alongside a petition on his behalf

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Mon, 29 Jan 2018 15:00:00 +0000

PETITION FROM FRANCIS WARD COMPLAINING OF THE OPERATION OF THE HABEAS CORPUS SUSPENSION ACT.

Lord Folkestone said, he had a Petition to present from Francis Ward, one of the persons whose case had that day been under discussion. It was perhaps not drawn up in the manner which might have been best fitted to procure it attention, but it contained nothing offensive to the House. The Petition was then read, setting forth,

"That the petitioner is a lace-maker, and has resided in the town of Nottingham, upwards of 28 years, having a wife, four children, and a mother 90 years of age, dependent upon him for support; that on the 10th of June 1817, a number of the Nottingham police officers entered the petitioner's dwelling house, and one of them (Mr. Lawson) said to the petitioner, 'Mr. Ward, we are come to 'search your house; the petitioner asked by what authority they came to do so; one of them observed, 'You may be sure we are not come without authority;' the petitioner replied, 'Show me it, or you shall not search my premises;' immediately Mr. Lawson held up in his hand a paper, and said, Here it is;' the petitioner requested him to read it, he replied, 'The law will not justify me in reading it, until we get before a magistrate; while this conversation was passing between the petitioner and Lawson, the other police officers were gone into different parts of the petitioner's dwelling house and premises; therefore seeing all remonstrance in vain, the petitioner reluctantly submitted to that which he thought diametrically opposed to both law and justice; the petitioner has no doubt but the sequel will prove to the House that he did not oppose the police from motives of fear; no, the man who is guided by this rule, 'Do unto others as you would they should do unto you,' has nothing to fear; and that rule which was laid down by no less a personage than Jesus Christ, has long been adopted and acted upon by the petitioner, so that he had no reason to dread the thoughts often or twelve constables searching his premises for seditious and treasonable documents; it was not from fear, but from a consciousness of the rectitude of the petitioner's conduct as a man and a subject, and from a persuasion of the illegality of those proceedings, that the petitioner opposed the searching of his house; when the police officers had took down a cannister, looked into a thimble, and searched the petitioner's house in vain, they frankly acknowledged there was nothing to be found which they were searching for; the petitioner asked them what they were looking for; one of them observed, 'You have that to find out.' Not being satisfied with such proceedings, the petitioner consulted an attorney, and was by him advised to make application for a copy of the warrant or authority by which the petitioner's house was searched, and for the names of the constables it was directed and delivered to; that the petitioner applied to Mr. Enfield, town clerk; he observed, 'You have no 'right to a copy,' and he repeated that assertion several times, and added with considerable emphasis, 'You may make application, but I know what advice I shall give.' The petitioner went directly to the police office, where he saw Mr. Alderman Saars, and acquainted him with the petitioner's business; the alderman said, 'Go backwards,' and immediately ordered a constable to take the petitioner into custody; that after remaining in that situation upwards of an hour, Mr. Alderman Barber (a near neighbour of the petitioner) came to him and said, 'I am very sorry for you Francis, as I believe you to be an honest industrious man, but I would advise you 'to withdraw your application.' He repeated that several times, and farther added, It is a dangerous case to press, however you will not consider me as advising you as a magistrate, but as a friend.' The petitioner informed him that the treatment he had received was altogether unmerited, and that, at all events, he was determined to press his application, conceiving he had an incontrovertible right to make the demand; that soon after this interview the petitioner was taken before the bench of magistrates at the police office, when the town clerk inquired of the petitioner what his application was; he informed the town clerk it was for a copy of the warrant issued ordering his dwelling house and premises to be searched, and for the names of the constables it was directed and delivered to; that the town clerk ordered the petitioner to be taken away until his case was disposed of. In a short, time the petitioner was again introduced to the magistrates, and the town clerk then informed him that they had agreed not to grant the request, and that the petitioner must be detained for being concerned in the Loughborough outrage, alluding as the petitioner supposed to frame-breaking, which took place in Loughborough in June 1816. That the petitioner was taken to the town gaol, where (except what food his wife brought him) he had nothing but bread and water, felons allowance, and slept in one of the dampest cells that ever man was put into; added to this his bed was not only damp but had a strong sulphureous smell, which rendered it almost intolerable. Thus the petitioner was taken from his abode of comfort, without reason or justice, and cut off from society, except in the day-time, being immured in a small room with a felon; and although confined in this prison but four days, the petitioner there caught a severe cold, which is so firmly fixed upon his lungs, he has too much reason to fear it can never be removed. That on the 14th of June, the fourth day after his arrest, Mr. Alderman Barber, the town clerk, a king's messenger, and a Bow-street officer, came to the gaol, and informed the petitioner that he must prepare for a journey, as there was a warrant from the secretary of state. Mr. Barber then observed, 'The Loughborough business must stand over,' and the petitioner has heard no more of it from that time to the present; that he denies any participation or knowledge, either directly or indirectly, in the breaking of frames at Loughborough or elsewhere, or with the parties concerned therein, and he here challenges inquiry, and insists that the imputation so made upon him is groundless, and founded only in malice. That in about an hour afterwards the king's messenger and Bowstreet officer came again to the gaol, and chained the petitioner hand and foot to a man of the name of Haynes; that before they got into the chaise the Bowstreet officer said to the petitioner, 'If you heave your hands to let the chains be seen, you shall be the first that shall fall;' at the same time holding a pistol in his hand. On the road to London the fetters round the petitioner's hand gave him much pain, which caused