noble lord on the subject of those concerned in the late disturbances having looked up for support to those who it might have been expect ed, from their rank in life, would not lend themselves to their designs, his noble friend had not meant to blame, but to caution those who might be thus applied to, lest, intending but to countenance the ostensible objects of particular meetings, they should be made the means of forwarding projects which could not be avowed, and raise a phantom of hope by which the disaf fected might more easily cheat their deluded followers. But it was said, Who would take the lead in such cases after what had occurred? He thought this question had already been well answered. He did not know that any man would come forward to place himself at the head of a band of conspirators, but circumstances frequently made men. It was not probable that Robespierre had from infancy contemplated the bad dignity which he had attained in his mature years. Men were formed according to the sphere in which they moved, from the habits and principles of those with whom they associated. Respect for religion was subdued when once the name of God was erased from the human heart: a heart so void was easily taught to hate its fellow-creatures. This borne in mind, let any man read but a tenth part of the publications now circulating in all parts of the country with a devilish zeal, and say, if there were not danger from publications intentionally directed against religion, to effect the destruction of that creed which was the best guard of all human virtue-the best consolation for human misery. These publications met the eye in all quarters, wherever distress was to be inflamed. Where politics were discussed, the business of the state being disposed of, insults to religion succeeded, as if to show that the relaxation of religion was infidelity. Under such circumstances, was it too much that government should ask to be armed with extraordinary powers? We had, in former times, differences enough in this country, but those of our time were very different from those of other days. In the civil wars, principle was opposed to principle; democracy was opposed to aristocracy, and democracy triumphed. Negation was not till now opposed to principle, and the work of destruction commenced for the sake of destroying. Independence was opposed to episco. pacy, and independence triumphed, but negation was not opposed to God. It was left for reformers of modern date to strip the mind of all reverence for the Deity, in order to prepare the man to become a remorseless assassin. The same sense of duty which now caused ministers to apply for these bills, would cause them to come to parliament for still greater powers if these became necessary; but what they had asked they were satisfied would prove sufficient. Two of the four were approved by the honourable gentleman. The third he did not wholly object to, though he reserved to himself the right of criticizing it in its passage through the house. It was only the fourth that met with his unqualified disapprobation. The committee having declared that the ordinary powers given to ministers by the constitution were not sufficient, they had performed their duty by coming to parliament for new laws. They asked them not as a boon; but urged by duty, they were willing to receive them to protect the sound part of the people against the the designing few. It was the joint duty of ministers and of parliament to preserve the constitution. Ministers had done all that it was for them to do the constitution was now in the hands of the house, and it was for them to say whether or not it should be preserved-whether its internal beauty and external grandeur should be sacrificed or saved. Lord Althorpe said, he should not oppose the introduction of the present measure, but should reserve the objections he had to make to some future stage of it. The house then divided on the first motion-" That leave be given to bring in a bill for preventing seditious meetings." Lord Castlereagh brought in the bill for the more effectual prevention of seditious assemblies. The bill was read a first, and ordered to be read a second time. The bills for rendering more penal the attempts to seduce the soldiers and sailors of his majesty's army and navy; and for extending the provisions of an act for the protection of his majesty's person to the prince regent, were brought in, and were severally read a first, and or dered to be read a second time, and to be printed. House of commons, February 26. -Lord Castlereagh having moved the first reading of the habeas corpus suspension bill; Mr. Bennett expressed his surprise that the noble lord should not have adduced a syllable in support of a bill, which was to take from the people, not a trial by jury only, but all trial. It should be remembered that in the face of a report made in 1794, and another in 1812, both by secret com mittees, the persons accused by them were, when tried, acquitted, and the testimony of nine-tenths of the witnesses proved to be false. He suspected that the present report was founded on similar evidence. The idea of a handful of armed rioters taking the barracks by surprise— also the Tower and the bridges, was too ridiculous to dwell upon. And who were these conspirators? what were their means? Six men in a waggon, with a stocking full of ammunition! He dared any member of the committee to say that there was one nobleman, one gentle man implicated, or