The Statesman. — London, England, 1818-03-04 00:00:00

~' 1 ,- - .- ;1?'. 7 .~ - • • • confession on the past of the Noble Lord, that Mi misters were afraid to meet Parliament, even though in their minds a necessity had existed for calling it so early as the Ist of Jan. Events had taken place in the November previous, to which much importance had since been attached, and even then Parliament had not been summoned. Ile would do a kindness to the Noble Lord, and permit him to change from the Ist of January 'to the 26th. This was agreed to. • Lord HOLLAND suggested, that some proviso should be _inserted in the Bill, enabling those per sons who had been discharged to plead as if it had taken place by due course of law. It would perhaps he sufficient if the word " discharge" were omitted altogether. Tbe Earl of LIVERPOOL replied, that this word was absolutely necessary. Ile asserted the pro. priety of arresting and detaining persons actually en. gaged in seditious proceedings, as were those persons who had in March assembled in Manchester with the intention of coming op with their Petitions to Lon. don ; but it was equally desirable that they should be released as soon as possible, and that those so doing should he indemnified. To this there could sot, in his opinion, be urged any objection of maims magnitude. Lord HOLLAND allowed that this was a point to which but slight objections could be urged. He was glad. however, that he had noticed it, as it induced the Noble Lord opposite to confess that the Bill was sotmerely for the purpose of preventing the disclo sure by Ministers of their sources of information, but also for indemnifying persons who had released certain• individuals from confinement, and for his part, he should willingly assent is bear such persons harmless. But the question proposed by him had not been answered—" In what state those dis. charges had left the persons .so discharged ?" If those individuals should return to the enjoyment of the rights of Englishmen, he should not object to granting an indemnity to the Magistrates ; but if not, the only way for restoring them to their rights would be by proceedings in the Courts of Law. 'This, however, was denied them by the Bill. It was, therefore, nothing more than a matter of jos• lice to insert a provision in the Bill restoring them • to all their rights, as if they had been discharged by due course of law. Ile should, in courtesy, ask the Noble Earl opposite, whether, if he were to pro. pose such a provision, any objection would be made to it j Lord ERSKINE supported the proposition of his Noble Friend (Lord Holland), thinking it very de sirable that some provision should be inserted in the Bill, by which those persons so discharged should be plated in th e same state es if they had been dischar g ed byte enuthe of law. The Eerl of LAUDERDALE remarked. that this discussion proved the necessity of postponing the pre. amble of the Bill until the provisions of it had been ascertained. The. LORD CHANCELLOR , said, the clause went to indemnify Magistrates, who had discharged persons illegally, and who were, in consequencel liable to a prosecution by the Attorney-General. The meaning of this part of the Bill was,that the Magis trate who called for the Act of Indemnity, had tint acted legally—but still, for psrticutar reasons, ought not to be prosecuted. The enactment must be men. aidered with reference to the Magistrate, to the indi vidual discharged, aid to the Of f icers or the Crown. If the Neble Lord could frame a proviso that' would meet this view of the aul ject, their LordabiPs, he bad movloubt, world receive it. Lord HOLLAND expressed himself contented with this declaration. The Earl of LAUDERDALE moved, that, after the word "practices," which was too vague and un defined, and 'which might prevent justice being oh. *listed for acts worthy of consideration in that House or in a Court of Justice, the following should be serted, " other than such treasons or treasonable practices, as those recited by the Bth and 9th of William, the 6th of Anne, and the 28th of George relating to the washing, gilding, colouring, or couinerfeiting any of his Majesty's coin." Lord REUESDA LE suggested, that it would be better shortly to state, treasonable practices, relating to the coin of the realm.—The Amendment was then agreed to. • • The Marquis of LANSDOWNE moved for the omission of these words in the Bill,which went to ex tend. indemnity to Magistrates for arresting persons in tumultuous assemblies.. The principle ot the Bill was to indemnify for acts dangerous in tl o but justifiable for reasons of state, which could not be disclosed in evidence. Could any of the argu ments that rested on thi, necessity of secrecy, be ap plicable to the case of persons taken in tumultuous I and disurderly meetings ? Why should the Magistrate' be prevented from proving his own justification in this case? Ile would admit that the Magistrates who acted last year, were entitled. to' protection, bat he was sure they would rather defend themselves in.an open and avowed manner, while it cent() bt dope with safety to the Public, than escape Within the pule which that Act threw over