The Sun. — London, England, 1801-06-06 00:00:00

, tr forecedertd.' fhe'CuAttetz,ietx of the t%efit . Zuv.i. and the . ATTORNEY PiIaRAL contended,, when it was intreiuced, that it was sanctioned by two precedenti . ; one, in Mt•passed in the year a 74.6, and ' the other an'Aet passed in 1780. They did not, how ever, attempt to shew how these precedents apply ; in facl, they do not apply at all, The former was an At to, indemnify those who had been concerned in apprelie;lding and imprisoning persons suspeded of being concerned in abetting, supporting, and further ing an aEtual Rebellion which had been raging in the Country : in the latter case it 'is known that a most dangerous And alarming insuereEtioti had ex isted in the City of London; threatening the safety of Parliament itself, and every branch of Govern `,mei-a-. In, these cases Bills of Indemnity were juStiiiable and even necessary. The present Bill is' feunded on the Report of a Committee, which asserts, in almost : direa terms, that the great mass of . the People is discontented. He for his part, had always, and would always assert that the great mass of the people of England are loYal arid attached to the Constitution ; but there may he discontents existing attong them . en grounds perlealy legitimate, and he eoiild not feel any surprize. ;rat the present moment, when the Nation is wasted by a nine years ruinous, ind as is co: tended on this.side of the House, un necessary War, when they are oppressed by taxes, and by dearth, if some degree. of discontent pre . - : vails. ~Such discontents, be contended to be legi timate, and to afford no 'ground for such a measure as the present. Who, he weuld ask, arc the per sons who present to the House his humble Petition, as it may he called, contained in the Report of the Committee ? They are His Majesty's late Ministers, • who composed that Committee, .and for whose se , entity the Bill is intended. He confessed it appeared • to him rather humiliating for the late Chancellor of the Exchever, who has accustomed himself to language so high, td he redu6ed•so low. 'But they have not only adopted the tane-of supplication ; they 'say in this Report, in their own justification, that they hasde exercised the power vested in them with great moderation; that they might have carried it Bloch farther; that only about 30 persons have been apprehended, and detained in virtue of this power, • who at the end of three years close imprisonment have been liberated , by the operatioe of the law of the land. _Can this be the ground on which a measure like the present is rested ? lie wondered that the Attorney General did not farther move for . the suspension of the law altogether, that he might have been . enabled t', keep these men' in confinement adpeepetuum, and thus prevent the possibility of their seeking redress at all.. The Report farther adds, that these persons were detained;ei titer on informations on oath, or authentic documents, or other grave and solid reasons. It ti:,nl to be the boast of the constitution of this Country, that it had ,imposetk so Many and strong securities on the Law of Trea seri. Bat even in a Cast: of felony, be would ask, if any Magistrate would dare to Commit any person without an accusation on Oath ? Xt appears, how. ever, even on this Report, that persons have been '•• committed andimprisorse for Treasonable Pradices, without any 'information on Oath. Any person who recolleEts the Trials at Maidstone, must be fully con vinced of this fa6.l.' On these Trials, the examina lions before, the Privy Council, or Commitment, were never produced. Why ? Because they had not been made on Oath ; and the Learned Judge who presided at these trials, a Judge, whoSe name and knowledge (Mr. Justice Buller) were revered by all who knew him, complainz..,l of the non-produetion of these exa. trmations. The Right Hon. Gentleman, the late CHANCELLOR of the ExcnEQuQA, has in the Re . port confessed his guilt. It seems to be the fashion with the Rt. Hon. Gentleman and his Friend (Mr. DurlnXs) to plead guilti—but in this case he has departed a little from his usual system.