even any of the middle classes of society. The lord advocate of Scotland said, he had given evidence before the committee. Early in January he learnt that secret meetings had been held in Glasgow; that a conspiracy was organized there; and that the members were bound by a secret oath. It Sir Francis Burdett said, if the present motion passed, he should propose in the committee some clause against the torture of prisoners who might be the victims of this measure; so that, if their personal liberty was to be restrained, they should endure nothing more. might be said, that it was sought to suspend the act but for a short time; but no man who appreciated the value of liberty, or knew the horrors of a dungeon, could consider any time short that was passed in a prison. Lord Castlereagh, in reply, said, the honourable baronet's speech was not made to convince the house, but was addressed to persons in another place.-Being called to order, the speaker said that all speeches made within those walls must be considered as delivered only to the house. Messrs. Messrs. F. Lewis, Wynne, Wrottesley, and Courtenay, spoke in favour of the bill; lords Russell, Althorp, and Rancliffe, with sir S. Romilly and Mr.Ponsonby, against it. The second reading was ultimately carried by 273 to 98-Majority 175. Feb. 27.-The chancellor of the exchequer moved, that the house do go into a committee on the habeas corpus suspension bill. Messrs. Curwen and Marryat spoke against it, and Messrs. Grenfell and Lockhart in its defence. The house then resolved itself into a committee. The blanks were filled up, and the report was brought up. Feb. 28.-Sir James Shaw presented a petition from the common council of London against the sus pension of the habeas corpus, which sir James considered as unnecessary. Mr. Brougham presented a pe tition from Liverpool on the same subject. On the third reading of the habeas corpus suspension bill, Messrs. Bankes, W. Quin, Protheroe, Lambe, the lord advocate, the attorney general, and sir Arthur Pigott, spoke in favour of the bill: Messrs. M. A. Taylor, Lyttleton, W. Smith, Tierney, sir S. Romilly, and lord G. Cavendish, spoke against it. The third reading was then carried, on a division, by 265 to 103; majority 162. Mr. Ponsonby moved a clause which went to limit the duration of the bill to the 20th May, which was negatived by 239 to 97. House of lords, March 3.-Lord Holland wished to be informed by the noble and learned lord (Eldon) on the woolsack, whether an individual, unfortunately detained in any prison by order of government, under the power given by the habeas corpus suspension bill, would 1817. have the means allowed him of petitioning parliament; or, if that should be thought to involve too much publicity, at least of petitioning the sovereign. He was the more desirous of being informed upon this point, because knowing the kind of regulation that was enforced in some prisons, it was of essential importance that an individual, placed in the situation he alluded to, should not be debarred from the free exercise of the right of making an application to the government respecting the circumstances of his case. The lord chancellor said, that every individual arrested on suspicion of treason, by order of government, and detained under the provisionsof this bill, had in his favour the presumption of law, which always supposed every person under accusation to be innocent, until proved to be guilty; and as far as he could answer a general question, every individual in that situation had the right of petitioning either the sovereign or the parliament; a right which the gaoler, in whose custody he was, had no right to deprive him of. He must observe, at the same time, that this privilege would not be allowed to be asserted as a mere colourable pretext with a view to other objects. In the commons, the same day, some discussion took place on the second reading of the seditious assembly bill. The solicitor-general said that meetings called by lords lieutenants, justices of the peace, or the mayor, aldermen, or other officers of a corporation, or division of a corporation, would not be affected by this bill. Another opening to petitioning was left; for on a requisition being signed by seven resident householders, a meeting might at any time or place be con F vened; vened; but the justices who attend. ed at such meeting would be authorized to declare it an unlawful assembly, if it proceeded to discuss any subject tending to alter matters of state, without the authority of king and parliament. Another regulation was, that any person propounding matters of that sort, or propounding any seditious matter, might be taken up for so doing. All those regulations were precisely similar to what had been introduced into the bill of 1797. The first object of the measure, therefore, was to prevent any meetings or assemblies of above fifty persons, except such meetings of corporate bodies, &c. as he had already mentioned, and except such as were called together upon a notice signed by seven householders. In the committee, however, it was his intention to propose a clause to prevent those meetings, so convened by seven househoulders, from being adjourned, and to prevent their being held at any other time or place than should be at first specified, by way of adjournment. A second object of the bill would be to prevent the existence of debating societies, lecture-rooms, readingrooms, &c. for admission to which money was