them. • The LORD CH A NCELLOR contended that such an exemption would eipose the Magistrateslo actions from. every indiridrial Iciest:id tenialtuius as semblies. That in limit .wair a great evil: 'Besides, the Magistrates would have a right i.n their elefence to enter into the information they had fee:Medals to the. objects Of the Meeting; whichliould.leadAes the closure objected against. The Matqais of LANSDOWNE• colssetved, that there were but few periorie committed fir leech In et. fence, the cases therefore weild not "be so merems as was apprehended, and the "side proofbf shoe feet o.st it tea atootulloooii iissemb/i would le a sttnicient justification of,tbi Magistrate; without any further rlieclnarsee. • • The LORD CHANCELLOR_ said, that many might repreateet more force to hate been used than was necessary I. disperse the geetierg, tfittooly means of rebutting-which would bale enter into a disclosure' of its natureisstd objects.. Lord %HOLLAND observed, that if•the argument of the Neble and Learned bold.srere good, whenever .. tumultuous assembly was diapereed 'the Migiiitrates y whom they wares disperied wait. have recourse to Parliament for an 'Act of. Indemnity. Ile defied the piinciple, as it wouW go to overturn the whole isN of the Mit try. trim STATESMAN, The LORD CHANCELLOR said, that ON! Bill before 'heir -Coplabtps ntlilenerfl,W..conal templated a case.of Cass eatrenrdinary and spectet use r ture in which iewas indispeOsible to protect ill Me &train who were connected with it., I Lord HOLLAND snowed that ae eatreordinery and special case ought to be decided milts own merits, but maintained that the former argument of . the No- 1 ble end Learned Lord was applicable to the casoAet 1111 Migiitrates 'rho dispersed tomato - outs assembliette ... The Earl of LIVERPOOL admitted that in the Act of 1801 there was no provision of the nature no des. consideration, the reason of which was, that al., though many persons having been taken up on suspi cion of High Treason, and not afterwards brought to trial, Parliament thought it right to pass an Act of. Indemnity to protect Ministers, yet in that period there was nothing like insurrection which demanded a measure of this nature with reference to Magi*. Crates. In the late occurrences not only had persons been apprehended under the warrant of the Secretary • of State, bet insurrections of a formidable nature had taken place which required the interposition of Me. gisterial authority. large bodies of people were taken op by order of the Magiitrates—in one place ao lest, than 250—with a view to prevent the further progress of the Meetings of the 10th of March. This Isaving been the state,of the country, would Perlis-, merit act fairly by the Magistrates, if it did not pro ! !Oct them from vexatious suits? Their Lordslsips should never forget that the preservation of the pub. lic peace depended on the voluntary efforts of these respectable Genilemen, who were generally unpaid, and who came forward independently to discharge duties of the highest importance, attended in many cases with great personal risk, and which therefore entitled them to the protection of the Legislature. The Earl of CARNARVON observed, that the arguments of the Noble Earl and of the Noble and Learned Lord, went to prove that an Act of Indem nity was necessary on every occasion in which the Magistrates exerted themselves to preserve the peace of the country. Did the Noble Earl mean to say, that the Magistrates last year exceeded their powers, and that they therefore came to Parliament for in demnity? If so, and if the necessity was manifest, that indemnity Parliament would not refuse. But he denied that it was to be taken for granted that when Magistrates exerted themselves in the case of tumultuous assemblies, they necessarily violated the law, and must have an Act of Indemnity to protect them. He supported his Noble Fliend's amend. merit, not because he thought Indemnity unnecessary, but because in this, as well as in other parts of the Bill, their Lordships were legis!atioe in the dark. The amendment was then negatived without a di. vision. Lord ERSKINE said, he felt as much es any man the necessity of protecting the Magistrates of the country in the bona fide discharge of their duty.— Before the 41st of the Kilg, if a person was con victed by one or two Magistrate', and afterwards that conviction was quashed, the Magistrate or Magi strates were subject to an action. When their Lord. ships considered in how many cases en h on ourable man 'might fall into error, they would acknowledge thWexpediency of the Act of the 41st of the King, by'which it was provided that Magistrates who had acted bona fide should not he liable to such actions; adding that an action might be brought charging the Magistrate with malicious motives, and that if the ,jury were of opinion that he was influenced by such motives, then that he should be subject to all the Consequences of the suit. lie proposed (although he had not drawn his proposition with sufficient correct- ness) introducing into the clause a provision, that nothing therein should extend to any act of any per son committing maliciously, or without