him to comment upon the severe and unmerited treatment he was suffering; the officer observed, 'You wish to make it appear that you are not a disaffected person; the town clerk informed me that you are much respected by the mechanics of Loughborough and Leicester, and the working people in general, so that you are a dangerous man to be at large.' That on the 15th the petitioner arrived in London, and was placed in Cold Bath Fields prison, and on the 21st was taken before lord Sidmouth and other gentlemen; after inquiring the petitioner's age, he was informed that he was apprehended under a warrant from the secretary of state on suspicion of high treason, and that he should commit the petitioner to close confinement until delivered by due course of law; and farther observed, 'If you have any thing to say, you are at liberty to speak;' To that the petitioner replied, 'I declare my innocence, and if every action of my life was painted in its proper colour, your lordship would say I merited reward rather than punishment.' In vain did the petitioner declare his innocence, and challenge inquiry and proof of his guilt; his lordship observed, 'You are not unjustly punished, 'for my information is from a respectable 'source, and you shall have a list of the 'evidence against you, and proper notice of your trial before its commencement.' That the petitioner was then conveyed back to Cold Bath Fields prison, and on the 24th was, with William Cliff (a young man from Derby), removed to Oxford Castle; that on the petitioner's arrival at that place he was confined by himself in one of the most dismal cells ever made for criminals under sentence of death, about eleven feet by seven; that when there was a fire in it the petitioner was nearly suffocated with smoke, and driven to the necessity of removing into the privy for air, in order to be enabled to respire. But what is here stated is not all the wretchedness connected with that excessively miserable cell that the petitioner was confined in, for such a stench descended the chimney during the night, that the dungeon was rendered almost intolerable, endangering the life of the petitioner; that he frequently applied to the governor to remove that intolerable evil, but in vain; that after remaining four days in such cell, William Cliff was brought down to it, and the petitioner taken up into a small room called the turnkey's lodge, and such alternate change was made every four days for between three and four months; and although the petitioner and Cliff passed each other once each fourth day, they were not permitted to hold any conversation, or even speak to each other; that near Michaelmas the petitioner and Cliff were allowed to be together a few hours each day; that circumstance was so far alleviating the rigorous treatment of the petitioner, although he had no previous acquaintance with, or knowledge of Cliff; that in the last few weeks of the petitioner's imprisonment, the prisoners in the Castle became so numerous, that it was found absolutely necessary for the petitioner and Cliff to be confined constantly in a turnkey's lodge, and in that situation the petitioner continued until the 13th of November, 1817, and was then liberated on his own recognizance of 100l. to appear in the court of King's-bench, Westminster, on the 23d of January, 1818, and there remain from day to day until discharged, and not depart the court without leave. That in the foregoing statement, the petitioner has attempted to give the House a plain detailed account of the sufferings, without exaggeration, he has undergone while detained under the suspension act; but, alas! this attempt comes far short of giving a full and clear description of the unheard-of cruelty he has been treated with, as no mention has been made of the excruciating torture of mind the petitioner has undergone;—here language fails, and to form any conception of his case, it will be necessary to figure to the imagination a man, who through life has taken a very active part in it, being accustomed to labour hard for his bread, by frequently having to work twelve, fourteen, sixteen hours a day, and sometimes more, the existence of a family depending on his exertions, which all at once ceases, and the intolerable state of inactivity succeeds; added to this, being possessed of all the finer feelings that adorn human nature, and those are for a long period stretched on the rack by his being dragged away from all that is near and dear to man in life; thus the glowing affection of a son, a husband, and a father, being simultaneously aroused, contributed not to sweeten the bitter cup of life, but to render it insupportable; for such an one, who has never been within the walls of a prison before, to be cut off from society, and immured within the walls of a dungeon not fit for a murderer to be confined in; what inconceivable sufferings must such an one experience! nothing but the thoughts of his innocence could enable him to bear up under the intolerable load! and this is precisely the case of the petitioner; and, if the patience of the House is not exhausted, the petitioner will mention some of the damages he has sustained while in prison; he has before stated, that his own health was so much injured, that he has too much reason to fear the complaint upon his lungs cannot be removed; his wife's constitution has been so much injured by uneasiness of mind, that she at present continues ill, and in all human probability is likely so to do. When the petitioner was arrested, he had ten machines employed in his shop, and a good seat of work for himself, but during his confinement the latter was lost, and he has not been able to obtain any more to the present time, and he found only two machines out of the ten employed at his return; since the 10th of June, 1817, to the present time, he has been unemployed, and is likely to continue so; that the petitioner's character and reputation, which is the main-spring of a poor mans existence, and in some cases as valuable as life, have received such a stab, by his being committed and detained on suspicion of high treason, that unless the petitioner is afforded an opportunity of clearing himself, it may contribute greatly to his total ruin; the petitioner therefore respectfully and earnestly requests the House to order that he may be brought to its bar, and undergo the strictest examination, and that he may be brought to trial according to law, and meet his accusers face to face, and thereby have the benefit and justice of the laws; and the petitioner also prays, that having thus detailed the sufferings he has unjustly endured, the House will afford him such redress as in their great wisdom seems fit, or that they will take such steps as shall lead to the punishment of the wrong-doers, and effectually prevent, in any other case,, the recurrence of such unjust and cruel proceedings."

