cover all ths charges on the national debt, and all the other expenses of the government. The Earl of Lauderdale wished to remind the noble earl that the sinking-fund amounted to nearly fifteen millions. Was this then to be understood as the noble earl's proposition-that after deducting fifteen millions, this country possessed a revenue capable of covering the present expenditure, and paying the interest of the debt? and that the interest was very little more than 2 per cent. Another complaint of the noble earl was, that nothing had been done in the way of economy and reduction. On this subject, too, he was perfectly ready to meet the noble earl, when the proper time for discussion came. But the noble earl could not fail to know from the journals of the other House of parliament, that the peace establishment of the country had undergone the serious consideration of a committee in the course of the last session, and that measures were The Earl of Liverpool said, he never then taken for reducing the different intended to state any such thing. The departments of the public service to the noble earl could not suppose that he meant lowest scale on which they could with to assert that the country had an excess propriety be placed. The noble earl, it of revenue amounting to fifteen millions. appeared, thought those establishments Lord King maintained, that, in that still too great; and that might be a sub-case, the sinking-fund was merely nomiject of inquiry when the question came regularly before their lordships; but it had nothing to do with it at present. The noble earl had said, that a saving might arise by withdrawing from the frontiers of France that part of the army of occupation which belonged to this country; but on what foundation did he rest that opinion? Could he show that the recall of our army would be any saving whatever to the country? The view which the noble earl appeared to have formed of the expense of that army was totally erroneous; and however desirable saving might be, he must look for some other sources of economy than the reduction of a force by which little or no expense was incurred. With regard to the revenue, he assured the noble earl that it more than covered the expenditure. nal, and that no part of the debt was actually discharged by it, there being no excess of revenue over the expenditure. The Earl of Liverpool denied this conclusion, and contended, that, including the sinking-fund, there was an actual excess of revenue over expenditure, and that to the amount of that excess (upwards of two millions) there was an actual diminution of the aggregate amount of debt. The bill went through the committee. PETITIONS COMPLAINING OF THE ÕPERATION OF THE HABEAS CORPUS SUSPENSION ACT.] Lord Holland wished, before the House proceeded to the order of the day, to call their lordships attention to two petitions, which he had to present. The subject of these petitions was similar to that which his noble friend had presented Earl Grosvenor expressed himself not the other day, and on which he was now satisfied with what had been done in the about to make a motion. They had been way of reduction, in consequence of the put into his hands not two hours before institution of a committee by the other he came down to the House, and though House of parliament; and was of opinion, he had not had time to read them minutely, notwithstanding what had been said by he could say that their titles were correctly the noble earl, that a considerable ex-worded and that they were couched in pense was incurred by this country in maintaining the army on the frontiers of France. The Earl of Lauderdale was surprised to hear what had fallen from the noble earl on the subject of the finances. Did he mean to say, that the revenue of this country was capable of covering the charges on the consolidated fund, and all the present expenditure? The Earl of Liverpool wished to be understood to say, that the whole revenue of the country, in which he included the sinking fund was more than sufficient to in language which he considered decorous and respectful. They both complained of the execution of the act for the suspension of the Habeas Corpus. The first came from a person of the name of Knight, and stated several circumstances of cruelty which were worthy of inquiry, and described a variety of sufferings which the petitioner had undergone in consequence of his being arrested, fettered, imprisoned, and finally compelled to enter into recognizances. He knew nothing of Mr. Knight; but in presenting this or any other petition, he wished it to be under stood, that he neither vouched for the truth of the statements which it contained, or the character of the individual from whom it came. It was his duty to bring the complaint under the notice of the House. The second petition was from a man respecting whose character he had heard reports, but as they were not of a favourable nature, he should not state them. His name was Mitchell, and he also stated that he had suffered severely in consequence of being unjustly imprisoned. As he had before observed, he could not vouch for the truth of the allegations in these petitions; but he thought it no way surprising, that persons who had suffered unjustly should sometimes state their case with a degree of aggravation, nor could he regard that as a reason for not inquiring into the facts. It was fit the petitions should be laid on their lordships table, whether the injury complained of was attributed to ministers, or to persons of inferior authority. He had made these remarks, because he knew from experience, that when complaints were made of the violation of the laws and constitution, it was often endeavoured to identify the individual who brought forward such complaints with the cause of the persons into whose statements it was proposed to inquire. He was standing up for the laws of the country, and not for the character of the