reason nr competent cause. Were the ACt to pass without such prevision, the most atrocious and the most notorious outrage might escape with impunity. Ile anticipated that. one answer to his proposition would be, that the preamble of the Bill stated that the persons to be pro. tected by it, were to he so protected, not on their own account alone, but on the account of those who might be called upon to disclose their sources of in. formation. "Good Gnd !" exclaimed the Noble Lord, " to what are we brought!" While a.conspiracy was going on it might be extremely proper not to disclose any sources of information. But now when the peace and liberty of the country, as far as the latter had been mutilated by the Act of last Session, were restored, if any man could justly bring an action against a Magistrate for malicious motives in an act, not secret, but witnessed by • hundred or a thousand persons (lie hoped and believed that no such act had been committed), would any one say that that Me. gistrate, if guilty, ought not to be exposed and pus rushed ? It was said by Noble Lords, that in intro. ducing this measure they consulted the safety of the country. The beet measure to which the Legislature. could resort for securing the safety of the country, was to secure the liberty and privileges of the sub ject. It was extremely necessary for their Lordships to be cautious in the way in which they dealt with r ibs present Act, for the principles on which t .proceeded in tips case would be equally applicable te Lk. at others. A Magistrate ought to be protected he acted bona fide; but their Lordships ought not Yo shOw the subjects of the realm that they would de. 'Arno Magistrates who acted in public, and whose acts ':were not of that honest character. k The LORD CHANCELLOR said, he bad a short Ilenswer to make to the observations of his Noble ?Friend. Ther.had proceeded some way in passing a Ittlt of Indemnity—hut, if they adopted the clause 'hisw-iitirodueed they would nullify all they had pre. rltinaly done. The general principle , certainly was, this! as Wien could not be maintained against a Ma. gistate for This officiat conduct, unless be acted ma. liliooily ind without probable cause. But they were passing a Bill of. Indemnity, which necessarily in terfered With general ' principles, and they had it in their power, if they , did not choose to persist in it, to abandon it at once. This was a much better way than agreeing in'clauses that Would defeat the object tof theßilf. : Now, suppose an action was brought igainst a Magistrate, charging him with having pro. Ceeded Maliiioosly and in' the absence of probable cause, the plaintiff might declare thsit he had been Maliciously taken into ,custody, end, if the Magis trate had proceeded on evidence which, consistently with a due regard to the public safety, he could nut disclose, he had no Rower whatever to make to the chargg. Fe coul. -‘0:-... d not state the nature of the itsfoi-1 leettoxilte had received, and w hich "'forded the pro. beble ground' of proceeding. Admitting some illlegali des to ha* been committed, still it was for 60 public interest that Magistrates should be protected, not, onjy against vexatious suits, but against those which, by their number, might perifize the efforta of any man, even though he were possessed of a good de. fence. Would their Lordships leave thee) in that situation, that every one of the perpuns against w horn they had acted, either at their own instance, or by "the direction of others, might persecute them with potions which they mast defend? He :never knew each a clause as this introduced in any Indemnity Bill. In the reign of King William, the Habeas Corpus 'Act was suspended on the ground of public exigency—and theargument came to this, that when, for the public safety, the liberties of the People were, for a time, abridged, the same exigency which called for that abridgment, demanded that those who hid acted for the general good, while it existed, should. be protected, when the necessity was at an end. The Noble Lord, on all these occalions, exhorted them to take care that they did not trifle with the iiherti..s of the Peeple—and God forbid Met he should do S 0 t o But surely they were not to scquiesce in the destruc• riot) of the country, by suffering their feelings for in dividuals to overpower every other consideration. 1 The Earl of ROSSLYN was as ansioes for the safety of the Crown and Constitution-.