The Sun.
London, England, 1818-03-14 00:00:00

INDEMNITY BILL.

The ATTORNEY-GENPRAL having moved the
Order 01 the Day for the third reading of tt.le
Indemnity Bill,

Sir JOHN NEWPORT said, the principal amend-
ment he had to propose related to the preamble
of the Bill. What he should propose world come
in alter the words—°f Whereas some of the said
Acts way nut have been just in law, but havhig

been dome for the presttvation of the poblic
peace, the persons doing' them .ought to be pro-
tected,' .87. e. He would agree that there might
be cases in which officers acting for the public
safety ought to be indetnnitied. But from whence
was she itu to be derived ? Undoubtedly
the public purse ought to pay for the public safety.
When, however, the public officer had injured in-
dividuals, should they pay for the public safety
and go without redress ? This principle must be
so clear and demonstrable, that it would be a
waste of words to talk about it. But the Bill
did not enact that individuals must go without
redress. Was there any thing so monstrous and
unjust as that they should ? But if he held this
principle theoretically, he could practically afford
the House a recognition of it. He had the mis-
fortune to live through acts of the most atrocious,
barbarous, and unexampled injustice, in Ireland,
the actors in which were protected aftet wards by
two Bills of Indemnity. He could therefore
speak from what he had witnessed, and for the
facts of the case he was going to state, he pledged
his truth, honour, and veracity. It was that of
a respectable merchant, who was absolutely rob-
bed of his property by one of those Acts of In-
demnity, -and thus lie had paid the price of the
public protection. At the end of the year 1793,
or the bea,itining of 1799, a person of the name •
of Scott, a merchant dealing largely in corn in
Ireland, was apprehended by a person whose na
bad made sonic noise in that House, he meatst
Sir Fitzget :aid, on a charge allaying convey-
ed some pikes to Ross in a barrel of corn. Bail was
offered for hint to the. anlOlllit of 100,000/. and
his (Sir J.'s) brother was one of the persons who
offered to become his securi•y. He was taken
prisoner from his house to Clontnel, and after be-
ing detained five or six days, an-offer was made
to set hilts at large on bail being given for 20,0001.
But lie said " No, you have robbed me, and,
blasted my character so that it can never he re-
trieved, but by toy ;oink; to trial." He became
a bankrupt, and the corn in his stores was sold
at a great loss. He brought his action against
Sir Judkin, and of that right of action' he was de-
prived by the - Bill of Indemnity. Let any matt
lay his hand on his heart and say, whether this
Gentleman had not a right to justice. This was
the practical illustration he had to offer of the re-
sult of Acts of so monstrous a nature, amid it also
proved, that if the country was to be protected
by Bills of this nature, the country should pay
the price of them. He felt reluctant to allude to
scenes of this nature In the presence of the Noble
Lord (Castlereagh); but in his conscience be ac-
quitted him of knowing of those acts, though it
was under his authority that they had been exer-
cised. His of o conviction was, that by pass-
ing those Bills the Parliament of Ireland had
scaled its own death-warrant. The people fled,
and were ready. to take refuge nude,. any Govern-
ment whatever, rather than remain subject to
such a Gok ernment as that ; and therefore if the
people had not been severed front the Parliament,
the Act of Union never would have been carried ;
fur if the people had no protectibn at home, they
would look for it any where. He should move
to insert in the place he had mentioned these
words "By discharging front the politic revenue
the amount of any award given by a Jury." The
other amendment which lie proposed to offer was
clause at the end of the first enacting clause of
the Bill, to this effect l—" Provided always, that
Nothing in this Act he construed to discharge or
indemnity any person against whom- any action
bad been brought for the exercise of undue seve-
rity against persons apprehended." Gentlemen
would admit that there might he doubts entertain-
ed on the subject, and therefore should not object
to putting it past all doubt. He mold, ask, what
`was meant by the words " advised and done
For on looking hack to the former Acts, he (mind
these words in the English, but nor in the Irish
Act. Why, if they Were necessary to be inserted
at all, were they in one Act and not in the other?
Perhaps it would he convenient to know, whe-
ther Gentlemen would recognise the principle he
had stated, before the third reading; of the Bill ;,
because if not, be should move as an amendment,
that the Bill be recommitted.

