neither more nor less than this-whether | to have laid on the table on Friday. In the Habeas Corpus act, which had been fact, the former petition, if it prayed called the palladium of their liberties, against any thing at all, it prayed against should be suspended on the ground of a something of which their lordships had no statement which was now directly im- knowledge, as it related to a measure peached. He imputed nothing improper merely expected to be proposed. If any to the committee, although he thought line was to be drawn with respect to petithere was some negligence on the part of tions (and surely some line was necessary), the noble secretary of state, who ought to that which he had stated was plain and have fully investigated the subject before obvious. The distinction, whether alhe recommended the adoption of such lowed to be right or wrong, was a clear measures as these; measures which would one; and it had justly, he thought, been never be satisfactory to the country, unless considered by the House as affording a it clearly appeared that they were called sufficient ground for rejecting the petifor by a paramount necessity. He would tion presented on Friday.-Having said show that he had never meant to impute thus much with reference to the business any improper motive to the committee; of Friday, he st.ould now trouble their for he earnestly recommended that this lordships with a few words on the other petition should be sent back to them, with branches of the subject. Indeed, after directions more fully to investigate the the clear, distinct, and manly statements subject, and report upon the whole to the of his noble friend, and the hon. baron House. He felt that this was a matter of opposite, relative to what had passed in the highest importance, and trusted that the committee, he could not have occathis recommendation would not be re- sion to detain their lordships long on jected by their lordships. these points. Those noble lords had shown, that the paragraph in the report which appeared to connect the Union Clubs and Spencean Societies had been erroneously printed; and they had also stated and explained the evidence on which that part of the report that speaks of the London Union Society was founded. The noble earl, however, considers this explanation insufficient, and contends that serious injury has been done by the report to the individual who has signed the petition, and to the other members of the Union Society. In taking this view of the subject, however, it was plain that the noble earl had confounded two distinct parts of the report. The conspiracy for overthrowing the government was alluded to in the first instance, but it was to be carried into effect by meetings called on the 15th of November and the 2d of December. It is afterwards stated, that various societies have, by the notions they disseminate, a tendency dangerous to the public security. This tendency is attri buted to these clubs as the result of the general concoction of their doctrines; but instead of its being the object of the report to include all in the same charge, it, on the contrary, states, that the objects of the declared societies are different, and that many individuals who have become members may have done so without being aware of the ultimate intentions of many of their leaders. Some clubs are stated to have for their object annual par The Earl of Liverpool said, that the motion before their lordships was, that the petition be received, and to that motion he should offer no objection; but, notwithstanding the speeches which had been made by the noble earl now, and by the noble baron near him on the other night, he must say, that he had heard nothing which could induce him to alter his opinion, or to regret the vote which he had given. The noble earl had represented him to have said, that though the petition could not be received on Friday, there might be stages of a future measure in which a similar petition could be legitimately submitted to their lordships consideration. He had stated that in the progress of any bill, a petition against the principle of the proposed measure might, consistently with the privileges of their lordships, be brought under their notice; but that no petition of the nature of that of Friday, which not only complained of statements in a report which could not legitimately have come to the knowledge of the petitioner but also had reference to measures which the petitioner supposed to be in contemplation, was fit to be entertained. The petition now read was of a very different nature, inasmuch as it applied to a measure before the House. It came before their lordships under very different circumstances, and its prayer was also very different from that which the noble earl opposite wished liaments and universal suffrage; others are described under the name of Spencean Philanthropists; but it never was intended to confound these two descriptions of persons together. What the report inferred was merely this-that they all tend to the same end, namely, to shake the allegiance of the subject, and to dissolve the bonds subsisting between the government and the governed. This was described as a general effect, but not as the direct object, either of all the societies, or of all the individuals