Star. — London, England, 1818-03-14 00:00:00

occasion was the War Duty on qua} to 16s. a quarter. But in le price, because the 16s. a quar- Che lion. Gentleman then adver orter in 1762, as compared with lops. Mr. Beaumont had said, 1 Cie price they would not fix a would say that there was no Aolis who, since 1799, had made by any advance. He would not y any statement of figures ; but Beaumont's statement, he would not one instance where he had hat he had published them cor te had no occasion to tell the veers of London were not in the poisonous articles into their beer. given convincing reasons why ne. They must be brought into t loads. It had been said, that al proceeding s, that the brewers sides malt and hops. He would history of these legal proceed ; back, the Editor of a weekly ;Toss libel on the brewel - s of the g them with mixing with their link:Lit:Lim, opium, deadly night acco. The brewers thought pro- Court of King's Bench, for leave formation against the Editor of 'as granted ; and affidavits were they swore that they used nothing in the manufacture of their beer. ent to prove, that they mixed no nts in their beer while it was in t any other time whatever. But this did not go the length of the And therefore the rule was dis e last day of Term, hut the par ,erty to apply for another in the Ire this period, however, the Edi iitential letter, saying, that he had Article from another Paper, and top the prosecution. In cnnse steps were taken against him, towards him, and partly from ,ricary Gibbs, that they could not sufficiently satisfactory, however :o prove that none of those sub ise of. As to the Petition, it had the streets on men's shoulders for people were persuaded that by Id do away monopoly and get 1, the best place for so ditty a acking-maker's shop at which it lily most strongly condemned and luct of some Magistrates in gran ae should net trouble the House ins on this subject. He should, e great regret if this Petition were uto a Committee, that Mr. Beau ibited in his proper colours, those fagistrate, who had come into the vard his own interests. Indeed he shrewd opinion that he had some activity he had shewn ; he might opular candidate, and returned on people for the part he had taken. regretted that the Honourable !wn such a total want of temper.. of Mr. Beaumont ; but the Yeti hands, and he had been induced ras the Petition of 14,000 persons, supposed, though many of these r orders, they were incapable of ley drank and paid for. With re of obtaining signatures to petitions ly complained of; he utterly ab n this instance they had only been conduct of certain political peti who had originated that method ch to blame for it. One Hon. Gen ed that this petition was an attack ablishment, to which he belonged. nothing of establishments as con- terests of individuals. As to sub- 1 iers to the pillory if they did not ttions, the idea was absurd. The eman had denied that the eleven used deleterious substances ; but leave to say, that they were only nselves. They were all Gentle mr and character, but they could the trade. There was one part of one of the Honourable Gentlemen as what related to the licensing.— mt it was not right to represent tied man, acting from selfish mo the very Gentleman who induced y the evidence he gave, to express ellension of the evils resulting from wing, a system which leads to no ,,n and inju , :tice. Now, in order not I lonourable Gentleman, he would taio:l be referred to a Committee. , ver, saggrnted from the Chair, that q.-:mber could not make this motion iat for the petition lying on ly withdrew it, and Mr. Blat t the Petition be referred to a Com• 'as agreed to, and the Committee L. UNDER THE SUSPENSION ACT. ,LY rose to present a Petition from of Chester, whose case he had e mine of his observations upon The petition did, he perceived, pects from t!..e statement which ap cster nen Taper, but that statement :erred with the 'petitioner in all ma is ry.,ttion was forwarded to an Ho of his, in order to be presented, Remilly) alluded to the case in that lonoorable Friend (Mr. Bennet, we i•revented from attending the -I(, , !•ic calamity, had sent it to him ace 't presented. He now proposed on brought tap, in order to have it What might become of this pe co,lld not pretend to say. Ile did c::tFerings of the poor petitioner, his wits and child, might not he menirnent to enliven some future ,:r, on the Opposition Benches.) 