—He has condescended to petition for a Bill of Indemnity, to secure .himself from the punishment which the Law would infiift on his conduit. Then look at the Bill itself ; it is said that it is necessary and just, because it is impossible for the late Ministers to defend their conduit without revealing the source§ of their intelligence, which in honour they cannot do. Gracious God! Is the open establishment and - encouragement of a system of Spies and , Informers to be avowed and countenanced by a British Ho_use • of Commons ?, Is the _boasted Constitution o this Countryat last to be reduced so low, as not even to preserve the semblance of Freedom The Petitions presented this night, by an Ho. potirahle Baronet and himself, detailed most cruel ' • severities to which the Petitioners have - been subjcaed. Not one of theM have been brOught to trial, • and convicled, arid the wretch Aris, who -was the instrument of ,infliCting them, he Was astonished stoperceive, continues to receive the prb teetion of Government. How can this be justified He confessed he htid 'expeaed a different condUit from the present CH AN C ELLOR of the ExcHEQUEK, on the grounds of his known suavity of disposition, as well as of the professions he had made. He would not say,. that the present Ministers are the mere tools of their Predecessors, .but be would say, that there is a wonderful conformity - . of sentiment between them : and he could not help being a little surprized at the zeal'of the present CHANC LLoit of the Excup.our. it,. to support thiS Bill of Indemnity to the late Ministers,'' which seems to be brought in an,d hurried through,Merely fo,enable them to gain the race they are running, with one of, the, persons they have kept imeontirtement for three years, and who happens'to be able to commence a prosecution agair.st them. On 'these grounds he must oppose the Motion for the Speaker's leaving the Char. He had only to remark farther, that the late CH A NC ELT.OR of the ENCHEQUEK had not left his high situation in' high way as from • his high mind might have beeri expeetcd., He understood that he either ac ual ly held; or was in expeetation of holding a sinecure office to the amount of 70001. a year. HoWever this Bill might be disposed of, he would iMplore the House to consider well before they made a pre . cedent destructive of the liberty of the Subjea, because taking away all responsibility from the ;Ministers of the Crown. Mr. II iIIVK INS B ROIP - Ar expressed his asto. nishmeor at many of the positicus laid down by the 1-106, and Learned Gentleman. He seemed to think that the sentiments of the People could not he made known except they were allowed to hold secret and seditious Meetings fOr the purpose of declaring them. This position required no refutation : for it is clear . " that no law has been passed to prohibit meetings for , any legal and ,constitutional expression of their sentiments, and sentiments of any other kind ought ever to be repressed. Another of the Hon. Gentle , man's positions was, that the Committee, on whose Report this measure is founded, was composed solely of the late Ministers, whom he represented as .having in that Report humbly petitioned for this . Bill on their own behalf., : But 'it requires but very little knowledge of The Members of the Committee, One of whom he had the honour to be, to know that it was mat solely composed of the late Ministers. He added, however, that the present Ministers have adopted all the principles of their predecessors. It is nota new thing, in the History of the Coun try, that there May be a change of men . without a change of principles. Sikh a change took place in the reign of George the First, when the men were changed, but the same Whig Principles and attach ment of the Family of Hanover, continued to ditf'.;. the measures of dovertunent. He hoped that ti.e 'present Ministers would be as true to the principles of their predecessors as the Earl of Sutherland's Ad ministration were to those of their predecessors in the time of George the First, aod the more closely they adhere to these principles, the more deserving would he esteem them, and the more he was con. vinced will they obtain the confidence, and aporo bation cif the. Country. As to what die tion and Learned Gentleman has said respetting the. system of Spies and Informers, he confessed that it had ex cited his astonishment. If a person learns - by any means of a Conspiracy, it' certainly is his duty to make it known . ; but his seculity, and perhaps the future security of the State, may require that secrecy shall he preserved as, to the sources of the information received. He should be sorry that greater severities should be exercised under the powers granted to Government by the Suspension of the Habeas Corpus than are absolutely necessary ; but no proof of suchTseVerities having been exercised is given, and be was convinced that this and other temporary restraints On .the Liberty of rho Subjea which have been enaaed, have been, and will be, the means of saving the Constitotioii and the