seriously affected; and, that their pursuits and prospects in life had been in jured, or even totally ruined. These petitions were brought under discussion by Lord Folkestone, in the House of Commons, and by the Earl of Carnarvon, in the Lords. Lord Folkestone stated, that he was particularly anxious to bring this subject before the House, since it had been intimated by a noble lord, that a bill of indemnity would be asked by the servants of the crown as a matter of course; and several persons appeared to think that it was really done to them without any investigation. But if he knew any thing of the principles of the constitution, such a bill ought not to be passed, till the House had ascertained that ministers had not exceeded their powers, and that the people had not suffered injury. The Habeas Corpus Act had been suspended ten or twelve times in the course of the last hundred and twenty-four years; but a bill of indemnity had been asked only once, and that was in 1801, by the same ministers as now. They acted wrong in the first instance, and now they sought to benefit by their own wrong. It appeared to him clear, that the dangers of the country had been greatly exaggerated, and that there never was any good reason for suspending the Habeas Corpus Act at all. He did not conceive, that this act gave any authority to apprehend without a warrant issued in the usual form. He would not now dispute the power of the Secretary of State to issue such warrants, though it appeared to him a great anomaly. But certainly it ought not to be exercised without attending to certain forms; of which, those at least ought to be observed, in cases of high treason, which are required in apprehensions upon the inferior crimes of felony, or breach of the peace. 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 notwhether 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 his 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 contended, moreover, that the mode of discharge involved as great a hardship as the mode of committal. 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. 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 uncall ed for and oppressive—should yet complain of their discharge; but on a litthe consideration it would be allowed cording to the notice given, this ought to have been merely an inquiry into the case of Ward, to which he should that he was perfectly consistent. He not have objected; but since the no these men were complained of the manner in which ble Lord had very prudently thrown discharged, because it Ward into the background, and propotook from them all remedy-because sed a general investigation, the case deprived them of all means of clearwas changed. He could not compling their character, and obtaining com- ment the noble Lord on the degree of pensation for the losses they had-suf- historical research shewn in the asserfered, and the hardships to which they tion, that there had been no Act of Inhad been subjected. But this was not demnity till 1801. In the reign of his only motive, nor was it the only King William there were not less than duty of the House to see these men three bills of indemnity passed. There righted. It was the duty of the House was one after the rebellion in 1715, and to take notice of the violation of the another after the rebellion in 1745. In laws, and to punish those who were fact, the noble Lord would find, that their violaters. He firmly believed that an Act of Indemnity had been granted ministers had seized such humble vic- in every case where a Suspension Act tims, because no others would have had passed. He denied that ministers submitted quietly to their fate, or achad committed any unnecessary severiditions. He had been told that Francis cruelty and injustice. cepted their discharge upon such con- ties, or had been guilty of any acts of Ward, whose petition he had made the committed a single individual on the tesnot ground of his motion, was a bad cha- timony of Oliver, nor had a single arracter, and therefore unworthy of the rest taken place without the testimony attention of the House. But he would of credible witnesses, and the authority ask, on what ground the charge was of the law officers of the crown. The advanced? Had he done any thing committees of both Houses last seswhich had been proved against him? sion, without one dissenting voice, had Had he been convicted of any offence? recommended that government should On the old maxim of law, which he be armed with extraordinary powers; Was sorry to see discountenanced by they had received these powers from some members of the House, every Parliament, and would not have been man ought to be presumed innocent justifiable had they not employed them, till he was found to be guilty. He when occasion required, for the public had received testimonials as to the safety. He agreed that all the forms good character of Ward, and thought of law ought if possible to be preserif ministers had known him to be so ved; but he would put a case :-Supbad a character, they would have ap- posing a magistrate had offered to the prehended him sooner than the end of Secretary of State evidence on oath, on June, after the disturbance. At all the truth of which he completely reevents, he grounded his motion not on lied, affecting the existence of the gothe character of the petitioners, but on vernment, or necessary to the preserthe breach of the law. He moved, that vation of the public tranquillity, and committee be appointed to examine supposing that that magistrate could into the truth of the allegations of the only obtain and transmit such evidence aid petitions, and report their opi- on condition that the names of the ons thereupon to the House. Lord Castlereagh observed, that ac 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 refused his warrant to commit the person whom it affected? 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. 