The Right lion. Baronet having sat down for
en instant, and having received a hint from the
opposite side, tending to negative his idea that
Iris principle would be recognised, rose, and said
lie should then move the recommitment of the Bill.

The SPEAKER said, some difficulty might be felt
in this respect in point of form. He was not
RWAte that any Bill had been recommitted after the
Older for the third reading. The Order was,
that the Bill he read a third time this day, if then
engrossed. This had been the course, and he did
not know of any such course as the coMmitment
of a Bill on suck an occasion. But as the present
Bill had come engrossed front the Lords, so much
was lei.t out as related to the forms of this House.
Ltit vvith respect to any ai,eration of the clauses,
it was just as open to make then) On the third
reading as it could be it the Bill were re-com-
witted ; and if be were right, hjore the Bill
would be open for the alterations of the lion. Bi-
rOnet, it most be read a third time, when he could
propose them on the question that the Bill do
pass.
Mr. WYNNE said a few words on this point of
Order.

After a few further remarks from Sir William
Burroughs, the. Speaic.vr, Lord Castlereagh, and
Mr. Bathurst, it was decided that the amend-
ments should he received on the questiOn raised
on the passing of the Bill.

Sir Lir‘ttoN did not rise to propose any
amendment to the Bill, as he thought the niea-
sure so objectionable, that no atnendments .could
snake it palatable. lie considered it -difficult,
under any circumstances, to justify the suspensjou
of the Habeas Corpus Act. If the suspension
were necessary at all, lie would contend'it 'Was as
necessary now as it had ever been. He denied
that it bad been necessary, and of Chis the.people
were sensible. Public opinion: had now passed
its childhood. It had gained maturity; and would,.
be trusted„mark its sense attic late proccedhigS
at the ensuing General Election.
The House then divided, when the numbers
uere as follows :

Ayes

Noes 23

Majority in favour of the ad readin,s.. 59

i;gurt,ottt -rose to trove that tbere sbOidd
be added a 'clause, after the first enacting 'clause
of tile Bill, founded on a'prineiple which Minis-
ters bad already said had their approbation; It
went to provide that the Indemnity should not
extend to any act of undue severity that might
have been exercised on persons arrested and de-
tained during the suspension at the Habeas Corpus
Act. _ .

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL objected to /hi,
amendment, as it appeared to him wholly unne-
cessary. The Sheriff o 1 other Officer was justi-
fied by this Bill in arresting and detaining any per-
son against whom he might have a writ, hut not
in treating the party with undue rigour or cruelty.
The, Bill, as it now stood, only indemnified the
parties for the apprehension'and detention of per-
sons Charged with treasonable practices, in such a
way as by law was considered necessary for such
apprehension and such detention. Why then
should a proviso be introduced to except that
which was not in tact embraced by the Bill ?
The same question had been started in 1801,
• when the answer now given was deemed satis-
factory.
Zslt. P. MOORE considered the Bill, as it at pre-
''sent stood, to give indemnity to all persons "rho
had acted tinder -the Habeas Corpus Suspension
Act, however wicked and enormous their conduct
might have been. He entered his most solemn
• protest against every operation carried into effect
undo -the present system, which he contended had
introduced a bastard Constitution in place of the
legii•imate Constitution of England.
Mr. IV:SMITH spoke in favour of the amend-
ment. Ile entered at some length into the case
of Ogden, which he' held to he one that, instead
of exciting laughter, ought to move compassion
towards the party, and compunction in the minds
of Ministers that such a case had occurred in this
country. He for one wished to *know, if those
who had treated that man with undue severity, as
it appeared, could be prosecuted if the clause now
proposed should be rejected ;? He wished to
know, if the -parties, on being proceeded against,
could plead the Act of Indemnity in bar to the
act ion

Mile ',ATTCRNEY-GENERAL said, unquestionably
not.

