he would lend it all the assistance in his power.

Mr. Curwen wished to say one word in explanation. He did not mean that the slightest degree of coercion should be used as to saving banks. His plan was to be adopted only where it met with the wishes of the majority of the parishioners. The motion was then agreed to, and a committee appointed.

HOUSE OF LORDS.

Monday, February 24. SINECURE PLACES-VOLUNTARY CONTRIBUTIONS]. The Earl of Darnley, before their lordships proceeded to the order of the day, was desirous of saying a few words on a subject of great importance. Their lordships were about to adopt a measure of great severity, the necessity for which was said to be grounded on proceedings, evidently occasioned by the distress of the times. Now he would ventare to assert, that whilst their lordships were adopting proceedings against dangers supposed likely to arise, they were overlooking a mode by which much of the present irritation might be avoided. Their lordships must feel that every class of society, from the richest peer to the lowest labourer, were more or less affected by the pressure of the times, except those who were supported out of the public revenue. In a few words which he addressed to their lordships, at the commencement of the session, he lamented that ministers had not advised their royal master to contract his expenses. Such advice had since been given, and a considerable portion of his royal highness's income had been given up. It might have been done with a better grace, and it would have had a much better effect, if the proposition was made on the first day of the session. He was happy to find, that a noble marquis had taken the earliest opportunity to follow that example, and had made a very considerable sacrifice for the benefit of the public. That example had not, as far as he knew, been acted on by any other noble lord, and he should be glad to learn whether an intention of imitating it existed.

Lord Rolle said, that in consequence of the removal of the property tax, which had been loudly called for by the noble lord, a necessity existed for continuing other taxes that bore more severely upon the poor. He would, therefore, ask of the noble lord who required such sacrifices from others, (VOL. XXXV.)

whether he would put down one-tenth of his income, in order to enable the legislature to relieve the poor from the burthen of the salt tax, the leather tax, &c.? If he did, he was sure others would follow his example.

The Earl of Darnley said, he had guarded himself in what he had addressed to the House, from the observation which the noble lord had thrown out. He had stated, that every individual in the country, from the richest nobleman to the poorest peasant, felt, more or less, the pressure of the times, except those who were supported by the public revenue, and, what he wished to know was, whether the example of the noble marquis, to whom he had alluded, was likely to be followed generally, by persons who received large sums of the public money.

Lord Rolle said, the proposition of the noble earl was a partial, his was a general one.

The

Earl Grey said, if he were asked to give that species of relief to which the noble lord, who had just sat down, alluded, he would answer, " I will give no such assistance-I already pay in taxes, more than I can afford to pay." Advantageous as his situation was, when compared with that of other persons in the country, he could not suffer such a reduction of his income, without contracting some branch of his expenditure. He was not one of those who thought that the tax which his majesty's ministers had voluntarily imposed on themselves, was one which the country called for, or which they ought to accept. public did not want a reduction of the salaries paid for efficient services, they demanded a diminution of the expense created by useless and unnecessary offices. This system of compulsory benevolence ought not, he conceived, to be followed. A general and oppressive tax, to make efficient offices pay, in order to protect and preserve those that were useless, was one that the country did not call for, and which would not answer. What was wanted in the way of economy and retrenchment-what the country called for demanded, and had a right to expect-what the people required, and what that House could not refuse-was, that every article of expense, even the most trifling, which the good of the state did not warrant, should be abandoned. This was the answer he should make to the noble lord on the cross-bench. Such was the character of the measures which his noble friends had supported(2 M)

REPORT OF THE SECRET COMMITTEE -MR. CLEARY'S PETITION]. Earl Grovesnor said, he rose for the purpose of presenting a petition from Mr. Cleary similar to that which he had introduced on Friday, and which their lordships then rejected. In the course of the discussion that then took place, it was stated by the learned lord on the Woolsack, that it could not be received, because it alluded to the report of the secret committee, of which the petitioner could not be cognizant, and because it referred to a measure not then before the House. He now tendered the petition in such a shape (all notice of the committee being omitted) as would, he trusted, prevent any objection to its being laid on the table.