'as read, and the statement which it substance the same as we reported In the speech of Sir S. Rotnilly on Widnesday night. —The Petition was ordered to lie on the table, as was another Petition from Andrew Somerville, of Glasgow, complaining of unjust arrest and rigorous imprisonment, under the Suspension IA the Habeas Corpus Act—adding, that afterbeing five months de tained in prison the Petitioner was dischargedwithout any trial. The Hon. W. LYTTLETON presented a Petition from certain Attorneys of Worcestershire, against the admission of unqualified Conveyancers.—Ordered to lie on the table. WEIGHTS AND MEASURES. Sir G. CLERK, afte. adverting to the Bill which he brought forward two years since, upon the sub ject of Weights and Measures, and which was nega tived in the House of Lords, took occasion to ask, whether the Commission of the Royal Society, which it was then proposed to appoint for ascertaining a proper standard, had yet been nominated ? He under stood this appointment was not made, and that some difficulty existed upon the subject, which difficulty was not likely to be removed. If so; he thought it right to announce his intention of bringing forward a motion on this question after the recess. Mr. B. BATHURST said, that he was not able to answer the Hon. Baronet's question, but that he would make enquiry into the subject. INDEMNITY BILL. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL moved the Order of the Day for the third reading of the Indemnity Bill. Sir JOHN NEWPORT rose to propose the amend ments of which he had given notice. The first re ferred to a principle which was recognized in the preamble of the Bill, but for which there was no corresponding provision in the Bill itself. In the preamble it was recited as follows : " Whereas some of the said acts done may not have been strictly jus tifiable in law, but being done for the preservation of the public peace and safety, it is fit that the per• sons doing the same should be saved harmless in re spect thereof." To the principle of this passage he was quite ready to assent ; for it was but just that an act done for the public safety should be entitled to indemnity. But then upon whom in equity should. the loss, occasioned by that indemnity, fall ? Whe ther should the individual, who had unjustly suf. fered, be condemned still more to suffer, by being deprived of redress and of his right of action, or should the damages awarded by any verdict upon that action be paid from the public purse ? Accord ing to the indisputable principles of common justice it would appear, that any expense or damage Incur red by an act done for the public safety should ra ther be defrayed from the public purse than from the purse of the individual who had unjustly suffered through that act. It was, indeed, clear and demon strable, that where an individual was called upon to suffer for the public safety, the price of that suffer ing ought not to be paid by that individual, but by the public at large. If then this principle were ad mitted, and he saw no ground upon which it could he disputed, he could not anticipate any valid objec tion to the amendment which he was about to pro pose. This amendment he was urged to bring for ward, not only because its principle was good in theory, but because he felt its adoption to be neces sary from experience. He had seen much of the consequence of Indemnity Acts in Ireland. Two Indemnity Acts were passed by the Parliament of that coisatry-is 1798, and he could speak of thelf effects, not from the information of others, but from what he himself had witnessed. For what, indeed, he was about to state, he could pledge his honour and veracity as a Gentleman. It related to the case of an honest and respectable trader, who was robbed of his property by an Act of Indemnity, and that case was enough to convince any candid man, that if an individual suffered for the public safety, the price of that suffering should be defrayed from the public purse. In the course of the year 1798, Mr. Matthew Scott, a . respectable and affluent corn-fac tor, of Carrick-o n-Suer, in the county of Tipperary, was taken into custody by the well-known Thomas Judkin Fitzgerald, upon a charge of sending corn to the rebels at Ross. This charge was preferred against Mr. Scott upon the evidence of a common informer, of the name of Devaney, whom Lord Avanmore, upon a subsequent trial, pronounced one of the most perjured and infamous villains that ever appeared in a Court of Justice. Mr. Scott utterly denied the charge, demanded a trial, and bail to the amount of 100,0001. was offered to Fitzgerald for his appear ance upon any prosecution that might be instituted against him. But this offer, which he could affirm to have been made, as his (Sir John Newport's) bro 'ther was one of those who proposed to become bail, was peremptorily rejected by Fitzgerald, and Mr. Scott was dragged to the jail of Clonmel. Yet, after being detained five or six days in duress, he was of fered