petitioners, or the accuracy of their statements. The petitions of John Knight, and of Joseph Mitchell were then read. They were couched in the same terms as the petitions of the same individuals to the House of Commons. [See p p. 191,399.] With respect to the petition from Mitchell, lord Holland observed, that several of the statements in it could be verified by persons of respectability. The petitions were ordered to lie on the table. MOTION RESPECTING THE PETITIONS COMPLAINING OF IMPRISONMENT UNDER THE HABEAS CORPUS SUSPENSION ACT.] The order of the day having been read forr eferring the Petition of Samuel Drummond to the Secret Committee, The Earl of Carnarvon said, that when, a few days ago, he offered to the notice of the House the petition of this person, who had been confined under the suspension of the Habeas Corpus act, he did not conceive there could be any difference of opinion as to the propriety of referring those petitions to the consideration of the Se cret Committee; and he was therefore about to make the motion immediately to do so, but finding that a difference of opinion did exist, he had put it to his majesty's ministers to name a later day for the discussion of the question, if they were not then prepared to meet it. He had then stated what he now repeated, that he was wholly ignorant of the character of the person who had signed this petition. He was aware that, if he should call on their lordships to enter into any specific investigation of the petition, it was incumbent on him to make a fuller inquiry into the merits of the petitioner, and to ascertain them, before he could show a ground for any proceeding upon the subject; but that was not the present case. Their lordships had agreed to a committee, at the suggestion of ministers; they had gone into an inquiry, and because ministers thought fit that that inquiry should not be as open as the nature of the case demanded, they had stated (for the contents of the green bag were known to few), that the object of the committee was to lay before the House an exposition of the whole conduct of ministers, and an exposition of the state of the country since the report of the last committee. Their lordships had voted that committee, the committee had commenced its inquiries, and it was not too much to assume that it had also gone into an investigation on the conduct of ministers; the only question now was, whether that inquiry should be limited to the documents that ministers should lay before the committee, or whether it should be entered into with that spirit and degree of investigation that the nature of the case imperiously demanded. Ministers had told the House, that one object of the committee was to inquire into their conduct; if so, it must be with a view to ascertain whether it was meritorious or not. On this he would give no opinionnot that he meant to imply his majesty's ministers would be found in fault, in case an inquiry should really take place (he hoped that the more their conduct was inquired into, the more clear it would turn out;) but he was sure that if they wished this to be the result of the inquiry, it must not be entered into merely upon evidence brought forward by themselves, upon a case of their own showing, and before a tribunal packed by themselves; he said, packed by themselves, for he begged to state to their lordships, and he was sure he could not be contra If an dicted by ministers themselves, that, in the formation of that committee, regular lists had been prepared, and there was not one name that was not inserted by ministers themselves, or at least upon their own nomination. Yet, before even such a tribunal as that, constituted in the manner he had described, he was willing that inquiry should be made, as far as it could be made. inquiry was really to be entered on, there was a possibility that something might have been reprehensible in the conduct of ministers, or their agents; and, if so, were they from their own of fices to draw up their own statements, and produce them before the committee, as a satisfactory means of arriving at the truth either of their good or of their evil deeds? Was it not natural to suppose, that they would overlook the serious charges, if not intentionally, through neglect or mistake, and call upon the House to concur in their justification by making them participators in their ignorance? If they left it to the discretion of those gentlemen to prepare, not only their own case, but the whole of the evidence by which that case was to be tried, they might trust to Heaven for justice, but they might depend upon it, that such facts would only find their way into the committee as were most favourable to parties on their defence. Would their lordships be satisfied upon such evidence, or could they arrive at any conclusion upon it? Take it which way they would, they could derive no information from the green bag which ministers had not put into it. Let them look to the proceedings of those ministers themselves. Before two days had elapsed, after the production of the green bag, containing, as was at first stated, all the information necessary, they showed that, even in their own opinion, that information was not sufficient. At that time another green bag was introduced, containing God knows what; but clearly intimating that something had been withheld from the former; and if that was not sufficient, even in ministers' own opinion, why might we not have a third green bag produced, as a supplement to the second? why might not much more be necessary, if truth was really sought as the result of the inquiry? But the importance of this inquity mainly depended on the objects that ministers had in view. On the first day of the session they were asked, what those objects were, and what was to be the result of the committee of inquiry? but then, as they did not know who would form the committee, they professed an entire ignorance