The petition was then read. It denied the existence of the London Union Society for the last three years, but made no reference to the report of the committee. Earl Grovesnor then moved, "That the petition do lie on the table."

The Earl of Harrowby said, he did not rise to object to the receiving of the petition, which rested on very different grounds to that of the same individual presented to the House on Friday, and was now perfectly regular. He felt it necessary, however, to say a few words upon the question to which that petition referred, involving as it did the correctness of the report of the secret committee. He felt on Friday, that it would not be proper for him to attempt to state, from imperfect recollection, what was the nature of the evidence which induced the committee to come to that conclusion, which was denied by the petitioner. He felt this the more, he having had the honour of being the chairman of the committee. He had been therefore of opinion, that he ought upon such an occasion to speak only what he was authorized by the committee to state. The members of the committee had accordingly in the interverning time assembled, and had gone into an anxious examination of the evidence upon which they had founded their report. The result, he was authorized to state.

"Others of these societies are called Union Clubs, professing the same object of parliamentary reform, but under these words understanding universal suffrage and annual parliaments, projects which evidently involve not any qualified or partial change, but a total subversion of the British constitution.

"It appears that there is a London Union Society, and branch Unions corresponding with it, and affiliated to it. Others of these societies have adopted the name of Spencean Philanthropists: and it was by members of a club of this description that the plans of the conspirators in London were discussed and prepared for execution."

It would at once be seen that the words, "It appears that there is a London Union Society, and branch Unions corresponding with it and affiliated to it," belonged to, and ought to have formed a part of the preceding paragraph, without being immediately connected with what followed, respecting the Spencean Philanthropists. For this, therefore, the committee were not answerable. With respect to the phrase, " It appears that there is a London Union Society, and branch Unions corresponding with it, and affiliated to it," and the truth of which was denied by the petitioner, the committee had felt it incumbent upon them to go again over the evidence upon which that statement was founded, in order that there might be no possibility of mistake. For the purpose of satisfying the House, he was authorized to refer to a part of the evidence, respecting which there could be no danger, it being a printed bill from Sheffield. This bill announced the formation of an Union Society at Sheffield in October 1816, which was to correspond with the London Union Society, and with the branch Unions, and one of the resolutions of which expressly stated, that by a rule of the London Union a subscription

of 20s. by any person becoming a member of a Local Union, entitled him to become an honorary member of the London Union. The committee, therefore, had every reason to conclude, from the evidence before them, not only that a London Union society was then existing, but also that there was an affiliation to that of Branch Unions. With regard to the expression," corresponding with it," the committee had, upon a further examination not been able to trace any correspondence between the Branch Unions and London Union Society, eo nomine. That expression, therefore, he admitted was incorrect; instead of "corresponding with," the phrase ought to have been " co-operating with;" the proof of co-operation derived from the Sheffield bill being sufficiently clear, as was also the affiliation. It would thus be apparent, that the only error was the expression" corresponding with," and that there was no charge against the London Union Society, implicating the members of it with the projects of the Spencean Philanthropists.

Lord Grenville said, that when the subject was under consideration on a former occasion, he had felt himself in the same situation as the noble earl who had just sat down. This, however, he was sure of, from a very jealous attention to the conduct of the committee, that nothing like any intention to deceive had ever existed on their part, when he had heard the statement in the petition, his first desire was again to see and examine the evidence: and if, upon such examination, it should appear that the committee had fallen into any error, it was his most anxious wish that the very earliest opportunity should be taken of clearing up that error. It was no degradation to any one to acknowledge an error into which he might have accidentally fallen; the degradation would have been in persevering in it, where error had been discovered. He assured their lordships therefore, that he had at first gone to the examination of the papers as if he had gone into a jury-box, to form the best judgment he could upon the evidence laid before him. He went back again to the consideration of the evidence with the same feeling, and with the conviction, that if any error should be discovered, the amount of that error ought to be distinctly and immediately stated. The noble earl who had just sat down had shown, that whatever misapprehension