Lord Folkestone said, that the circumstances detailed in the petition were of so serious a nature, that it was his intention to move, that a committee be appointed for the purpose of inquiring into the truth of what it stated. If there was no objection, he would do so then; if otherwise, he would give notice of bringing it before the House as early as possible.

Mr. Bennet said, he hoped his noble friend would give notice of his motion. He could assure the House, the system was not confined to that miserable man, but that others had suffered under barbarous, inhuman, and illegal treatment; such as mixing them with felons, and loading them with irons for months together. Numerous petitions would be presented on the subject, and it would be the bounden duty of the House, as the representatives of the people, to inquire into them.

Lord Folkestone then presented a petition from certain inhabitants of Nottingham, setting forth, "That the petitioners are neighbours of, and have been for some years acquainted with Mr. Francis Ward, lately in confinement under a warrant from the secretary of state, on suspicion of high treason; that they have lately seen a petition which the said Francis Ward is about to offer to the House; that they wish to state to the House, that the said Francis Ward has always merited the character of a hard-working, sober, honest, industrious man, and has conducted himself with propriety and respectability in his station in life, and that the petitioners are fully assured that he is incapable of committing any act of treason, or of doing any thing which would justify the proceedings had against him; that he has, in consequence of his imprisonment, sustained much injury in his business; and that the petitioners pray the House to take his case into their most serious consideration, in order that they may provide the said Francis Ward with such relief as to their wisdom may appear just, and take such steps as shall effectually prevent the recurrence of such proceedings."

The petitions were ordered to be printed, and lord Folkestone gave notice of his intended motion for this day se'nnight.

This is from Hansard.

23rd January 1818: Francis Ward attends the Court of King's Bench

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Tue, 23 Jan 2018 10:00:00 +0000

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, JAN. 23.

POLITICAL PROCEEDINGS AND RECOGNIZANCES

After the Court had gone through the Bar, a young man of decent appearance presented himself on the floor, and expressed a wish to address their Lordships.

Lord Ellenborough inquired his name and the object of his address―to which he replied—

My Lord, my name is John Roberts, I have been confined in Lancashire Jail for some time under the Habeas Corpus Suspension Act, and have recently been discharged on my own recognizance of £100, by which recognizance I am bound to attend in the Court of King's bench on the first day of the present Term, and from day to day during the Term, to answer such matters and things as may be alleged against me on the part of his Majesty, then this recognizance to be void, otherwise to continue in full force; I appear here accordingly, in which to know what your Lordship has to say against me?

Lord Ellenborough―I have nothing to say to you; it is you are to say and me to hear.

Roberts―I hope your Lordship will tell me what to do?

Lord Ellenborough―no, you must tell me what you want; I am a Judge, and not Counsel.

Roberts―My Lord, my recognizance is to appear.

Lord Ellenborough―Well, and you have appeared and discharged your duty; you have done all you have to do. Call the peremptory.