Mr. W. SMITn was very glat! of that. Ile
thought the object his Hon. 'Friend had in view
in a great• measure gained, since this statement
had been made. Ile, nevertheless, wished the
clause to be adopted, that no doubt whatever
might remain. lie thought this desirable, as'he
believed there were scores of jailers and under-
lings in the .country, who were so deficient in
common-sense as well as common feeling; that
they could believe they Were recommending thern-
selves to -their superiors by treating those coin-
tnitte►l to their care with severity.
Ldrd - CASTLEREAGH thought the greatest in-
convenience would result from adOpting the
ATllendrucut, as nothing was more d►►ngerous than
the introduction of unnecessary qualificatiOns to
an enactment. The law had heel► Feld down with
such precision by the Attorney-General, that no
doubt could be entertained on the subject. The
Indemnity Bill went merely to justify the appre-
hension and detention of those tvho bad been
rested for treasonable practices, and did not
justify cruelty to the persons so Confined. Persons
who had acted thug might be brought before a
Jury. It was asked if they ►night plead this Bill
in bar to the action. They might plead the ge-
neral issue, and give in the act,' but the Judge
would leave it to the Jury to determine whether
the confinement the parties had suffered was that
confinement which had been meant by the IRK',
and he apprehended there could be no question, if
they had been treated with cruelty, that sncheon-
duct could not he jut•tified under the present Bill-
The hardships which Ogden was said to have en-
dured, he wished it to he understood, were not to
be considered as proved. They had been strongly
asserted on the • one side, and as Strongly denied
on the other. The Bill did not go to justify all
sorts of cruelties- and enormities, as had been
stated, nor did it touch the cases of spies and
informers.

Mr. SMYTH (of Cainbridge) described the Act
to go to indemnify " every act or proceeding"
that might he proved to have taken place in arrest-
ing or detaining persons suspected of treasonable
practices. The clause, now proposed could do no
harm, and might do some good.
Mr. BATtitt.as.r asserted the.qucstion now raised
to have .been mooted in 1801, on a Bill which, on
this point, was verbatim the same with the pre-
Sent. The answer .then given was similar to that
which bad now been offered, and this was at that
ptriod deemed satisfactory. An opinion given in
that 'House on the meaning of ri'law was entitled
to great weight, but the opinion given on this
subject gained -additional importance in the
in-
stance referred to, as coming from 'the Attorney-
Generdl of that day, who was now the'Noble
Lord at the head of the law. The acts of cruelty
Opposed by the Right Hon: Baronet would not
be covered by this Bill, which went but to give
indemnity for the apprehension_ and detention of
those who had beets confined. 'lie replied to what
bad been said on the subjectof Ogden'S case, who
:lad reeeired surgical assistance in town he coold
hot lime had in the country, in consequence of
which .he. had described himself to be ." a new
man," as he had been cured of W complaint'Which
'had afflicted hint for more than 20 years.. • .

Mr. LYTTLETON censured the manner in which
Ogden's.casc had.heen treated in that House, and
also the rapidity with which the present Bill had
been-carried through its stages. lie was not sa-
tiffetl with what had been stated 'on the. other
side. To him the Bill appeared to be so worded
that every thing which had taken place might he
defended under it. Whatever the opiniOn.of the
Noble Lord who had been refeired.to might have
been when he W 9- Attortiey.'General, by no
Means rotliiiVed' 0S- a matter of Course that -.he
would hold the same opinion hereafter when this..
Bill should have passed into a law. Those, hOW-
e'ver, 'on the opposite. side, wee so much in the
habit of making what was said in that House law,
lhafther could colisider• an opinion' gii.en
thief; which suited their purpose, .to be equal to
law. Be contlen.ned the proceedings on which
this Bill was founded, which he held to he one
of the rti'(st iin'peetinent. and •niischievohs farces
that had-ever been periormed ;• he held it to be a

mockery to say alai any inquiry itaa 'taken place
at all.