—was as de sirous to forward the tranquillity and happiness of i the country, as any Noble Lord opposite; but he never would consent that the-liberties of the People should be unnecessarily sacrificed to an apprehen sion of danger. lie was glad to find it now con fessed, that the preamble dill not meet the .matters contained in the Bill. It had been said_at first, that the Bill was introduced merely to indemnify those who could not justify themselves without disclosing matters dangerous to the public safety ; bat it now turned out that illegal acts had beeir . cosnoritted, or why should an attempt be made to - indemnify those who could proceed to their defence without making any improper disclosure? .. The Amendment was negatived. The Marquis of LANSDOWNE expressed his surprise that Ireland was mentioned in the Bill, as the habeas Corpus Suspension Act, under which Ore transactions took place that called for ibis In. demnity Bill, did not extend to that country. His Lordship moved, that the word " Ireland" .be omitted. Viscount SIDMOUTH said, a special case did occur, which rendered the introduction of Ireland netiessary. . • The Marquis of LANSDOWNE said, it was a case never yet before Parliament—and in land had beep introduced without any notice whoever. Viscount SI DM ouni—it i, pa. I of the informa tion laid before both Houses of Parliament. A per, son charged with treasonable practices was arrested, on a warrant, in Ireland. . , Lord HOLLAND strougly opposed the intredoc.' tion of Ireland into the Bill. If there were a special• case, the proper mode would be, to insert a particular clause to meet it. The Earl of LIVERPOOL said, 'that" no perton had been taken op, under the Habeas Cor. pus Suspension Act, for any thing done in Ire. land. The case alluded to was that of Beirbow,. a person against wham a warrant was issued. He ' escaped to Ireland, *trete be was taken, when pre paring to embark for Americs. After several observations froth the LORD CHAN cELLott, Lords LANSDOWNE, I. toneito.tLe; ItEDEi. DALE, and HOLLAND, the amendment: was agreed to, 'with an understanding, that a clawre should be intro duced applicable to the particular case alluded to. The Earl of CA RN ARVON, after ezpatiatin4 on the unfairness of depriving a plaintiff, by this Bill, of his right of action, and, at the same time saddling 'him with double costs, moved, that double costs should only attach to any suit commenced after the passing of this Act. The LORD CHANCELLOR opposed the pro. position—but moved, that double costs should not be taken from the plaintiff, when Vie action was commenced before the 27th of February last, and was not continued. After a few observations from Lords KING and HOLLAND, the proposition of Lord CARNARVON was negatived--and that of the Lotto CHANCELLOR agreed to. The Earl of CARNARVON moved a clause, by which a Plaintiff might bring his action, against a Magistrate, provided, that, a month previous to his bringing it, his Solicitor gave notice to the Secretary of State of his intention. 1 f the Secretary of State then made oath, that the justification of the defend ant depended on the disclosure of information income patible with the public safety, the proceedings to be stayed—but if he did not make such an affidayit, the plaintiff to be at liberty to proceed: The . cla.use rese.sregatived, after a few words from.' the Earl of LIVERPOOL The Earl of CAR N A ItVON gave notice, that be would move it in another stage. Tim - Earl of - LAUD4RDALE . mewed several Amendments to the preamble, taken from the woke' est part of the Report of the Secret Committee, for the. purpose, he said, of making, the Bill and theft., port agree together. They. were negatived. After a few verbal Amendments were made,_ the House resumed, the Report was received, and the Bill ordered to be • read a third time on Thursday. Adjourned at Half-past Two n'.Clock. HOUSE OF-COMMONS. --- - Mr. LUSIIINGTON presented a Return of the Amount of Poor Rates collected in the course of last year. Mr. D. GILBERT obverved, that the subject quired much consideration. Ile alluded toe Bill itµ troduced by himself two ur three.yesrs back. Ttie Committee, last Session, had made a Report on the subject, and he hoped and trusted that their enqui. ' ries and labours would be productive of public be• nefit to the country, and afford satisfaction to the People at large.• Regulatkuis in minor points would not be sufficient. That the matter might be folly considered, he should n►ute that the Papers be printed. Sir C. MONCK agr•el with the lion. Gentleman who jut sat dm. Much was expected from the . • , 1 lileknuniittee ; but he still deipaired of any thisi k factory to the country being dude, airless IsfG 11, ty's Ministers came fobwardi and applied a radical cure to the evils, which wrre so lumen)" and so deep.—[ Hear, hear !} —Nothing short of ariair a ri d open examination and support of the subjeo l , e p ea their 'parts, would satisfy the nation. Mr. CA I.CRA FT admitted that the Posse Re e s were unquestionably a great evil. lie, however, gat • sofprised to beer all usions•to. Midi& reesesilet t .la these rates ought to be done away with altogether, [Hear, hear!] —No doubt many *louses misted its-she. administration of the Poor Laws; and from these all the evils of the system had their beginning. the Honoorable Gentleman opposite (Mr. Gil bees). would have done• much more for the public good; and for the alleviation of the Poor Rates, if he tis i t.' lent his hand towards the diminution ut tasation.-1 [llear,hear,hearl)—No man was more inclined th e e. ..r himself to put a stop to the evils' of the present system and he was sure that the most effectual w*y of doing so, would be, to lessen the amount of the lases. it the lases were diminished, then individuals would have it in their power to employ a greater bomber of labourers, and this would inevitably go so lower that Poor Rates,•because it would redttre the no.obar those dependent upon them.