Liberties of the Country entire, when, Peace shall allow these restraints' to be taken off. Sir WM. ELFORD replied to the two - objee. dons which the Hon. Gentleman (Mr. JaityLL) had made to this Bill. The first was preliminary, founded on the source from which it originated, be ing recommended by a Committee, some of the Members of which were persons for whose proteetion it is intended. He allowed it to be true, that if the Bill ought, to be considered as 'a matter o f t favour, it would have, come more strongly recommended from per Sons not so interested ; but he contended,. that it was merely an ad of justice. The other objec tion was to the principle of the measure ; but he was clearly of opinion, and he was unbiasSed , by all Party-connettion, that these measures have. saved the Country; and that' the authors of them ought not only to be protetied, but to receive the thanks of the Nation. For his own part, he never could feel any other sentiment towards, them than gram- , tude. As to the present Ministers, he had, the ho. nour of being personally acquainted with some of them: he adMired their talents, their worth, their honour, their integrity, and their Constitutional Principles. Some of them he did not know peiso, rally, but their charafters were such as to command his confidence. He concluded with expressing his hearty approbation of the Bill/ - ' Sir FRANCIS BURDETT expressed himself happy to hear that the Bill .was not intended to co. vet cruelties from redress, or unnecessary severities exercised under the powers granted.by the Suspen sion of the Habeas Corpus, though -the language of the Billseetned to him to convey such an intention. 'phis, however, was not the stage. in which this al. terarion of 'language, if 'necessary, ought to be made, and therefore he . would not now dwell upon it. It is said that this Bill' is founded on a Report of a Committee, which, in his opioion, would with greater propriety be stiled a Pamphlet, as it is no. thing more nor less than a long and laboUred de fence of the conduit of His Majesty's late Mini sters. So far as it regards England, it consists of declamation respeaing 'the wishes of the People ; of interpretation ' of prophecies, . and similar statements, which are all resolved into trea sonable praftices. But as to proofs or fats, for his part lie could. find .• none in :it. . At one place it represents the People as wishing for Peace, that an end may be put to the restraints- on their meetings for the t'urtherance. of their treasonable intentions. At'anather it represents the wishes of the Conspirators to be' for the continuance of the I War, as a means of rousing ,the whole body of the nation to insurrection and tumult. He should like to hear these statements reconciled. ;At one place the Report recommends a Bill of Indemnity. ~to •' 'those who have -been concerned in apprehend ing and detaining.persons under the suspension of the Habeas Corpus, certainly under the idea that they have, gled criminally—but at another, place irrepre.. sents the condad of these men as highly meritorious. He doubted very much if the ATTORNEY-GENERAL who introduced, or the Committee which recom. • mended the Bill, had sufficiently examined the con_ duet of the late Ministers in the exercise of the powers entrusted to them ; . ---the Bill he certainly would oppose in every stage.' . ' Col. MARTIN contended that this Bill, so far from.being a Bill 'of Indemnity to the late Midi , sters, is one that they more than any, other persons have a right to complain of, and that if there is any thing wrong in it, it is merely:a misnotrier. He was strenuous for going into a Cotionittee on the Bill. Mr. GREY said, if any thing could add .to his • feelings B o il t l ' , regret them f a o n r ne th r e in m v an h n ic e i r t - i i i t i i t t t a th d ic b b ee t n hi i s n ß tt i o ll , had been introduced, and the principles which it contained, it was that Gentlemen- on the Opposite side' of the : House should think it unnecessary to' produce any precedents or arguthents beyond bare assertions, for a measure . new and unprecedented in the Annals of the British History, and unknown to the British Constitution. He hoped 'to be able to prove, that it deserves the'Epithets which he had applied to it. Whether-he considered'ahe principle of dUced, or the arguments by which it had' been- s-up -1 ported, he could feel nothing but (he would not say aStonishaient, for - the measures of liite yeaks had been of so extraordinary a -,nature, that no measure that could lie produced,. could now ex_ cite his astonishment) but the