received. He should further observe, that the 39th of the king had for its object to suppress by name certain societies, whose existence was regarded as prejudicial and detrimental to the state; it also declared other societies to be unlawful which were constituted in a particular way, such as imposing oaths, engagements, tests, declarations, &c. or having branches, divisions, employing delegates, &c. Another object of the bill would be to suppress a particular society or societies, calling themselves Spenceans, or Spencean philanthropists. If ever there was a society, the doctrines of which were utterly subversive of every well-regulated state, subversive of all property, order, and good government, it was that society. At the present moment there was an immense number of persons who belonged to it; and therefore, without inquiring whether it employed delegates or not, it was condemned by the very doctrines which it promulgated, and was rendered as unlawful as any corresponding society that ever existed. With respect to the using of delegates or missionaries, he was aware that many societies of the most exemplary kind did so he believed the Quakers had persons who visited their different communities in that character, though under a different appellation, and therefore it would be a provision in the act, to except from its operation all societies constituted for charitable or religious purposes. The honourable and learned gentleman then concluded by moving the second reading of the bill. Messrs. Bennett and Calvert, sir F. Burdett and lord Cochrane, were decidedly averse to the bill. Mr. Baring remarked that the report said much of the prevalence of blasphemous doctrines. He believed the reverse was the casethat religious feelings existed very generally amongst the great body of the people-that with some it might be considered a period of enthusiasm, from a desire to dive into unfathomable mysteries, but that at all events there was no disposition to throw contempt on the venerable precepts of religion. House of lords, March 4.-The royal assent was notified by commission to the habeas corpus suspension bill. House of commons, March 7.- Mr. Calcraft was nominated to the finance committee, in the room of Mr. Tierney, who was indisposed. Mr. Calcraft then presented petitions from the parishes of Langton and Swanage, in Dorsetshire, complaining of the poor-rates. One of these parishes had only 576 inhabitants, and 419 of them were receiving parish relief. The rates amounted to 18 or 19 shillings in the pound. The other petition was from a parish which contained 1300 inhabitants, not one in seven of whom were independent of parish aid. Here those rateable to the poor paid a guinea in the pound. In one of these parishes every farmer had given notice to quit, and in the other several, so that the rate next year would fall heavier on those who remained. Private charity (particularly a liberal donation from lord Eldon) had for a short time ameliorated the evil; but the subscription which had been raised, would be exhausted the 22d of this month. He should move that these petitions be referred to the committee on the poor laws; at the same time he must regret that there was no equalization of these burthens over all classes of property. The fundholder should be made liable to the assessments which affected those less able to pay them. Lord Castlereagh said, he wished to make only one observation on this subject. The house and the country ought always to keep in view, that a great proportion of the wages of labour of the country were paid out of the poor's rates. The farmers from a system, the bad effects of which had been already too much felt, had been long in the habit, in many parts of the country, of paying a great proportion of the wages of farming labour in the shape of poor's rates. This accounted, in a great measure, for the rapid rise in the amount of the poor's rates from 1 to upwards of seven millions. He was convinced that in cases where 19s. or 20s. in the pound were paid for poor's rates, 15s. of that would be found to be wages paid in the shape of poor's rates. The country could not in any other sense have supported such a load of taxes. Mr. Curwen observed, that with respect to the fund-holders, it was indeed true that a great part of the property of the country, for want of means at coming at it, had hitherto escaped from bearing its share. The more he contemplated the subject, the more he was convinced that the house ought, before they separated, to take some measures for subjecting the fund-holders to their share of the burdens of the poor's rates, without which it would be found impossible to continue to relieve the distresses of the country. Sir C. Burrell said, he was convinced that when the fund-holder was trenched upon, and through him honour and public faith were violated, the present distress would be increased tenfold. He augured much from the present state of the funds, which held out a reasonable expectation that the monied interest would assist the landholders by way of mortgage, which could not be hoped for when the funds afforded 5 per cent. on money invested. He was convinced that any interference with the fund-holder would therefore be an injury to the land-holder also. He was surprised that the member for Carlisle (Mr. Curwen), who was remarkable for sound sense, should have joined in so wild a theory as the proposal for breaking faith with the creditor. He F 2 thought |