his discharge upon giving 20,000/. bail to be forthcoming when called upon. With this proposi tion, however, Mr. Scott refused to comply, observ ing to Fitzgerald, " you have blasted my character and deranged my trade in the country, by accusing : and arresting me upon a charge of being connected with rebels ; I therefore demand a trial, in order that my innocence may be proved and my reputation re deemed." The injury, indeed, done to Mr. Scott was such, that he became bankrupt, particularly through a fall which had taken place in the price of corn, against the consequence of which he might have guarded, if at liberty to attend to his business. Yet this Gentleman was liberated from his imprison ment without any trial whatever, and without being aware at the time upon whose information he was committed, for he was never confronted with his ac • cuser. Upon his liberation, Mr. Scott brought an action against Fitzgerald, but of the right of obtain ing any redress he was robbed by the Act of Indem nity. Thus a man mJst grievously oppressed was precluded from obtaining any legal redress in conse quence of an Act of Indemnity, and such a case al lorded a strong lesson to the House to guard against the repetition of similar injustice, by providing that' if an individual suffered for the public safety, the public purse should pay the price of that safety. But he could quote many other cases of still greater in justice—of indeed unexampled atrocity and barba rity, from the period of Irish history to which he referred. Ile spoke upon this subject with some feel ing of reluctance, because at the period to which he referred, the Noble Lord (Castlereagh) was the Mi nister of Ireland. He acquitted the Noble Lord of knowingly countenancing such acts. But it was to be recollected, that after the atrocities related of Vittgerald had been perpetrated, the Act at trident.' nity to screen him front the consequence of these atrocities was passed by the Irish Parliament : 4 ltay, that after those atrocities were fully proved upon se veral trials in the Irish COurts of Justice, Fitzgerald was created a Baronet, and granted t he favour of raising a Regiment, by which Fitzgerald himself boasted that he had realized several thousand pounds. Why, then, should such a man be indemnified? He really believed that the Acts of indemnity then voted by the Irish Parliament served to seal its own ruin ; that its character was so completely and irrevocably' sacrificed in the estimation of the Irish people by / these acts, that its extinction soon afterwards excited no regret whatever in the public mind. Even after, I indeed, those Acts were passed, the Irish people shrunk the Parliament, and were ready to seek pro tection from such a body in any other Government whatever. It was, indeed, the general belief among considerate men in Ireland, ihat if it were not for these Acts of Indemnity, the Union would not have been carried. Nay, many were forward to say that the Noble Lord (Castlereagh) pressed the adoption of these Acts with a view to render the Parliament un popular, in order to carry the Union, but he would r.ot say so. From the odium, however, which at tached to the Irish Parliament in consequence of those Acts, which so completely severed the people from it, he exhorted the House to beware of pursu ing a similar course—(hear, hear !) Another amend ment which he proposed was, to recognize by a dis tinct provision that which some of the advocates of the Bill so readily avowed, namely, that persons in flicting undue rigour in the arrest or imprisonment of any individual under the Suspension Act, should not be screened by the measure before the House. If the Gentlemen who made the avowal alluded to were candid, he could not conceive any ground upon which they could consistently oppose such an Amend ment. After expressing a wish to know what was meant in the Bill by the words " advised to be done," which words were inserted in one of the Indemnity Acts passed in 1801, namely, that for England, the Right Hon. Baronet proposed his first Amendment, that any damages which a Jury might award to any one proved to have unjustly suffered in consequence of arrest or imprisonment, or other injury, for the public safety, within the period mentioned in the Bill, should be paid out of the public purse. The Right Honourable Baronet concluded by observing, that it was his intention, if the House did not adopt his amendments, to move the recommittal of the Bill. The SPEAKER observed, that he knew of no case in which a Bill was recommitted after the order for its third reading, and he believed that such a mo tion would be rrregtdar ; but it was open to the Right Honourable Baronet to move his