liveli&t regret. — What is the principle of the Bill,? Is it not that His Majesty's late Ministers have been guilty of, high crimes against the Law and the Constitution of the Country, and that they are to be indemnified for these crimes, and secured against the redress wh i elt the Law would grant to those: ...whoul—thuy.. have oppressed ? In his opinion the Bill ought to he intitled a Bill for the protedion and better-en couragement of Secret Accusers. • He would-iikrtri that this is the first 'case_ in the p istory of the English Constitution that stich men .shOUld be -proposed to be openly proteeted and en. encouraged. He called for any precedent of such a measure. He defied , the supporters of this Bill to prOduce any from the History of this• Country for such a detestable measure. He had a right.to call it lere,t,+l~le till it shall.have passed threugh the House. He would, however, give to the Right Hon. Gen. tletnnn for whose security this Bill is - intended,'a precedent in its favour, if he should chuse to adopt The history of it is given in the Annals of Tacifus, and it occurred in, the reign of Tiberius., The words of the Historian are, " Et quia Cornutus, - sua manu ceeiderat, a6tum de prae- Miis accusatorirm 'abolendis, si quis majestatis, poizulatus, ante perteclum judicium se ipse vita privavisset : ibaturque in earn sententiam, ni durius contraque moron suum palant pro at;cusatoribus exsar, invitas leges, !temp. in przecipiti con esset ; tubvertetent sotius jura, quam eustodes amoverent." Nlhat - is the remark of the historian upon this conduti, and upon the charatter of these secret ac. cusers : " Sic delatorcs, genus hernia= public° exitio reperturn, et pwnis quidem nur•.clua:n satin coerettum, per pramia Ciebmtur." Sach a system' must tend to the ruin of all publiC justice. Montesquieu has observed, that a Govern ment conduaed by Spies and Informers might be tolerated if contlueled by honest men ; but the ne cessary infamy of the accuser must destroy all con. fidence in it. Had these principles been stated and supported on such authorities in former times, the consent of the,House would have immediately result. ed. But in these times it is necessary to defend the clearest and the best ascertained principles, to 'have recourse to the principles of the Constitution, and to argue from their in support of those Which, result necessarily from them. It had been justly said by his Hon. and Learned Frie6d who so ably opened this Debate, that this measure is a diral violation of the principles of the Constitution, so far as they regard the administration of Justice. . He• would Ask, what it is that has rendered the-administration of- Justice in this Country so much the ()Ned of admiration ? It is because it is administered foribi,T aperlis ;. because the accuser can be confronted bY :he accused because the accused it before trial made acquainted with the charges against 'him, and, with the persons-by whom they are adduced: But this is not the principle of this. Bill, for- ifs object is to indemnify those who have' . aaid - in diria opposition. to this ,principle. He may, be accused of seferring to old maxims, but different as may have. been the pfa4ice of late years from .the spirit of these maxims, he knew and Vvas confident that they are the Spirit of the Constitution. -- The great obje6t is- to'secure the greatest degree of goad. to the Governed, and this can only be done by striking a balance between the eyili - and the ad_ vantages of one system and another, and surely it is better to allow one, or even a' htindred:Delin quents to -eseape, than to vest in. the EXectitive Power the authority to . punish all_ whom it may chose to punish, .whether innocent or guilty, by enhabling, it to confine them for . any unlimited time; without being obliged at all to bring them to trial. Now let the circumstances be considered,. in which these abitrary powers -were granted to Gover'nment. There reigned the greatest inter. nal tranquillity, and there was no external invasion. For what`pur . pose. was the Habeas Corpus suspend. ed ? Was it, as , the term suspension seems to denote, to withhold for a time,, for the general good, a part of the privileges of the 'sublet from those who were suspeaed :of conspiring against the general safety, or was it as the prilstnt measure would in dicate; to destroy theSe privileges forever, by de priving the Subject of the redress for unjust. oppres sion which the Law and the Constitution authorise them to. claim ? What was the argument for the Suspension of the Habeas Corpus? Andupon whatwas it that