Another man then presented himself, and said, my Lord, my name is Gill, I also have been confined under the Suspension Act, and liberated on a recognizance, calling on me, under forfeiture of £100 to appear in this Court on the first day of Term, and from day to day during the said Term, and not to depart the Court without leave; he wished to know what he was to do?

The Court answered him in the same terms as the last applicant, and again directed the Clerk to proceed with the Peremptory Paper. This, however, was prevented by another person stepping forward, and addressing their Lordships.

My Lord, my name is Johnson; I came from Exeter Jail; I am also discharged under a recognizance to appear in this Court from day to day during the Term. I have accordingly appeared, and wish to learn from your Lordship whether I must continue to present myself a daily during the Term.

Lord Ellenborough―You need not appear here any more till you are called on to do so.

Mr. Johnson—My Lord, this will not satisfy me; my recognizance says I must attend from day to day.

Lord Ellenborough—Do you wish to have this recognizance discharged? If you do, you must make an affidavit.

Mr. Johnson—Will your Lordship say, if I make such affidavit I shall be discharged.

Lord Ellenborough—I will say nothing till I know what appears on your affidavit.

Francis Ward, of Nottingham, then stepped forward—My Lord, I have to apply under similar circumstances—I have an affidavit.

Lord Ellenborough—We have already given an answer to you individually and collectively. Go on with the peremptory.

John Knight—My Lord, I live at Manchester, and was liberated from Worcester Gaol on the 1st of January, 1818, on a recognizance, calling on me to attend here from day to day. I have now attended, and wish to be dismissed as soon as possible.

Lord Ellenborough–You may go, now you have appeared, and have nothing more to do till you have notice.

Mr. Knight—But, my Lord, that does not satisfy me. I may be called on to attend again the very instant I get back to Manchester. I may go out of town to-morrow, and be called back the day after. I am not satisfied. This will neither suit my finances nor my business.

Lord Ellenborough—We can say nothing farther to you—The Court cannot assist you.

Samuel Drummond—My Lords, I come from Manchester under similar circumstances. I have now appeared—am I, in consequence, to consider this recognizance as null and void? If it is so, I shall now depart, and trouble you with no further questions.

Lord Ellenborough—We are not now called on to give an opinion. When something is done upon these recognizances, then we will give an opinion. We have noticed your appearance now, and should you in future be called on, we shall take that circumstance into consideration. You are now at liberty to leave the Court. The Court has repeatedly told you, that you need not attend again, without notice. We can do nothing more for you.

F. Ward again presented himself.―My Lord, I have an affidavit, and wish to make a motion. I wish to have this recognizance discharged, or immediately be brought to trial—I have no means of living in town, nor have I money to pay my way back to my home. I borrowed money to come to town.

Lord Ellenborough―We have already answered you. We cannot waste the public time. Proceed with the Peremptory Paper.

The Peremptory Paper was then called over, and their Lordships rose to leave the Court. Several of the persons who had previously addressed the Court pressed forward, but Lord Ellenborough, Mr. Justice Abbott, and Mr. Justice Holroyd, left the court.

Mr. Justice Bayley being the last of their Lordships,

F. Ward again addressed his Lordship―My Lord, here’s my affidavit; am I to understand that I am discharged from further attendance?

Mr Justice Bayley read the affidavit, and having done so, observed―I have read your affidavit, and think the wisest thing you can do is to go home again.

Ward—Do I now understand that my affidavit is received? If it is, I move that my recognizance be discharged, or that I be brought immediately to trial.

Mr Justice Bayley―I have before told you the Court cannot do this for you. If you asked me for advice, I again say, you had better go home about your business.

Mr. Johnson again presented himself, and said, they would all attend again, when they would come better prepared.

On the next day, Mr. Johnson brought his case again before the Court, and after some conversation had taken place between and the Learne Judges,

The ATTORNEY GENERAL rose and spoke as follows:―"My Lords, I had no no notice whatever of any such motions as those which you have heard being about to be made this day, save what I derived from the ordinary channels public information, in which I saw reported that which occurred yesterday. In consequence of what I thus collected, I felt it my duty to attend here and to state, that I have every reason to believe the Gentleman who has been making these applications, had notice before he left Manchester that his attendance in Court would not be required."

LORD ELLENBOROUGH―"Then the inconveniences and expense of being absent from his family is attributable to himself."

The ATTORNEY GENERAL—"So, I believe; and I believe that every other Gentleman who entered into recognizances under similar circumstances, received a like communication."

Mr. Johnson—"I do not mean to deny that."

LORD ELLENBOROUGH.―"Then there is an end to this business."

Mr. JOHNSON.―"But I wish to state the nature of the notice which I received."