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. There was much delusion in the complaints raised upon this subject, several of the petitions not having been even signed by the persons, whose names were subscribed to them. Ward's allegations of ill treatment were entirely unfounded, and as to that moral purity and excellence of which he boasted so highly, it could be very easily brought to the test. Joshua Mitchell, executed in 1816, for the dreadful proceedings at Leicester and Nottingham, on the eve of his execution made a full confession, which was taken down by the magistrates. 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 1001. for the destruction of the machinery. Several of us met at the Navigation-inn, and formed our plans. I received from 31. to 41. from Ward for acts I performed. Ward gave me 101. 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 employ. ed 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 shewed that 4. was often the price for shooting a man. The confession went on. "Ward offered 107. for shooting some of Kendal's men. He offered 10l. for shooting another master manufacturer; and 51. for shooting one of his men for working. Af. ter 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 determinedit must be done." This deposition was afterwards confirmed by that of Thomas Savage, and both were given under circumstances which excluded all idea of their having been biassed by hopes of reward or mercy. He trusted, therefore, that the House would see no room to suspect ministers of any malignant or oppressive tem ry as was now without per, or any ground for such an inqui. of justice, when the power granted to proposed. him had been so disgracefully, cruelly, Mr John Smith was thoroughly conand illegally applied. He should be vinced of the falsehood of Ward's pe- glad to be informed why Ogden's case tition, but did not think this a suffi- was not to be investigated, a man 74 cient reason for refusing to go into a years old, who was loaded so heavily general inquiry. Mr Goulding made with irons as to occasion a rupture, a number of statements, tending entire- and was, like many others, transferred ly to disprove the allegations contain- from one gaol to another, and exposed ed in the petition of John Knight. as a spectacle to their countrymen. He Sir Francis Burdett said, he could had no doubt the house would decide not pretend to come to this question against the motion, upon the bare asany bias, as it was impossible sertion of ministers; but this would for him not to recollect that when he never satisfy the country. He should charged Aris, the governor of Cold- be glad to know what a House of bath-fields prison, with crimes of the blackest die, but which he was never allowed to prove-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 where ministers sat to be their own he had never been guilty of any cruel- judges, and were aided by those who ty or oppression whatever; that he would ask for nothing but what the was a person indeed in whom the milk noble Lord was pleased to shew them, of human kindness abounded to an ex- and who would credit any thing which tent almost approaching to weakness; he requested them." But," said the and that the prison was conducted on noble Lord," it is a great mistake to system of uniform mildness. The suppose that ministers want an indemHon. Member for Yorkshire, in par- nity; what they wish is, to cover their ticular, had stated, that nothing could friends, Oliver, his fellow-spies, and equal the attention paid by Aris to the informers." In short, the bill of inprisoners. Yet Aris was soon after demnity was admitted on the other side convicted both of cruelty and other to be for the protection of those secret offences, and dismissed from and infamous sources of private accuhis office. As to Ward's character, sation, whose purpose was to destroy nothing to the House, whether the happiness and reputation of every he was or was not a bad man; the only honest man. Was it possible that at question was, whether he had been le- that time of day such an avowal should gally committed and properly treated. be made? that in England it should be The noble Secretary of State's charac- professed, that innocent men should terestic mildness and benevolence had 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 injured men were refused a trial, not from the tender mercies of government, but because they knew that the ac Commons had to do, if not to inquire into the grievances of the people. When the noble Lord 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; enormous was been urged and set at nought the ordinary course quittal of the innocent would be the conviction of the guilty. 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. Mr Wilberforce stated, that his having described Mr Aris as a man of humanity, was on the authority of Mr Owen, chaplain-general, and he conceived that the dismissal arose only from blame which attached to him in money transactions. He could not consider the character of Ward as a matter of indifference, and saw no ground for investigation into his case, unless that he might meet with the punishment which his crimes deserved. The charges of ill treatment had been proved in several instances to be utterly false, and he 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 Samuel Romilly said, 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. Although three of the petitions should be proved to contain false charges, was that any reason for passing over without examination all the rest? 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. 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. Ward's character seemed indeed very bad, and if all the allegations against him were true, it was only astonishing he had not before suffered the punishment of his crimes. But this did not justify some particulars of the treatment of which he complained. What could be imagined more cruel than that of which some of the petitioners complainedthe 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? 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 H. Sumner stated, that he could bring twenty witnesses to prove the |