amendments upon the motion that the Bill do pass. After a few words from Mr. W. C. WYNN upon the point of Order, Sir JOHN NEWPORT postponed the proposition of his Amendment until the stage mentioned by the Speaker. - 'After a conversation across the table between Sir WILLIAM BURROUGHS, Lord CASTLEREAGH, and Mr. BATHURST, in which the two latter Noble and Honourable Members declined stating whether or nut 'they would object to the Amendment of Sir JOHN NEWPORT, until in form before the House, it was uu derstood that the question for the third reading of the Bill should then be put.. On the questiOn • being put from the Chair, Sir R. HERON said, that he could not allow that last opportunity to pass without avowing his decided opposition to this most unjustifiable Bill and to every measure connectred with it. He had too sincere a veneration for the Constitution of his country—a Constitution that had carried the nation through the most stormy periods of its history, not to feel satisfied that the laws were sufficiently strong to preserve it and the people who lived under it. What security had the people of England for the future against fre quent invasions of their personal freedom? The same pretext that was now made subservient to the designs of the Ministers would always present themselves. Such a case of justification as they made out•was at all times in their power, because there never was, and probably never would be, a period in which men of profligate morals and ruined fortunes would not be found engaged in some desperate projects against the public tranquillity. When his Majesty's Ministers had determined on manifesting their mark of dis pleasure against the country, why had they not the manliness to go at once to the extent of their sevei it i? why divide their system, and do half by anticipation and half by retrospection ? When the Suspension Act was opposed on the ground of possible abuse, the argument was, that the aggrieved would have their remedy. When the abuse was alleged in Peti tions on the table, the answer was---:t Bill of Indent nity—(Hear, hear!) It was thus that Ministers kept their solemn pledges. Jt was by expedients such as these the people were to be mocked, and defrauded of the protection of the Constitution. But it was even now recommended, though the loyalty of the . country had been and was untainted, to persevere in the same vigilance—in other words, in the same abuses. Why, then, repeal the Suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act? There was just as true a ground now for that severity as when it was last Ses ' sion adopted. Now that a dissolution was approach ing, it became the object of Ministers, by mean en deavours and miserable subterfuges, to hold them selves out to the timid and the pusillanimous as the protectors of the property of the countrv—tHerze.)— Let Ministers not deceive themselves. Public opinion in this country had passed its childhood and reached maturity ; and to that opinion, soundly and firmly expressed, he would leave it, to appreciate the con duct of his Majesty's Government. The House then divided on the third reading of the Bill—Ayes, 82—Noes, 23—Majority, 59. Sir JOHN NEWPORT rose to propose his clause in form. If Ministers were sincere, they cntild hale no objection to have the meaning of Parliament placed beyond ail doubt. His object was to prevont indem nification where any traduc or excesive rigour had been exercised. The ATTORNEILGENERA I. considered the Clause perfectly unnecesary, as the present Bill did not indemnify any excess of rigour, that was not warranted by the law or the circumscances. A sireilar Amendment was proposed to the Indemn:ty Bill of ' 1801, but.was opposed on the same grounds. Mr. PETER MOOR E, wheth4 he conceived the 71objea of the Amendment correctly or not, in sup pottig that ebißpOristit43ll 01101 to iftiste t 3 the suffereri Out of the Seeret Service, still was of opinion that some corittoul ought to be placed over the odor.' mous and wicked provisions of the present 8i11... Would the House hesitate to afford even so remote A security to the aggrieved People ? Had they no sympathy but for Spies and Informers, and that bat. tard system, now to be engrited on the Conititiadort, which the legitimacy of England disowned—(hear) ? Mr. W. SMITH stated, that he would apply the case of the petitioner Ogden to the clause now pro• posed by his Right Honourable Friend (Sit John Newport). He seas aware that it had already called forth the derision of a Right Honourable Gentleman (Mr. Canning); but when he considered the age of' that man, seventy-four years, and the infirmities un der which he laboured, he could not help thinking, that to indulge in derision, excited by such causes, Was not a very enviable display—(hear, hear.) He put the man's guilt or innocence wholly out of the present question. He did not care whether the in firmity of the man had existed previbusly to his ar rest, or was the consequence of his ill treatment; /et them take either alternative, and he would still con tend, that if Ogden was in that dreadful state of health before his arrest, it was an extreme of rigour to have subjected him to the heavy ironing, which was sure to aggravate the agony, and the man who in flicted it thus iinnecess trily ought to be punished— But if the disease was the result of the torture, nu punishment could be too severe—(hear, hear, hear).