LORD ELLENBOROUGH.―"Really the time of the Court, which belongs to other suitors, cannot thus be trifled with. We have your motion, and have given you the only answer of which it is susceptible."

Mr. JOHNSON.―"Then, I suppose, I will submit to the consequences."

Two other persons, named John Roberts, and Samuel Drummond, made similar motions, which were rejected.—Other persons were prepared to pursue the same course, but the Court would not hear them.

This is from the Nottingham Review of 30th January 1818.

10th January 1818: The Luddite John Clarke (aka 'Little Sam') arrives in Australia

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Wed, 10 Jan 2018 12:00:00 +0000

'View of Sydney Cove from Dawes Point' by Joseph Lycett, c.1817/1818

On Saturday 10th January 1818, the transport ship 'The Ocean' arrived at Port Jackson, Sydney, Australia after a voyage of 142 days and carrying 180 male convicts.

Among them were two prisoners called John Clarke, one of whom was also known as 'Little Sam' and had been convicted 10 months earlier of shooting at John Asher during the 'Loughborough Job' and sentenced to death, although the Judge later respited this to transportation for life.

Clarke and his fellow convicts had left England from Spithead on 21st August 1817, and had arrived at St. Helena on 31st October, remaining there for a week before continuing to Australia. Conditions on board were better than normal aboard such transport ships; even so, that by the time that the ship arrived at Sydney, 2 of the convicts who had originally boarded the ship had died of consumption.

After arrival, Clarke and his namesake were amongst a group of prisoners sent on to Windsor, New South Wales.

This information is taken from the relevant page on The Convict Stockade and also from jenwilletts.com.

9th January 1818: Francis Ward writes to the Home Secretary to ask for money to attend his own trial

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Tue, 09 Jan 2018 20:44:00 +0000

My Lord

I am one of those unhappy persons who has been arrested and detained under the Habeus Corpus Suspension Act, and was liberated on the 13th of Novr 1817 on my own recognisee; which requires me to appear in London on the latter end of this month (January) if it is your Lordships intention now, that I shall attend at the time and placed specified in the bond, I am ready to appear; but as I was by my arrest deprived of a seat of work, and am still unemploy’d, your Lordship will perceive the absolute necessity of yourself furnishing me with the means of travelling to London, my existence when there, and also the means of travelling home. A speedy answer to these remarks,

Will much
Oblige Your
Obedient Servant.
F Ward

Nottm

Jany 9th 1818.

To Lord Viscount Sidmouth, Secretary
Of State for the Home Department.

P. S. Address. Hollow Stone. Nottingham
This letter can be found at HO 42/173.

2nd January 1818: Francis Ward publishes an account of his arrest and imprisonment on grounds of High Treason

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Tue, 02 Jan 2018 10:00:00 +0000

The 31st December 1817 edition of the Black Dwarf contained this letter from the Nottingham framework-knitter and political activist Francis Ward, who had been detained on charges of High Treason for several months in 1817. The letter is his response to an article from the (London) Observer newspaper, which stated that the government spy William Oliver had met with him and Gravenor Henson and others prior to the Pentrich Rising. The Nottingham Review of Friday 2nd January 1818 published it in full.

ARBITRARY ARRESTS!

[From a London Paper.]

TO THE EDITOR,

SIR―In a number of your paper for November, your correspondent, signed M.P., solicits a particular account of the arrest, treatment &c of those persons who have been confined under the suspension act—In compliance with that request, I beg leave to lay before you the following remarks.