Lord CAsTt,set3Malt and Mi*.LYTTLEToi( seVe•
rally explained.
Sir S. RoSiterA Said the Act Went to indemnify
for " Any matter or thing done for the pto'pose
of confining persons.Chatged with certain prac-
tices. He did not set, therefore, how an action
could be maintained that should be brought against
a person for tiny act that had been done' for such
a purpose. If it should be argued in a
,Court of
Law, that any " necessary" act Was memo, the
Court would ask why the word " necessary" had
not appeared in the Bill. He most conscientiously
did not believe that such a construction would be
put upon the Act as his Learned Friend had anti-
cipated. The Right Hon. Gentleman (Mr.
Bathurst) had said, the opinion given in that
House 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 detentions as were necessary to secure the
persons it ho had been confined, let the n•tn•d
•' necessary" be introduced into the Bill, and he
would give up the clause.
The SOLICITOR•GENRRAL considered the argu-
ment of the Learned Gentleman to go thus—that
the Bill ivas to be considered, as it no►v stood, to
have the sante meaning as if, instead of wanting
the weird " oecessary," it contained the word
" unnecessary." He held that all " unnecessary"
acts of rigour Would be protected by the Bill as
it at present stood. This was the whole argo-
Ment nu the other side of the House. 'But' be
was of opinion no lawyer could contend with any
hopes of success that such was really the mean-
ing of the Act, for if that were done which were
" unnecessary," it could not be for the purposes
set forth in the Bill. If any " unnecessary" ri-
gour were exercised, it could not have been for
the purpose of apprehending or detaining the pat-
ties ; it must have been tur sonic other purpose,
tied would therefore not be covered by this Bill.
The word "-necessary," if introthiced, would
therefore be superfluous. He objected 'tea - the
clause proposed, because it went to put it into the
heads of the people that acts were proved to have
been committed which were denied, and it might
be the .cause of actions being brought which
otherwise• would never he thought of -by those
supposed to be aggrieved.
Mr. Raoucnast.—:When the difference between
the opinions of the two'last Speakers-was seen—
when there was all the difference of " aye" or
" no" between them, appealed to the House if
the meaning of the Bill ought 'to he left thus
vagtiely expressed—if they'ooght not to 'blear tip
their way as ' they went, that no doubt on the
subject might remain. - But the word necessary
was objected to as surplusage. How long, he
could wish to knom, bad it buen tl►e practice to
make Acts of Parliament so concise that not one
snperfluOns word could be adinitted ? The prac-
tice must have arisen since this'Bill had been en-
grossed. To be' convinced of this, it Was only
necessary to look at the Bill now before the
House. It would be seen that it mentioned
" disturbances dangerous to the peace." This
might be thought sufficient, but to this was add-
ed, "and tranquillity." in the same way it
spoke of "terror," and then added "intimidation."
Where the author took his style front he knew
not, if he might call it style. But lie remembered
Lord Kenyein, speaking of the composition of an
auctioneer, bad denied that the word " style"
was applicable to it, but had called it his (the
auctioneer's) penmanship. The author's pen-
manship then went on to state, that it was fit
means should be taken to keep the -information
which had been received " secret" and " undis-
closed." Even in the very clause into which it
had been suggested the word ".necessary" might
he introduced, they found the expressions, " for
or on account of any act, matter, or thiag." But
there this prolixity was to stop, and not a word
more was to he added which could not bear the
most scrupulous criticism. He wished for some
deviation from the fine classical style which
it was thought right thenceforward to main-
tain, to introduce one little word, even though►
it should be unnecessary, which however he
did not conceive it to be-. He contended
the opinion given by Lord Ellenborough when lie
was Atrorney-General might nor be the same
which be would now hold on the present mea-
sure; and he should like to hear the Attorney-.
General endeavouring to prove that the 'opinion
he himself entertained was a second One, because
such had been formerly entertained by the Noble
Lord himself, as it appeared, not from East's Re-
ports, but from Cohbett's Parliamentary Debates.
To him (Mr. Brougham) it appeared that the
clause would be liable to the construction which
had beet► put upon it on that side' of t'it
In common pat lance that was said to be done for
a particular purpose, when more than enough was
done. He doubted not he was then affording an
instance of this, by urging sevaral arguments
when one would beguile sufficient ; or at least by
doing what was not very uncommon in that House,
namely, by making a long speech when a shott
Otte would do.