composing them. With regard to the question respecting the Union Society, it cannot be denied that there exists in different parts of the country societies under that name, which are affiliated, which correspond with each other, and whose avowed object is the establishment of annual parliaments and universal suffrage. His noble friend had read a paper which showed that a country society proposed to correspond with the London Union Club. Was it to be supposed that they would resolve to correspond with a society which did not exist? The petition, it was true, stated, that the club had not met for three years, but it did not say that it was actually dissolved. If, however, the petitioner and the members of the London Union were supposed to be affected by the charge of affiliation and correspondence between that and other societies, the imputation was not so groundless as the noble earl seemed to suppose. He had referred to the societiy's regulations, andit appeared that they contained not only foundation for what was stated in the Sheffield resolutions respecting the right of every member who contributed 20s. to the country society to become an honorary member of the London Union, but also a distinct recommendation to promote the institution of provincial clubs of the same description. The 13th article stated, that the cause of parliamentary reform would probably soon be crowned with success, if numerous Union Societies, on the same plan and principles as the London Union, were established in every country, city, and town in the kingdom, and it was recommended to the members to exert themselves in forming such establishments. What was this but forming affiliated and corresponding societies? He should, however, be told by the noble earl, that the London Union had not met for three years. He was not disposed to contest this assertion, taken in one sense: it $ might be true that the society had not, during the period specified, met as it was originally constituted, under the same name and with all the members present whose names were included in the petition; but that Union Societies had very recently met, having the same secretary and some of the same members as that in question, was matter of public notoriety. On the 22d of January a meeting of delegates from various societies met under the pretext of petitioning for parliamentary reform. These delegates declared for annual parliaments and universal suffrage, and their chairman was major Cartwright, their secretary Thomas Cleary, the petitioner [Hear, hear !]. This meeting adjourned, after passing resolutions to the effect he had stated; and he must contend, from its constitution and its proceedings, that it was in effect a London central Union Club. Under the circumstances stated, the petitioner had no right to complain. It was, in fact, part of the system of the leaders of these societies to make them change their names. What effect the circumstances which had been stated might have on the measure the House was going to discuss he could not determine; but whoever looked at the votes of the other House of parliament, and observed that great numbers of petitions had been presented from different parts of the country, all in nearly the same terms, and praying for the same object, certainly could not doubt that there was a central Union Society, directing and putting in motion the rest; and where could this be supposed to be placed but in London? Lord Holland was of opinion, that the reasons the noble secretary of state had assigned both for the rejection of the former petition, and for the receiving of the present, were equally unfounded; but, leaving that question, he should proceed to the point now immediately under consideration, which was of the greatest importance, both with respect to the present preservation of the people's rights, and as handing down a memorable example to posterity. The noble earl had entered into some detail of argument to show, that the London Union Society referred to in the petition did now exist, either under the same or some other name; but their lordships would recollect, that it was not upon reasoning, but upon fact that they had to decide. The committee, he was well convinced, had acted with the strictest honour, and to the best of their formed of all that was to take place at the meetings they now represented as so dangerous. The adjournment of such meet to another, he certainly considered highly improper; but whether it was proper or not, he had got proofs in his pocket of that adjournment having received the sanction of his majesty's ministers [Cries of Hear, hear !]