I reside in Hollow stone, parish of St. Mary's, Nottingham. At the time of my being arrested, was employed in the fancy-work manufactured here. Have a wife and four children; and a mother of ninety years of age, all dependent on me for support. On the 10th of June last, twelve or thirteen police officers entered my house, one of them (Mr. Lawson) said, "Mr. Ward, we are come to search your house." I asked by what authority they came to do so, some of them said, "you may be sure we are not come without authority;" I replied, shew me it, or you shall not search my house; immediately Mr. Lawson held up in his hand a paper, and said, "here it is." I requested him to read it; he said, "the law would not justify him in reading it until we got before a magistrate"—While this conversation was passing between me and Lawson, all the rest of the constables went into different parts of my house, and I, perceiving there was no alternative, suffered them to search without seeing or hearing the warrant read, after a long and fruitless effort. When they had reached down a CANISTER, and even peeped into a THIMBLE, they frankly acknowledged "there was nothing to be found which they were looking for." I asked what they were looking for; one of them observed, "you have THAT to find out," and then they all went away! Not being satisfied with such unreasonable, and, as I thought, unlawful proceedings, I went and consulted an attorney; he advised me to make application for a copy of the warrant by which my house was searched, and the names of the constables it was delivered to. I applied accordingly to the Town Clerk, but he observed, "you have no right to a copy," this he repeated, and added, with considerable emphasis, "you may make application, but, know what advice I shall give." I went directly to the police office, what I saw Mr. Alderman Soars, and acquainted him with my business, he said, "go backwards," and immediately ordered a Constable to take me into custody. After being in this situation more than an hour, Mr. Alderman Barber, a near neighbour, came to me, and said, "I am sorry for you, as I believe you to be an honest industrious man, but I would advise you to withdraw your application," (this he repeated several times,) "it is a dangerous case to press; however, you will not by any means consider me as talking to you as a Magistrate, but as a friend." I told that the treatment I had already received was unmerited; at all events, I was determined to press my application for that which I had a right to demand: he then left me. Not more than an hour had expired after this interview, when I was taken before a Bench of Magistrates that was then sitting. Mr. Enfield then inquired me what my application was; I informed him, it was a copy of the warrant issued for the searching of my house, and the names of the Constables it was delivered to; he ordered me to be taken away for some time, until the Magistrates had consulted how they might dispose of my case. In half an hour, I was again introduced to the Magistrates, when Mr. Enfield informed me that they have agreed NOT to grant my request, and that I was still detained for being concerned in the Loughborough Outrage. Here he (the Town Clerk) alluded to the framebreaking which took place in Loughborough, on the 28th or 29th of June, 1816. I was taken to the town jail, where I remained in one of the dampest holes that none was ever combined in; and although it is more than six months ago, I at this time experience upon my lungs the bad effects of lying in that damp cell. I continued in that wretched place until the 14th, having nothing allowed me but bread and water for sustenance, with a bed such as felons lay upon, and not only damp, but smelling so strong of brimstone, that it was almost intolerable. On that day, Mr. Alderman Barber, Mr. Enfield, a King's Messenger, and a Bow-street Officer, came to the jail, and informed me I must prepare for a journey, as there was a warrant from the Secretary of State; Mr. Alderman Barber then observed, "the Loughborough business must stand over, (and I have heard no more of it since.) They then went away, and in the course of an hour after the King's messenger and a Bow-street officer, came again and chained me hand and foot to a man of the name of Haynes; before I got into the chaise, he (the Bow-street officer) said, "if I heaved my hand to let the chains be seen, I should be the first that should fail," at the same time holding a pistol in his hand. On the road to London the fetters round my hand gave me such pain, which caused me to comment upon the inherited unmerited punishment I was suffering; the officer observed "you wish to make it appear that you are not a disaffected person; the town clerk informed me that you are much respected* by the mechanics of Loughborough, and Leicester, and the working people in general, so that you are dangerous man to be a large." On the 15th we arrived in London and were taken to the Coold-bath-fields prison. On the 21st I was taken before Lord Sidmouth; his lordship asked me how old I was, I informed him; he told me I was apprehended under a warrant from him, on suspicion of high treason, and that he would commit to close confinement until delivered by due course of law, and added if you have any thing to say, you are at liberty to speak. To this I replied, if every action of my life was painted your lordship in its proper colour, you would say I merited reward, rather than punishment. In vain did I declare my innocence, and challenge proof of my guilt; he observed I was not just unjustly punished, for his information was from a respectable source, and that I should have a list of the evidence against me, and proper notice of my trial before it commenced. I was then conveyed to Cold-bath-fields prison: and on the 24th was with William Cliff, (a young man from Derby,) removed or Oxford Castle: at my arrival at that place, I was confined by myself in a dismal dungeon, (or cell for condemned criminals,) about nine feet square, and when I had a fire in it, I was nearly suffocated with smoke; here I continued for near three months, without being permitted to see any person except the governor or turnkey. Reflect, Sir, for a moment, how I must feel in such a situation, and of so long continuance, when you are told that I had never been within the walls were of a prison before the 10th of June last. In September the number of criminal prisoners were so much increased, that it was found necessary to admit Cliff, and myself into one of the turnkey’s lodges, where I was far more comfortable, enjoying the company of an innocent fellow-sufferer (William Cliff). We had three shillings each per day are allowed for our maintenance. While in solitary confinement the turnkey boarded me for seventeen shillings and sixpence per week. After joining my companion we received our weekly allowance and provided our own food, until the 13th of November, when we were liberated on our own recognizance, to appear in the Court of King's Bench on the first day of next term, and to continue from day to day, and not depart that Court without leave. In the last five or six weeks we had more liberty and better accommodation. The facts, Sir, which I have stated, after to the best of my knowledge correct, and I shall not, if called upon, hesitate to confirm on oath before any magistrate. It is a generally received opinion, self-praise is no recommendation, I shall therefore decline saying any thing of my own character; but as I have been resident in Nottingham between twenty and thirty years, several respectable manufacturers here, who are well acquainted with me as a husband, father, servant, and neighbour, are ready to give every satisfaction which may be required with respect to character but of many I will only select the following: Mr. G. Bradley, lace-manufacturer; Mr. H. Levers, lace-manufacturer; Mr. T. Goodburn, hosier; and Mr. Alderman Barber (at this time Mayor) beforementioned. The above persons may be referred to at any time. I do most solemnly declare, that I never was any way concerned in breaking frames at Loughborough, or joined to the Luddites. Nor was I ever on a political Committee, or attended any such Committee, either secretly or openly; nor have I been a member of any political club whatever. I have been an advocate for Parliamentary Reform, for more than thirty years,—if that is High Treason, I am guilty. But notwithstanding my character stands unimpeached, as numbers can testify, a detestable attempt has been made to ruin it, as the sequel will prove. On the 10th of November, a writer in the Observer has, with all the malignity of an ________, endeavoured to traduce my character to the last degree in his publication of that day: and to make the business more certain, he published that number gratuitously in Nottingham and Derby, (and how much further I cannot say) to both public and private families, to subscribers and non-subscribers,―in fact, after a diligent search with much trouble, I can only find one subscriber to that paper in Nottingham. For the particulars of that diabolical attempt I refer you to the work itself. Now, Sir, after losing my seat of work, being torn away from an affectionate wife, from beloved children, and a poor helpless aged mother, all dependent upon me for support, after being deprived of my liberty, shut up in a dungeon, my health impaired, and on the 10th of November, (three days before my liberation) my character traduced, by a vile wretch, a hireling journalist, I ask in the name of reason, and common honestly, is there no redress for such a complication of grievances? is there not a shadow of justice to be obtained for multiplied injuries? Is a bill of indemnity obtained by corrupt majority, all the satisfaction I and my suffering family are to receive, for unmerited, unheard of persecutions, and losses we have hereby sustained? These remarks, my persecuted friend, I send you, if you, or any of your patriotically acquaintance can turn them to good account in our own, or country’s cause, they are your service―I am, dear Sir,