I\l r. W. WYNNE did not think the proposed clause
important but had no objection to the introduction
°Hite word " neessary" into the Bid. He did
not know whether any decision had ever been come
to on the Act of the 24th George 11. authorising
Magistrates todetain perbons under certain circtim-
stances;that could in any way guide their ri 'pions
on 'the present occasion.
Sir ..lon N NEWPORT then said he would, with
the leave of the .House, withdraw his clause.
' The clause Was. then withdrawn.

Bunaotions -Moved a clause, providing
that the Indemnity should not eSt end. to persons
arrested in consequence Of information maliciously
given. He said that the question upon this clause
was 'very flinch the some as that on the clause last
debated, only that the Clawse'tvhich he notv moved
.wits stil; more comprehensive; and went to a much
greater length.
The clause *as theri'brought up and read a first

ThCATTORNCY G‘E'.NERAL said, if the 11ouse

. ,
ivere'io.ariopl th'e keit may i oultl 1?11
at once to reject the Bill. Upon what principle
%vat the Bill founded ? It was this, that *hat had
been done to apprehend and dettin persons Was
done fairly and i)ontifide, and therefore that Ma-7
gistratee and others sinitild be protected for ang
.act done with this good intention. The whole
effect of this clause would be to authorise an in'
vestigation into all the circiutistances On
the Magistrate acted—to bring out what was the
evidence brought before him—and, in short, t°
allow that to he doee which it was the whole oh"
ject of the Bill of 'Nth:limit,' to prevent. If the
Hoitse was inclined to reject the Bill, let it be re7'
jected; but do not allow it to pass with a clause
which would undermine its whole object.

The clanse was then rcjected without a diViSiOr:

Sir W. 81111ROUGIIS then referred to that pas ..
sage of the preamble of the Bill which stated thn,
it was expedient the information on which I\V e:
gistrates acted should t emain secret and undie
closed. fie recapitulated the six various Bills of
Indemnity passed since the Revolution till that of.
1801, and said, that-in nut one of them wft-. there
any such recital as this, nor any operativfi.elausd
for the purpose of secrecy. Ile therefore wished
to' know on what principle it was DOW introduced.
He admitted, indeed, that it h d heel) introduced
in the Bill of 1801. But he hoped the 110110
would now reject it. lie moved, that this pas-
sage of the preamble be omitted.

Sir F. Flooo said that the digcnntented heart
oh the other side Of the Hruse might Ir satisfitd
without declamatory Speeches made ad captandurri
vulgus.—(Laughter !)—This Bill was founded or).
a Report made by the first characters in the king,''
dom, among whom was the Noble Secretary for,
the Foreign Department.--(Laughter !)—He had
seen it stated in an Opposition Paper that the
Duke of Wellington should have been. a meinhe-i'
of that Committee. He thought he should, for
he had proved himself the fittest of men for that
purpose, as he had. reconciled the jarring interest`;.
Of the powers of Europe, and given peace to the.
world. He was glad it had not: been necessary
to extend the Suspension Bill to Ireland. Thant-0
to the people of Ireland—thanks to' the Magi-
strates of Ireland—thanks to the excellent Grip
vernmeht of that country, which had made the
people of Ireland set an example of tranquillity
the people of England.—(Laughter

The motion was then rejected without

division.

Sir JOHN NEWPnRT then proposed an arnendii
meta in the preamble, setting forth drat 01.1!(
damages which should be awarded by a Jur!,
against any Magistrate or person, acting
authority, for any commitment, shoUld be de"
frayed out of the public purse. Fie:--.:stated Oa'
it was-always usual, in cases of copture;lfdamag('
were awarded against the commanding officer.
.the amount of them was paid from the
revenue, viz. front the Droits of the AdaliraltY-
The case to which this clause would extend ‘rfil
perfectly analogous. Ile then ntoed a Clause td
this effect.