of the objects it might have in view, or what would be the result of its investigation. He would state at once, and ministers might contradict him if they could, that their view then, and now, was to obtain a bill of indemnity, and he was confident the inquiry of the committee would terminate in a recommendation to the House to pass such bills of indemnity. If this investigation was not entered into for the mere purpose of gratifying curiosity, but if it was meant to lead to so serious and important a measure as shutting the door of justice against those who had suffered, whether deservedly or not, under the acts of ministers: he repeated, if those unfortunate men were to be excluded from justice by a bill of indemnity, were their cases also to be excluded from all previous examination before the passing of such an enactment? Would their lordships, if they had any regard for the people, or any sense of justice remaining, consent to such a proposal? If so, if such a course was thought, under all circumstances, to be expedient, let it be at once manfully avowed. Let the House tell those unfortunate men, that there was no justice for them, either in parliament or before the ordinary tribunals of the country. Let the House tell them, that they were determined to proceed in such a manner, as to secure the protection of ministers, the authors of their wrongs; while to the victims either of their vigour, or of their imbecility, all hopes of redress were for ever to be denied. If such was the determination of their lordships, let it be stated so at once, without holding out the mockery of redress, by making the accused their own judges. Whether they should do this or not, was the issue on which the House was to join that night. But he trusted, their lordships would not go the length of determining to prepare the way for a bill of indemnity, and to try ministers on evidence produced by themselves alone. These were the grounds on which he called on them to refer these petitions to the Committee of Secrecy ; not Drummond's petition alone, but all the others; for there was the same ground for attending to the prayer of all of them. The House was not obliged to form distinct opinions upon each, it was not possible that it could do so, but it was un t questionably in its power to send them to the committee, there to be dealt with according as they might deserve. He was, indeed, strongly impressed with the importance that would be attached to their lordships' decision on the question of that night. Whatever might have been the conduct of ministers, or whatever might be the claims of the petitioners, there was one question of still greater importance. In all proceedings between ministers and the people, that House ought always to stand fair between them and the country; if not, if they were biassed, and would hear but one side, how could they complain if the people, stimulated by want, and rendered discontented by distress, should yield to the violent but seductive language that was too often held out to them by men of evil designs, and, in this instance, there was great reason to suppose by the agents of ministers themselves? Was there any prima facie case, any thing so decisively clear in the conduct or character of ministers, that should authorize the House to prejudge the case of poor and oppressed individuals in favour of those ministers, without so much as hearing the party complaining? How ever we might approve of their conduct or character, was that any reason for telling petitioners that we might pity their case, but that we were precluded from entering into it, because the parties complained of were authorized by their situation in proceedings however arbitrary. Though that House might, in some instances, become no more than a mere echo of the designs and language of ministers, he entreated their lordships to consider how the pre-sult of such an inquiry must be, that they, sent case stood. Was it the fact, that ministers stood so high in the estimation of the public? or was there not a feeling without-doors, that it wat possible a case might be made out against them, notwithstanding the purity of their fame, very different, in its complexion and degree, from what was likely to be extracted from their own green bag? Had ministers themselves done nothing to countenance this opinion? Had they not confessed, that the disturbances had, in many places, been much aggravated, at least by the conduct of their own immediate agents? The report of the committee of last year, admitted that some portion of the disturbances was to be attributed to the conduct of the agents employed by government; and many persons believed, at this moment, that the greater part, if not the whole, of the insurrectionary spirit, was fomented by the industry of spies and informers. Those agents had found men discontented from the effects of distress, and want of employment (it was obvious that men in a state of starvation were, of all others, the easiest to be worked on); and seeing the materials ready for their hand, proceeded to kindle the flames of insurrection. Was not the House bound to inquire, how far those unhappy men, who had fallen victims to the laws of their country, might attribute their untimely end to the arts and designs of these detestable spies? The friends of ministers might allege, that it was to their vigorous exertions we were indebted for the tranquillity that now prevailed; others affirmed, that this vigour was the cause of all the disturbances that had taken place. Ought not the House to inquire which of these statements was true? Whether Drummond or the other petitioners were men of good or bad character, whether the statements in their petitions were true or false, was not the question for the House to consider, but what sort of an inquiry they were now about to institute? Were they going to inquire into the internal state of the country? so his majesty's