those who queAioned the propriety ofthat measure were called on tb rely ?' It was argued against the measure, that it eras unjust to deprive the People of so 'great_ a portion of their liberties, 'and that there was A don-. ger of the power vested in Ministers being abused. It was replied that the measure was . necessaryi and theresponsibility of Ministers was i s red oii.as curity for their not abusing the power vested in them. Now when they have had this power for eight years, when they are ashamed of detaining • their. Prisoners any longer, when they are called' on for their responsibility, when the day of retribution arrives, these Gentlemen, who are so bold io thal, lenge charges to be adduced against them, seek to shelter themselves behind an A& of Indemnity.— But it has been said that this is- an •afe of justice, and the House is told to consider what is due to the late Ministers ; but what is due to these miserable men, who hive suffered the greatest hardships and cruelties during an imprisonment of three years, and in one case of six years, is entirely'kept out of view. If these men are guilty, what is to be feared from them ? If nor guilty, then he would retort the ap peal to the justice of the case. Mr. GREY next contended that the measure is as impolitic as un just, because if power is so exercised, it must in crease, not allay. discontents. He believed that the Bill would put an end to all responsibility of Ministers. They have of late 4 - alked much of that responsibility. He wished the House were more ready to enforce it on them, and that it were less disposed to relieve them from it. He then took up the subjea of the Precedents, as they had been said to apply to the case now betore the House, and contended, that not one of them went the length to which this was now proposed to he carried. That of the case of the riots in the year z 780, commonly called Lord George Gordon's Mob, had' committed excesses which endangered the safety of the Metropolis, upon which occasion Ma giStratei adedin order to repress the outrages that . • . , i ir et e c t! l a i b n oti s tLo c - be re c , om pea m s it i t n ed a ; and in so doing t i,ty Y which Which is Made for the ordinary affairs a a frair - s o not justify,; but the necessity of the case did Os flit t 'e h , e ' ' s# l4 o :i ttVi j tify their proceedings, and therefore a liiß of In. demnity was pissed, to . proteft those Magistrates against the legal .consequences that might have tak es phee, in some instances, if anions had been brought assalnst _thous, but jovas to them, and to . them along .1:e Bill of Indemnity was extended : it was notapi plied to the higher Officers of State, who had ailed upon delibetationupon that occasion—So again, in the instances which had been formerly stated, of the, Bills of Indemnity which had passed in the years t 716 and .174.6, the two' years subsequent to two- Rebellions. in, this Country ; these AtSts were to indemnify those. who had abed in a mannet which the Law could' not justify, but which the necessity of the case, required, for the safety of the Public ; and that was the only foundation of alb the Bills of Indemnity which were to he fou nd in the whble.,of the History of this Country. But there was no ; instance,. in which any. body of men had heensindemnified.for aas which were stared, not to be eoritrary to Law, but. the disclosure of which eire instance, I of was - dangerous to the Public, but which war the Llelii.obreraltiloisn..mTailmetstly7,S, the. ras e in this Indemnity, had -ae.acted,sters, who, he contended, were the -11e:11.eling jefts of this Bill of - i\i tl i : cast, upon most • mature deliberNion; mid after repeated warning'too,of the evil the); were creating. —in.a word, he.contended, that Bills of InderatlitY were to be granted only to those who had oil a sud den, for the Public Safety, acted in a . way which the Law would not justify: ; but never to those who imvaosredoensepe‘civiiasllyn.ostin this adlesi deliberately and upon advice and authmity, which was the case in this. instance, , and that the i c n o ce ntr i a t ry * to s came to this trial, the Bill of Indemnity tv,4 5 , on i l Y. part of a system by which prosecutions were to oe 'contended Law._\\lti wctien,iinisr el. carried on against individuals, upon .seeret intfloierntn:itt tions; While the Executive Government of this fairer to' say at - once, that we should he Country was pleased to have it so.