— Now the question he wished to put to his Honourable Friend the Attorney-General was this—Could Nadin, the person who so heavily ironed Ogden, •plead the present Act of Indemnity against an indictment:— An answer in the negative from such an authority would go a great way—(No, no, from the Oppositici: —although his Honourable Friends were mistaken, if they imagined he would accept that admission in preference to the clause of his Right Hon. Friend. Lord CASTLEREAGH felt, that if the clause was not absolutely necessary, it might lead to the introduction of difficulties at present not. contem plated. It would be dangerous to introduce qualifi cations to the general principle, as special provisoes might raise doubts in other cases. The law had been laid down by his Honourable and Learned Friend (the Attorney-General) with a precision --(hear, hear, front Si, S. Itomilly and others)—that could not be disputed. It was a great mistake to consider the present Bill as undefined. It was limited to distinct cases-the detention of persons, the seizure of arm:, and of persons in tumultuous meetings. Mr. SMYTH observed, that it was true, accord ing to the law, unnecessary and excessive rigour could not be justified ; but the question was as to Cite construction which might be put on the words, all acts and proceedings," in the preamble. To prevent any improper construction, it could do no harm to express the intention of the Legislature more clearly. Mr. BATHURST said. the Bill of 1801 was pre cisely the same as the present Bill ; and the Bill of 1801 was construed in the same manner as the At torney-General construed the present Bill. With re spect to Ogden, it appeared from his own stateme.a that when committed to prison, he was afflicted wit's a dangerous and painful disease. The surgical at tendance which he received whilst .in conttneme-t was so beneficial to him, that he declared, on discharge, he had been c ured of a complaint under which he had laboured for upwards of 20 years ; and, „to use his own phrase, felt himself a new man. Mr. LYTTLETON was of opinion the Act, as it nosy stood, was liable to the objection made by the Right Hon. Baronet, who brought forward his clause. The House were net to be carried away by the argu ments and quibbles of Lawyers ; and especially by the Crown Lawyer, a person in the pay of the Crown. The House should be guided by common sense ; and common sense would put this interpre tation upon the Bill. The present clause was.a test for Ministers. If they did not intend to protect the guilty, they wouhl without hesitation adopt the clause now proposed. He considered the whole proceeding on this Bill as a farce of the most impertinent descrip tion. The enquiry instituted into the conduct of Ministers, was a mere mockery of the public, and the Bill itself a measure of the greatest injustice. Sir S. RONIILLY said the Act went to indemnify for " any matter or thing" done for the purpose of confining persons charged with certain practices.— Ile did not see, therefore, how an action could be maintained that should be brought against a. person Mr any act that had been done for such a purpose. If it should be argued in a Court of Law, that any " necessary" act was meant, the Court would ask why the word " necessary" had not appeared in the I Bill ' He most conscientiously did not believe that ' such a construction would be put upon the Act as his Learned Friend had anticipated. The Right Ho nourable Gentleman (Mr. Bathurst) had said, the opinion given in that Ilouse was strengthened by the circumstance of its having come from the Noble Lord now at the head of the law, who was then Attorney- General. But was lie then at the head of the law ? He was not, and. the Noble Lord would not now hold himself to be bound as Judge to the opinion he delivered then as Attorney-General. If it was intended only to indemnify for such apprehensions and deten tions as were necessary to secure the persons who ha been confined, let the word "necessary" be