The ATTORNEY-GRNRRAL said, the amendment
would be inconsistent with the preamble, which
set forth that no proce••cliogs relative to the.c.a.6"
mentioned therein should he instituted in a Colr.o
ot Justice. To insert the clause would make "e
preamble a collection ot unintelligible nonseio'
Sir J. NEWPORT said he intended, if the arnen;r-
ment in- the preamble were agreed to, to propose,
a corresponding in the operative part 01
the Bill. Therefore 'be submitted that there
would he neither inconsistency nor nonsense is
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said, that even if nil
operative clause to the effect mentione,l by the
1-lon. Baronet were introduced, till there teoulti
be a total contradiction in the preamble, if the
amendment now proposed was agreed to.
Mr. W. SMITII spoke in favour of the amen'"
went. The principles of justice required that s"°l
an•arnendment should be introduced into the Bil,t"
The amendment was then rejected without

tilt W. Bußnovcris,roseto propose an amendment 11;
latire to cases in which houses had been broken into to set
arms and papers without warrant. • He moved that the W‘',l4
in .the Bill," person or persons," in the part which retatr"
such cases, should be omitted, for the purpose of inscrtillt°
the words " Magistrate, Justice of the Peace," &c.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said, the Bill as it stood 131.4
plied all that was intended lry the amendment.
The amendment was then rejected without a division.
AT r..1;11.. AM movedUGll the insertion of the war";
'' which may have been necessary," after the words, "
or on account of any act, matte?, or thing."
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL thongirt the insertion
these words completely unnecessary, and went. to weakelt
principle of the Cotsnomi Law, which supposed that n'l'tt's-
any persons were indemnified for certain acts, that such
were necessary. The only effect of insertirg these words
would he to cast a diubt upon this principle.
Mr. TIERNEY wifdred to correct an opinion that insert :1
these words would violate a principle of law, since-the f%
was, that this Bill violated the principle of ail law.
ilje
therefore wished to know whether it was tau much on bovs,,,,
of the people of EngThind to require the introduction of ts 3
words to slew how far the Constitution was to be set
nought.
Mr. LOCK HART said, the rules of Common Law, V.°cn
implied all that was contained in the words, were suflicienthpio
uniler,t suds and always acted on in the Coat ts Of Law.
words were therefor,. needless.
After a few words in furour of the Amendinent front "`"
W. WYNNE, the House divided—
Ayes 34
Noes 149
Majority against the Amendincnt..-110

. ,
On the question that the Bill pass,
Mr. BROUGHAM. said he ban not the least' intention, 1,1
renew the discussion of the-Bill; but he felt it to be his oaq:
to state, that not one .of the reasons which he had tirito_.
against this Bill was in the least shaken by any thing that ho"
been said upon the subject, or by the result of any Of
divisions. The whole Bin remained as ohjectiobable, and it
principle as detestable, as ever. . • .
Mr, TEERNEY.—He had not troubled the House with one
Word on this Bill, for he felt it imiiessible to add any tote
to the unanswerable'argillTiS urged against it, 15
particulaliY,
with so much ability by Ilk thui. Friend who spoke last.. ".
s.
he thought it his duty in these fe.w.worits to enter his prote
against the whole measiire, which he Ihoagfit one of the nio'
detestable that had ever been propoied to Parliament.
Mr. WYNNE, spoke shortly in favour of the Bill.
Mr. I'. MOOItF spoke against it.
The Gallery wag then cleared for a division, but none Oak
place.—The Bill was passed. -t
The County Coroners' Bill was brought in, and read a 51-'
time. .
C
The other Orders of the Day were then disposed 0,, 3
the House adjourned at Half-past Ten &Una.

LONDON: Prititcd by 3. B. C,II2STAIII.I, of No, 29, (:e"-
Oni)Ofid-flecet, QueeolsOnce; publisliod -1)V
IetIVPS, .o£T
7,, South 'Molton-street, at' kit •411'.
Office, No. 112, Straud ; 'where, Advoti,senients,. Of'ie' 5f
Letters, (post-paid) mast be aildretsed.

s'ke

Fzul
.Pi,

1