—He thought it form of Law which subjated us to the Inquisition y li , at what of Venice—that -.he Safety of the State and the _ Freedom of the bidividual were incompatible tt'it" each:other—that the , clanger of popular commotion is such, that individual liberty- is to be sacrified for the. preservation of. the State—that we must pro. tel the power of the State, even although it aIY r iOt iii.sonie cases oppress innocence (and lie bad a !alder A to say, the case,had been so ; in , every 'instance in which any one .was accused, who had not been " e " tually conyiaect, - upon the general Principle, that every one must be iireitune&to-KS-infiatetit until he was proved to be s uilty•--:-that in short, we unto use VtoteCt,Power-against.lnnOcence; but nor InnOesoce against Power. ' Here- he. entered into gebersl ob servations upon the probable effett of corruption!? the.principles, or- heedlessness' In the ; Ads of t,t l , e . Legislative Body, especially as they affecled ,t' l Principles of Public Freedom, and quoted then 0."" ... * city 'of MosiTssososi au, to shew that our Co,t',,ta",, tion must perish whenever the .Legislati ve Body .s.• : b p e re e s7d e t. 6 every g m r. t o eh r ai e tta c p o ep r x r rct n e l pl i e t tn st t ii h :e a n n sttl t ii, l l l : e rt eks%;v:::: t o i t e . l e ) 0 ; 1 i: rrliea . r,: 'sl).iill'enee # g upookprinciple which led ter ab'solote cesses,. ,which .were evils he admitted, 'a i l : Jed, - . wereorher evils that were equally to be ir''', ~! e and it was a thing .to be lamented, tIPC in zl ' e ' ir . . s „,. st the course of the late and present Administration, ill'''',..' ed as they were for so many Pr9 ViSitMS " 61 ill os 0 Frec49FreedomoE,ctie_subwt, there was not one m of adopted by Parliament, against t h e proceeditigs the. Executive Gov. . , , 'Mr. WlNDHAMernment and the ArroiNsy_Gs g , r°' rose— . The S P EAKER having Observed Mr. WisPl,4'l4 first, / called on him. •bat he Air. WINDHAM procee ded to say, t 0 . should. with pleasure give way to his Loll ~ for Friend, who had better claims up on the 1-I° us' ,, s of attention than he had, but that he ~.lees desi l° va „ taking immediate notice of son ic of the 01.)'!'i,,,t tons of the Hop.' ,Gentleni;n who. had Pis', ..., 1 _ .down, most of which,,although in themselves g,:(70:6 were answered without much difficulty, _l(..c_"tie, they were• of a. general nature. The Non. 1 -' ,,, ,;.,4 man who had just sat down had arranged his syl s i tib, ,under three heads : th -the Manner in which th e is m en , , .jea was broughtforward--the principle' of ,oi , t , slire--and the arguments by which i t was 5531/iOTCC q. Agreeably, to this distribution of his awned it, and .the force of his s enemy, a s he had arr an g t :bielt and having the order .of his own battle, IV. Ic iple he had. opposed,' aegument to argument*, i r tire, sl, to principle, and manner to Planner, an hiss tbe fence of his Honourable Friends bei°',, are 1 - Honourable •Geritleniiii had . treated a s: 1i a con ni,eirrirta,biae degree; ndon'w ( h )f ie s h oic h m e. ni i t t ) ad , asspoilsfei'lve On:twb4eo4 0#3 5 si certainly master of his 'own force, had w itis N o te as most material in the distribution. matter, lie resped:.toSthe manner of conthiging thii r ie must observe upon-the silence of his Plor'' . ,, mc s 10' ,I)elo him, which the Hon. Gentleman 3 t,r - ;i s be consider as the charafteristie, of r niseoin' th ' s ee 'could not agree in that conclusion, aia 1 1' n or , 10 0 . the impropriety of his 'Friends w aiting fo" l r t hor to be urged against them before they ()er )0 , 40 14. selves to the notice of the House, eels} t hat s i a t froil l ' A ' Oli. ansWers, 'if any were necessary', shoul d c AO, ""' those who stood more distindly than theY , _ oo , sts were accused to stand, and leave it to such P', l- . 001 4 deliver their sentiments rather than come _ 1 , ,.. d is t,' themselves. Upon that . subject he must obse7. l so ses in general, if Ministers were called upon ~„ f 4 " ,oi dy two points, the' information upon which ';!'s s sos lely. they ' of in their own possession, or if not so vo ,j; sessed more of it than others s tile gr ° „ 0) 14 -,er.., argument csf the side .by which they %,,. ot io sapported, thould be state by. them, to l r im but the Pr' 1 i t it in a situation to argue upon them; , d 10 1 on:which this measure wad founded, seems lye ‘ to were Mini-ders particularly called 'uoon e.. ., we re to be equally open to all the House to tlis ciss ' o b?te the lien. Gent.. With any 01),er:3:isms: 17104 not in a state in which it was ilCiT;S:1111 E°o :aiest attemptS at /eh car se.; they Were .‘-CIS . ' he 000' Gentleman would draw froin the silen - v foe o thers ; what isilertnice. therefareic:l4-tbtst