introduced into the Bill, and lie would give up the clause. The SOLICITOR-GENERAL considered the ar gument of the Learned Gentleman to go thus —that die Bill ye ns to be conide!ed as it now stead, to have the sante meaning as if, iipo cad of wanting the word • necessary," it contained the word " unnecessary." He held that all " unnecessary" acts of rigour would be protected by the Ili:I as it at present stood. This was the whole argument on the other side of the Howe. But he was Of opinion no lawyer could con tend with any hopes of success that such was really the meaning of the Ile obj,:cted to the clause proposed, because it went to put it into the heads of people that acts were proved to have been committed which were denied, and it might be the cause of acti:ms be.ing br,,....ght which otherwise would never be t?,o,ti.;ht of by :ho-.e supposed to he aggr'eved. Mr. I3lt011(ii1.01 was surprised at the argu mcnt ct his lion. Friend who had just sat down, .He had said, that th. , re ()ugh . , to be no difference ero . w p a i- s n:on on this; ; but When it was proposed to son:e eY.:shntatery words, be*ltaid, no, it would be su7erfluo us, it wcnid be tanto:og ) , , it stiyht , ..tge, and p:t lealy unaecessary. .11. w long w it I !tad adopted this (muse efia.:- • o be side t 3 the -s.‘. ',F.&l,*, ;*'., 's''i..,.';:iis'l'l4'C\l''',..; 1 ' al vra, of opinion ced oiler the ester. , he present 8i11... even so remote A ti Had they no reps, and that has. 't * * ti , lif ti n the Conan - Wort, i.., lisolenesil—(Aear) ? I would apply the e clause now prod Friend (Sit John tad already called urable Gentleman idered the age or lit ,i llt the in fi rmities un- I 0 . 1 f i i,i : lot help thinking, .I, . I ' , , l ti by such causes, .1 -(hear, hear.) He . i I I. wholly out of the I 1 • - 4 ' i I eviOusly to his 2r- . , ill treatment; /et 0 se would still con- I ' $ i • 6 dreadful state of extreme of rigour Toning, which was 1/ifij i . it , the man who in- . . ', to be punished— -1 . of the torture, no I , tt i f I i /tear, hear, hearl.— 1 i ., Y. 1 i ~ . to his Honourable i • ! . his—Could Nadin, 1 - Ogden, •plead the / !', 'i it an , } Tii indictment:— .1 1 such an authority , 1 . - i i ! -ono the Oppositici.) . 't ds were mistaker, • . 1 that admission in - i i i ;In Hon. Friend. f that if the clause night lead to the 7 V il 4 : , ;sent not. content- V' 7 I* . Al • introduce quali fi - I . .' is special provisoes t i , The law had been d Learned Friend . i cision--(hear, hear, ' tI 1 .that could not be t t :e to consider the t , limited to distinct to seizure of arm:, i I i i Lungs.*. ,ir was true, accord- , I excessive rigour estion was as to the tit 11 ,\ in the words, ‘; all mble. To prevent Id do no harm to t, • ature more clearly. I of Ittl was pre- . ( • ill ; and the Bill of I manner as the At- ent Bill. With re- his own statew.e.:t I 1 e was afflicted wit'.:: '• , • 1 ► : • il The surgical at- -Ist .in conttnette-t • : i . Y 1 . , . .. a complaint uncle:. .•; 14 -'. 1. ' - ds of 20 years ; and, i , Fa new man. ,t union the Act, as it ction made by the t forward his clause. away by the ergo- i f '. * l f . • * 4 .. and especially by - 't l ~ I * , in the pay of the • , / i ;uided by common 1 ' t . put this interme- .. 1 , ; 4. 'nt clause was.a test - .; , I•: tend to protect the ,1 if ••-• 9 : ( ion adopt the clause ~ e whole proceeding 1 , . impertinent descrip- i nto the conduct of • ft AA, . • ~ f the public, and the it injustice. t ~. *i, : went to indemnify • i; * * for the purpose of . certain practices.— an action could be •, , 4 ~ :ht against a. person r i 4 ' • for such a purpose. t of Law, that any • 1, ,, s t e Court would ask ' '''• not appeared in the :.s 4 lid not believe that . IL: - ut upon the Act as 1? . r; f ed. The Right Ito- I I . s ' arst) had said, the • , strengthened by the II ) ‘ 1 min the Noble Lord 1 J. was then Attorney- I • • ' e head of the law ? rd would not now 1 i.; :1. ge to the opinion he . . 1 t Al. If it was intended 1 r • ehensions and &ten- I 1 the persons who ha scary" be introduced ~ It 1,, up the clause. i considered the a r - i . E , i i. in to go thus —th at • t now stead, to have - f wanting the word ! ord " unnecessary." - F , • t acts of rigour would 1 sresent stood. This : other side of the D lawyc-T could con- :hat such was really 6 i t , si s j,,cted to the clause it into the heads of eve been committed ! i I t ht be the cause of ' • r . i.)l i , nay. ise wouli never 1 4 . t • 4 to he aggr'eved. sriseJ ait the argu- I just sat down, .He no difference ofcipi- it I it W.IS proposed to . 1. rds, 11...- -said, no, it • te tanto:oa, - v, it Was :eiti.lX3'. .M. w lon g . 1 . cd this (muse efi,t.:- 1-. I