ministers said. If so, how could they refuse to submit to the inspection of the committee these petitions, which must afford some light on that subject? Were they to inquire into the conduct of ministers? If so, how could they refuse the petitions, or how judge of that conduct at all, if they refused any inquiry but an inquiry by ministers themselves? The re like their victims, would remain for ever tainted with suspicion, and their characters could never be cleared up. But there was this difference between them and their accusers:-the latter demanded a trial, and that their guilt, if any, might be openly proved before the tribunals of their country. His majesty's ministers demanded a trial, not by God and their country, but in their own dark chamber, on their own statement, and by judges of their own appointment. If they refused to meet inquiry, would not suspicion unavoidably attach to them-that suspicion which fell on all who endeavoured, when accused, to escape investigation? But be their characters what they might, be their feelings what they might, it was not for their lordships to consider their feelings, but to consider their own, and to consider the duties of their station. The feelings, too, of all the country, demanded that an investigation should take place. There was much mystery on the part of ministers, and that mystery could not make a favourable impression on the country. It was in the hope of promoting that regard for their lordships' proceedings which depended so much on their own character; it was to do justice to that people who always looked to parliament for protection, if parliament did not spurn them away; that he trusted these petitions would be referred to the committee. If this business, instead of affecting as it did the character of ministers and the House, were a mere road bill, or any other matter of ordinary routine, and it was asked to refer petitions on the subject to the committee that had it under consideration, the thing would be done as a matter of course. As such was the practice of the House, he had come down last time anticipating no objection whatever to his proposal; objections, however, had been made to it; but as ministers had since had time to reflect, he hoped they would not shrink from the only course they could adopt with credit. He therefore moved, that the petitions of Drummond, Mitchell, and the others who had been confined on suspicion of treason, might be referred to the Committee of Secrecy. Lord Sidmouth, after observing that the noble earl had not gone into the merits of the petitions, but had confined himself to the broad ground, that all petitions, of whatever description, ought to be referred to the committee, admitted, that they might be suffered to lie on the table, but that to ask more than that was to say, that petitions of whatever description, (provided only that they were not couched in language disrespectful to their lordships), whether frivolous, false, malicious, or libellous, were all to be considered, and that the attention of their lordships must be employed in investigating the statements they contained, however false or improbable. That was a proposition to which he could not accede; and he was confident that their lordships would refuse their assent to a principle of such dangerous latitude. But the noble lord more especially wished. these petitions to be referred to the Secret Committee. There was no mode of investigation, supposing their contents entitled them to be considered, which appeared to his judgment, so exceptionable as that. He de The fied the noble lord to show a single instance in which such a proposal had been adopted; the very nature of a secret committee was in direct opposition to it. If any case of real hardship existed, it was more proper that such a case should be referred to the consideration of a select committee. He hoped the noble lord had read the petitions in question. If he or their lordships would read those petitions he could assure them with confidence that unless they contained much more information than that which had been read, it was not only not fit for their lordships to take that cognizance of them which the noble lord had asked, but not fit to consider them at all. Drummond, for instance, had undertaken in his petition to prove the decorum and propriety of the meeting of the 10th of March, near Manchester. Of the nature of that meeting their lordships had read information in all the papers, and had also derived it, however the noble lord might ridicule them, from the documents laid before the last committee. petitioner stated, that he was on that day boisterously apprehended by drunken soldiers without any cause whatever : the truth was, that the magistrates having notice that the people were then about to proceed in a body to the metropolis. in order to enforce the compliance of the sovereign with their demands; and that their intentions (as was borne out by the facts) were to proceed to acts of violence, applied for 13 warrants to apprehend those who were most active. These warrants were sent down and many of them executed before the day of meeting; but some of the remaining leaders, regardless of the fate of their companions, proceeded to assemble on the 10th. The magistrates of Manchester acted wisely; they knew that, notwithstanding the check that had been given, a large meeting would take place, and they applied for a military force. Drummond was one of the parties against whom a warrant was issued. The people met to the amount of 12,000, were preparing for their march to London, with the intention of carrying confusion in their train, and addressing the prince in person, and the petitioner was arrested while haranguing them in the most vehement terms; two hundred other persons were also apprehended fortumultuous conduct at the meeting; but not till the riot act had been read by Mr. Holland Watson, the magistrate. That |