might have arisen from the mode in which the report was printed, the committee was no party thereto; but had, in fact, directed it to be printed in a different form; and if any one found his feelings hurt by its being represented that he held the principles of the Spencean Philanthropists, owing to the mistake which had just been stated, he trusted that such person would be satisfied with the explanation which had been given; and it ought to be observed, that it was distinctly stated in the report, that "the committee would by no means ascribe to all these societies the same practices and designs which they had found to be but too prevalent amongst a large number of them."-Another point on which the noble earl had not touched was thisthat some appeared to have imagined the committee meant to say that it was the intention of all those societies to produce those consequences which the committee itself firmly believed would result from carrying their projects into execution. Many of them might not have intended these consequences; and every candid mind would make the distinction. He himself firmly believed, that the effect of annual parliaments and universal suffrage. would be not a qualified or partial change, but the total subversion of the British constitution. The committee, however, never intended to impute any such motive to all those societies; but when they said that those projects involved not any qualified or partial change, but a total subversion of the British constitution," this was an argument and inference drawn by them. selves from the evidence which had been laid before them. Then, as to the assertion in the petition, that the London Union Society was not now in existence; whether it was true that it existed or was dissolved, he knew nothing, except from the document which had been mentioned to their lordships. He never knew, or if he did know he had forgotten the circumstance, that any such London Union Society had existed, till he had read this address of the Sheffield Union. All he was anxious for was to show the ground upon which the committee had proceeded. Α document had been laid before them, published in October last by the Sheffield Union, stating their object to be co-operate with the London Union and its branches. From this the committee had drawn a conclusion that the London Union did exist; and that there were branch Unions corres, ponding with it, and affiliated to it. They

66

found in the same address of the Sheffield Union, a reference to a rule of the London Union Society, by which a person who subscribed annually twenty shillings to any of the local Unions became an honorary member of the London Union; and they could find no term which appeared to them to express this connexion so precisely as the term "affiliation." This was exactly what the committee meant by that term; and they thought themselves authorized to make the statement which appeared in that passage of the report, upon the ground of that document. That this might be met by contrary evidence there was no question; but he trusted that the statement of the committee, reporting only upon ex parte evidence laid before them, would be justified up to that point. With the same openness he wished to state, that in as far as correspondence was distinguished from co operation, the committee had fallen into a mistake. He could not easily see how there could be co-operation without correspondence; but he admitted that there might, by possibility, be such co-operation without correspondence; and he was willing to apologize for that degree of inaccuracy. He entreated their lordships, therefore, to discharge from their minds all notion of correspondence, so far as it was distinguished from co-operation. This much he had thought due to his character and feelings to declare to the House upon this subject.

Earl Grey, before he proceeded to make some observations on the statement which had been submitted to the House with respect to the grounds on which the committee had proceeded when they referred to the London Union Society, requested permission to congratulate their lordships upon the circumstance that they now saw no objection to the receiving of this petition. It would be a consolation even to those who voted against it the other night, and who must now be presumed to have done so with very great regret, to find that the time and the occasion were so soon arrived when they might indulge their feelings so far as to allow the petition to be laid on the table. But with respect to himself, who was not capable of applying to the consideration of the subject that nice discrimination which belonged to the learned lord on the woolsack and the noble lords on the other side of the House, he could not possibly see any grounds for the rejection of the petition before, which might not, with equal just

ness and force, be stated for its rejection now. The petition, however, was now to be received, and on that circumstance he congratulated their lordships.-Now, then, as to the statements made in the report of the committee; and here he begged leave to set himself right with the House and the public, and to protest against any inference being drawn from his observations, that he meant to say that the committee had stated any fact which did not appear to them to be warranted by the evidence before them, or had stated any conclusion except such as they imagined might be fairly deduced from that evidence. His noble friends, he trusted, could never have supposed, that he had ever intended to throw any imputation on their motives; and political hostility could not lead him to think, that the noble lords opposite were capable of any attempt to represent the effect of the evidence laid before them any otherwise than such as it appeared to them to be. But the circumstances, as now brought before them, showed the danger of proceeding to legislate on matters of the highest importance-to suspend the laws upon which the liberties of the subject depended-merely on an examination of ex-parte evidence. All that he had imputed to the committee was, that they had nothing but ex-parte evidence to go upon, and that human minds were fallible. Then what was it that this petition complained of? His noble friend who spoke last, and the noble president of the council, had considered the subject of complaint to be, that the petitioner had been confounded with the Spencean Philanthropists. He, however, did not think that this was the gravamen of the complaint; nor did he think it of much consequence to the matter in question, whether, in the printing of the report, it had or had not been rightly pointed. What the petitioner complained of was, a charge of a much more grave and serious nature -a charge that he was connected with a system of clubs spread over the country, having for their object the subversion of the British constitution. This was the charge made by the report; and the House ought not to suffer itself to be led away with the idea, that this statement, as to these Union Clubs, did not constitute a material feature of the report. What was the statement of that report? That societies were established throughout the country, with a traitorous design of subverting the constitution. This was the