—[hear, hear!]-1141 spoke the more confidently on this point, b.couse very well remembered the time when the I'utir lutes were low, and he had every expectation of seeing them low again. But Gentlemen must have Ogle,. Corn 11111,—that is, they most have high prices for their corn, and low wages for their labourers. The one necessarily followed the other, If corn washigh i labour, was low ; because the dearness of provisiok . rendered the earnings of thp labourer comparatively' trifling. The contrary, however, should be the ease labour should be high, and corn should he low, be,. fore the Poor Rates would esperience any sensibler relief. Sir Cr. MClNGicaed .14r. CALCRA FT mutually. - - ..,....,..... It . i '''''''.4l/fr ' I • • . . . • i • I t I k 1 i _ !mai* 1-:__ explained. • . Mr. FILANKLAND LEWIS Blinded to the prod ceeditigs of the committee on the Poor Lass, and conceived. that• any imputation upon them was most likely to arise horn their over-caution. Bat hi anaioasly wished that the Noose wi.uld fully con. sitter the the present system, which might affect .all landed property. Mr. BROUGHAM said, his Hon. Friend had en tered rather at large on several branches of a a . , a t ao 4 complicated question of she greatest interest to the country.; and he had added a sort of appendix re. ' specting the effects of taxation in w t ich his sliscoretni were OW completely evident. The argument went to the extent that tasation did not increase peeped's, not withstanding the esperices incurred, such es 10001, a year to a Sinecure Lord of the Admiralty, &c.-- [I/ear, -Aearq—aad4hat there was no difference in the results. Mr. FRANK LANDIEVVISimpIainPd. He "had never meant to say that taxation had had no effect ill the increase:of paupers. Mr. BROUGHAM was•pleased wish the mien" lien ; ; but observed, that the Spenceans, so sin* talked a boot, had said, that paupetisia %sob occasion, ed by taxation alone.—[A laugh ) eu,kw EN said a few words. There wasnot a labourer in the kingdom• who di() not pay throngla.. the /Nattily's. • Mr. It SUMNER presented a Petition from three Magistrates of the Epsom, Division of the:Cnunty of Surrey, complaining of calumnious evidence wing been given before the Polite Committee with respect to their conduct in Licensing Publicans, and statint that they conceived their characters *ere reflected oe in the Report of the Police Committee, and prayial that they might he allowed. to dirprove•that evidence. Mr. BENNETT said, that no part of the Report was directed against the Gentlemen alluded to. — Though he thought it would he extremely difficult for them to explAin every part of the transactions stated in the evidence in e satisfactory manner. He should certainly feel it his duty to move the revival of the Committee, to allow them an opportunity of justifying themselves. Lord LASCELLES instanced a case where di reason for withholding a licence was mistated la the evidence taken by the Police Committee. Mr. HENN Icll' said, in such a large body of evidence, otot ititstanding the utmost . pains, it was impossible that much that was once• should not fail admittance into it. Mr. H. SUMNER bore testimony to the character of the Magistrates whose PelitiOn he had presented. _ Mr. Sergeant ONSLOW and . NIr..THOILNTON expressed themselves also in strong terms to Use Saara• effect. HABEAS CORPUS SUSPENSION. Mr. BENNET I' wished to draw (lift attention of,. the House toe Petition he had to present from-an ins'. dividual w.ho had been apprehended and • confinetk , - He adverted briefly to the Circular Lette, .03hg,Sre eretary of State. The Petition was (as We could hear) from Jonathan Buckley, of Warrington, iss Lancashire. It stated, that he had been apprehend ed by three officers, and confined and 1000 with irons, and carried to the Quarter Sessions in irons; in an open cart. He was subsequentli.discbarged on his recognizance, after receiving a letter from Mn. Nicholson, Governor of the House of Correction. —During his coofirtement, his wife and family were much distressed. He had been guilty of publishing some parodies, &c., hut lie bad been treated differ• ently from Mr. Hone. He (Mr. Bennett) wished to move for an enquiry into such matters, as he ni sure the sense of the country was alive to them.-e This man was taken to a Public -house in the first int . . stance. He complained that the officers took from him about 70 books, which were not reterneri.--• Among them were Rollin's Ancient llistory, an Evangelical llisiory, &c. He was confined for se .veral weeks at Preston, and came up to Court at s great eapence. The Petition was laid on the table, and ordered to be printed. Mr. RENNET:f bad also another Petition to pre• sent from (as we heard) oue Samuel Billing, of War. .rington . , which made the same cpmiliaint as the for , met. Theßetition stated, ties the retitioner publishetl par,ndieb that he kakhectt confined and kept to fiaril labour for some time. and disharged at .the geartot Sessions. being breath* la triq• i The Petition also stated, that the turnkey of prison in *lliCh he had been cortfitted had giv.ir to