. Well, it may not be true, but this was certain, that there was not much difference between the evidence on which the report was founded, and that which he had to offer. The noble lord had brought forward his ex-parte evidence in the committee; it was but fair, then, that his (lord Holland's) should be heard also. He had in his pocket a document, in which it was offered to be proved, that the noble viscount had expressed his thanks, and the thanks of his majesty's government, to the person who took a leading part in the meetings now stated to be illegal and dangerous, for his conduct at them. [Loud cries of Hear, hear! in which we distinguished lord Sidmouth's voice.] He certainly did not mean to assert that this was correct, but the facts he had stated were fit to be inquired into before a government of law was changed into a government of arbitrary power. After having so long delayed the meeting of parliament, and having also delayed taking steps to enforce the existing laws against the persons said to be guilty, he thought there could be no just ground for precipitation now. judgment; but they were fallible men, | and had to report upon ex-parte evidence. They had to draw some conclusion from the evidence with which they were fur-ings as that of Spa-fields, from one day nished, and they might have come to a false conclusion. He would not say that their report was disproved, but its credit was certainly impeached. The question was not, whether a Union Society existed; but whether, when the report was so contradicted, their lordships would not pause to inquire, before they agreed to the bill now on their table. They were asked to do away that law which was the birthright of the people; but before they proceeded to adopt that calamitous measure, they ought to be convinced whether the report rested on evidence which could not be contradicted. It was offered to be proved that the London Union Club had exercised no function for three years and a half; but the noble earl says, that does not signify; a club of the same sort lately met under a different name. But this was far from sufficient to reconcile the inconsistency and incorrectness of the report. How did it happen, that his majesty's ministers, when the facts in their possession respecting illegal and even treasonable proceedings came to their knowledge, took no steps to avert the danger they apprehended? The noble lord had stated, that these societies had changed their names; but that change ought not to have enabled them to elude his vigilance, if their projects were of the nature stated. What were names under such circumstances? This proof of the existence of the Union Society under Lord Erskine said, he had heard with another name, which the noble earl was great satisfaction the construction now so anxious to establish, reminded him of put upon the most alarming passage in the the story of an Irish gentleman, who report, though he could by no means wrote a book to prove, that no such per- reconcile it with its language. When he son as Ossian ever existed; but who find- first connected it with all that preceded ing his proofs in support of that proposi- and followed it, he had supposed that tion rather weak, turned round, and pro- ministers were prepared to establish such ceeded to establish, that if Ossian did a case as they acted upon in 1795. The really exist, it was perfectly clear that he proceedings of that period were fresh in was an Irishman. The reasoning of the his memory, and for ever must remain noble lord about the Union Club was there; he had however read them over much to the same purport. Their lord- that very morning, with the most anxious ships were now asked to depart from their attention, and was still utterly at a loss to usual forms-to set aside their standing discover a single point of resemblance beorders-to pass a bill which was to de- tween them. If he were asked, therefore, prive the people of their liberties, of the upon such evidence to suspend the Habeas most valuable rights they inherited from Corpus, he should answer, that he could their ancestors. Why this haste? Why only suspend his judgment. In 1795 his the present apprehension from delay, majesty by his message informed the when he should show, from a petition in House, not as now, that from general rehis pocket, that ministers had been in-port he suspected mischievous combina sons, a large part of the industrious population, and it was preposterous to suppose that they could on a sudden be engaged in a treasonable combination against the state. He implored the House therefore not to be precipitate but to place confidence in the people, governing them by their affections, the only security for the obedience of a free people. In a system of coercion and terror there was security, and in England it had always overthrown its authors. He was as much a friend to order as the authors of the bill, but he wished to maintain it by the ways of the constitution. no The petition being laid on the table, earl Grey moved, that the petition be referred to the same lords who composed the secret committee, that they be empowered to examine witnesses, and report their opinion to the House. The question was put on this motion, and the House divided-Contents, 23; Not-contents, 74: -Majority, 51. MR. HUNT'S PETITION.] Lord Holland presented a petition from Mr. Hunt, which was read as follows: "The Petition of Henry Hunt, of Middleton Cottage, in the County of Southampton. tions, but that having detected a formed Humbly sheweth, "That your petitioner, who had the honour to be the mover of the petitions at the recent meetings held in Spa-fields, one of which petitions has been received by his royal highness the Prince Regent, and two of which petitions have been presented to, and received by, the honourable the House of Commons, has read, in the public prints a paper entitled a Report of the Secret Committee of your Right Honourable House, and which report appears to your petitioner, as far as his humble powers of disentanglement have enabled him to analyse the same, to submit to your right honourable House, as solemn truths, the following assertions; to wit: 1. That the first public meeting in Spafields, which had for its ostensible object, a petition for relief and reform, was closely connected with and formed part of, a conspiracy to produce an insurrection for the purpose of overthrowing the government. 