Your obedient Servant

FRANCIS WARD

P.S.—I take the liberty of saying, that I have not received one shilling, either from a subscription or otherwise, as an indemnity for pecuniary damage sustained, neither do I require it. If I am favored with health and strength, and employment to exercise it, and the blessing of heaven upon my industry, I hope to maintain myself and family with credit and respectability as heretofore. If you think it would answer any good purpose to petition the House of Commons, I should esteem it a great favor to receive the form of a petition from you.

*The Editor has taken no liberty with the style of this letter, but to print a few words in italic characters. This part of the statement is an excellent exposition of the system of the Ministers, As they are not respected, every one who is, is a dangerous character.

22nd November 1817: The Leicester Chronicle withdraws their previous remarks about James Towle & the Spy Oliver

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Wed, 22 Nov 2017 10:00:00 +0000

On Saturday 22nd November 1817, the Leicester Chronicle issued a correction to a column of the previous week:

A respectable Lady of this town called upon us yesterday to assure us that the person who visited James Towle, while under sentence of death in the County gaol, was not the celebrated Mr. Oliver, but a relation of her’s, of the same of Townend, who resides at Holt Town, near Manchester. We can only say, that the circumstance was communicated to us by several respectable persons, with a tone of confidence, and that we believed it at the time. The immaculate Editor of the Journal, who of course never gives insertion to any thing not true, asks―”When the truth could have clearly ascertained, by an application to the county gaol why we should have deemed it necessary to publish a FALSEHOOD, if it had not been to answer a base and nefarious purpose?!!!” We answer―because we conceive such an application from us, would have been unavailing!

21st November 1817: A freed Gravenor Henson writes to the governor of Coldbath Fields Prison

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Tue, 21 Nov 2017 19:10:00 +0000

Dr Sir

I hope you will excuse my not returning your Coat sooner; which was partly owing to its being so extremely wet, that it took nearly three days drying; it rained all the way from Northampton, and I am fully convinced that to your Kindness, I am indebted to you, for preserving me from a fit of illness (if not) for my Life; when I arrived at Leicester, I shook as though I had an Ague Fit.

I have found my circumstances on coming home in a much worse state than I expected; though the Trade of Nottingham is improved, yet the particular branch of it, that I am employed in presents a most gloomy prospect.