general statement, and these the objects | which these societies were said to have in view. The committee stated, that some of the societies established for these purposes were called Hampden Clubs, that others of them were called Union Clubs, and that there was a central Union Society in London. Now he would ask, whether this individual, if his statement was true, was not materially aggrieved by the report of the committee; and whether they were not called upon, in justice, to allow him to explain and justify his conduct? He (lord G.), said this was a most serious charge, especially at this moment, when they were proposing to suspend the Habeas Corpus act, to enable them to detain in custody such persons as the ministers thought fit, without bringing them to trial. It was, under these circumstances, a most serious charge against an individual to be described as engaged in such a system. Had they forgotten the act of 1799, which referred to affiliation and unlawful correspondence with branch societies; and that the offence might be punished with a fine of 20., or three months imprisonment; or, upon indictment, with transportation for seven years? If the committee were not able to call for an explanation, why did not the secretary of state call for it? And why had he not proceeded, with the advice and assistance of the attorney-general, by law against these societies, if such objects were in their contemplation? The noble president of the council had stated, that the address of the Sheffield Union Society was the ground upon which they had proceeded: but what their lordships had now to consider was, that a most material fact stated in the report of the committee had been directly impeached by the secretary to the Union Society. His noble friend, who spoke last, and the noble president of the council, had said, that they retracted the word "correspondence," and meant only to insist upon "co-operation." It was worthy of their candor, if they had fallen into an error, thus to acknowledge it: but with all due deference to them, if the word had been "co-operation," it would not have made the matter much better. The Sheffield society spoke of "co-operation;" but the answer of the petitioner was, that the London Union Society had not been in existence for three years past; and there was, therefore, no possibility of co-operation: and this, and other important facts, impeaching the statement of the

committee, the petitioner averred that he was ready to prove at the bar. He (lord G.) believed he had authority to state, that there was now in the House a note from the present lord mayor, whose conduct, on a late occasion, he thought, would at any rate free him from having any concern with societies engaged in traitorous conspiracies, stating, that he and Mr. alderman Goodbehere had examined the books of the London Union Society since the time of the former discussion on the subject in that House, and that they firmly believed that every part of the statement in the petition was strictly and correctly true; and that they were themselves ready to come forward as witnesses, and substantiate its allegations at the bar. This was no light matter: it had been no light matter before; and now it had assumed a much more grave and serious character. Their lordships had now agreed to receive the petition, and having received it, they were bound to examine its allegations, and in justice to the petitioner, to themselves, and to the country, to reappoint the committee to investigate more fully the subject matter of that petition. He thought this was a duty from which they could not absolve themselves; and in the mean time he thought that all further proceedings on the bill ought to be suspended until the committee had completed that investigation. The statement now impeached was one of the most material features of the report: and if the allegation in the petition were true, that the London Union Society did not exist, that fact ought to be explained before they proceeded to legislate on a matter of this importance. If they did not adopt the course which he recommended, they would diminish the respect of the country for their decisions. The noble lord on the woolsack, even though surrounded by the military, and with all the security of power, when he had on a former night said, that even though he stood alone he would protect the orders of the House, appeared to have felt as if he had been exposed to some personal danger. Let him, then, sympathize with this humble individual, who had no such security; and who might be exposed to the severe penalties of the laws, if their lordships proceeded to act upon the report of the committee without farther investigation. But the interests of this individual were as nothing in comparison with the greater interest which the public had in this question, which was