2. "That Spa-fields was fixed upon as the place of assembling, on account of its vicinity to the bank and the tower; and that, for this same reason' care. was taken (2 N) to adjourn the meeting to the 2d of De cember, by which time it was hoped that preparations for the insurrection would be fully matured.' 3. "That, at this second meeting, flags, banners, and all the ensigns of insurrec tion were displayed, and that, finally, an insurrection was begun by persons collected in the Spa-Fields, and that notwithstanding the ultimate object was then frustrated, the same designs still continue to be prosecuted with sanguine hopes of success. 4. That a large quantity of pikeheads had been ordered of one individual, and that 250 had actually been made and paid for. 5. "That delegates from Hampden Clubs in the country have met in London, and that they are expected to meet again in March: "That as to the first of these assertions as your petitioner possesses no means of ascertaining the secret thoughts of men, he cannot pretend to assert, that none of the persons, with whom the calling of the first Spa-Fields meeting originated, had no views of a riotous or revolutionary kind: but he humbly conceives, that a simple narrative of facts will be more than sufficient to satisfy your right honourable House, that no such dangerous projects ever entered the minds of those who constituted almost the entire mass of that most numerous meeting. Therefore in the hope of producing this conviction in the mind of your right hon. House, your petitioner begs leave to proceed to state: that he, who was then at his house in the country, received, a short time before the 15th of November last, a letter from Thomas Preston, secretary of a committee, requesting your petitioner to attend a public meeting of the distressed inhabitants of the metropolis, intended to be held in Spa-Fields on the day just mentioned; that your petitioner thereupon wrote to Thomas Preston to know what was the object of the intended meeting;-that he received, in the way of answer, a newspaper called the Independent Whig of November 10th, 1816, containing an advertisement in these words; to wit: "At a meeting held at the Carlisle, Shoreditch, on Thursday evening, it was determined to call a meeting of the dis'tressed manufacturers, mariners, artizans and others of the cities of London ' and Westminster, the borough of South'wark and parts adjacent, in Spa-Fields, on Friday the 15th inst, precisely at 12 6 6 'o'clock, to take into consideration the propriety of petitioning the Prince Regent and legislature to adopt immediately such measures as will relieve the sufferers from the misery which now overwhelms them. (Signed) John Dyall, chairman, Thomas Preston, setary;" that your petitioner upon seeing this advertisement, hesitated not to accept of the invitation;-that he attended at the said meeting:-that he there found ready prepared, a paper, called, to the best of his recollection, a memorial which some persons then utter strangers to him, proposed to move for the adoption of the meeting;-that your petitioner, perceiving in this paper, propositions of a nature which he did not approve of, and especially a proposition for the meeting going in a body to Carltonhouse, declared that he would have nothing to do with the said memorialthat your petitioner then brought forward an humble petition to the Prince Regent, which petition was passed by the meeting unanimously, and which petition, having been by your petitioner delivered to lord Sidmouth, that noble lord has, by a letter, informed your petitioner, was immediately laid before his royal highness the Prince Regent. And your petitioner here begs leave further to state, upon the subject of the afore-mentioned memorial, that John Dyall, whose name, as chairman of the committee who called_the meeting (and of which committee Thomas Preston was secretary), having be fore the meeting took place, been called before Mr. John Gifford, one of the police magistrates had furnished Mr. Gifford with a copy of the said memorial, and that that copy was in the hands of lord Sidmouth at the moment when the meeting was about to assemble, though (from an oversight, no doubt) neither the police magistrates nor any other person whatever gave your petitioner the smallest intimation of the dangerous tendency, or even of the existence of such memorial, or of any improper views being entertained by any of the parties calling the meeting, though it now appears that the written placards intituled "Britons to Arms" are imputed to those same parties, though it is notorious that that paper appeared in all the public prints so far back as the month of October, and though, when your petitioner waited on lord Sidmouth with the petition to the Prince Regent, that noble lord himself informed your peti |