I have been importuned very much to embark in political controversy; arising from a detailed statement given in a paper called the Observer which represents me as being ~~the~~ one of the prime movers of the late disturbances in the County of Derby; it states that I attended at a Meeting in Nottingham on the 27th May, for the purpose of organizing a revolt, though for it is an undeniable Fact that I was in your custody from the 11th April till 13 Novr; I am not aware how much false and impudent statements gets foisted on the Public nor what purpose they can serve; unless it is to persecute without [ceasing] an unoffending Man;

I have taken my resolution, I will not interfere either directly or indirectly in public concerns, and as far as regards myself I can only say, if the World will, why let it be deceived; I am extremely sorry that I could not part in on good terms with His Majesty’s Government, the offence which I gave was purely unintentional on my part,

I saw Mr Bailey on Wednesday, he is well in health, was extremely pleased to learn that your health was so good and very much surprized to hear that Mr Bucket had left

I have nothing further to add than to again return you my sincere thanks for the favors you have conferred on me, and I shall feel myself extremely happy, if ever it lies in my Power to return them either to you or any one of your Family

I am Sir
your much obliged
and Obedient Servant

Gravenor Henson

[To: Mr W Adkins
House of Correction
London]

This letter can be found at HO 42/171.

17th November 1817: Henry Enfield send his bill for supporting Blackburn & Burton to the Home Office

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Fri, 17 Nov 2017 10:00:00 +0000

Nottingham Novr. 17. 1817―

My Lord

I beg leave to enclose for to your Lordship the Bill of payments made by me relative to Blackburn & Burton―& to request that your Lordship will direct the Amount to be paid into the Bank of Messrs Smith Payne & Smiths, to my Credit in account with the Nottingham Bank―

I have [etc]

H Enfield

[To] The Rt Hble Lord Sidmouth

[Enfield enclosed a receipt for his payment to the Constable, Benjamin Barnes, who provided the following invoice of the costs he had incurred on Enfield's behalf]

Nottingham 26th September 1817

Mr Enfield

To Benj Barnes

1817
Sepr

Advanced to Burton at different times}
From 17th August to 25th September} £3 “ 0―0

22 Journey to Kettering to fetch Blackburn}
and Wife 3 Days} £3 “ 3―0
Coach Hire for self to Kettering ― £0 “ 17―0
Coachmen and Guard ― £0 “ 3―0

23 Chaise Hire from Kettering to Harboro’ £0 “ 18―0
Post Boy and Toll Bar £0 ― 4 ―0
Coach Hire from Harboro’ to Nottingham}
for self Blackburn Wife and Child} £1 “ 11―6
Coachmen and Guard £0 “ 6―0
Expences for self, Blackburn, Wife and}
Child three Days £1 “ 10 “ 6

25 Paid for Burton’s Wifes clothes our of Pledge £1 “ 4―10
Bonnet for Mrs Burton £0 “ 6―0
Two Petticoats and Skirt for Mrs Burton £0 “ 13 “ 6
Cloak and Bonnet for the Child £0 “ 8―6
Shoes for Mrs Burton £0 “ 6―0
Great Coat for Burton £1―5 “ 0
Shirt for Burton £0 “ 7―0
Hat for Burton £0 “ 7―6
Shoes for Burton £0 “ 9―0
Pelisse for Mrs Blackburn £1 “ 4―0
Bonnet for [ditto] £0 “ 6―0
Shoes for [ditto] £0 “ 6―0
Cloak and Bonnet for the Child £0 “ 8 “ 6
Pair of Breeches for Blackburn £0 “ 15 “ 0
Shoes for Blackburn £0 “ 9―0
Shirt for [ditto] £0 “ 7―0
Board and Lodging for Blackburn}
and Wife at Nottingham} £0 “ 12 “ 6
Attending with Burton and Blackburn in}
Nottingham} £0 “ 10 “ 6

[Total] £21―18 “ 10

These documents can be found at HO 42/171.

15th November 1817: The Leicester Chronicle reports that the spy Oliver visited James Towle in Leicester Gaol

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Wed, 15 Nov 2017 10:00:00 +0000

The Saturday 15th November 1817 edition of the Leicester Chronicle reported the following:

It seems that the person who called upon James Towle, while under sentence of death in the County Gaol, and gave him a pound note for his wife, with a promise of some future support for herself and children, was not, what he professed to be, “an eminent Manufacturer in the neighbourhood of Nottingham” (except indeed we may dignify him by that appellation for his manufacture of plots in Derbyshire,) but the celebrated Mr. Oliver!