The Sun.
London, England, 1818-03-12 00:00:00

INDEMNITY BILL.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL having moved the
Order of the Day for the House resolving itself
into a Committee on the Indemnity Bill,
Sir S. ItomILLY rose to oppose the Bill. He
objected not only to the general principle of the
Bill, hut to all its parts. When it was consider-
ed that the general object of all government was
the administration of justice, and when it was re-
collected that the object of this Bill was to pre-
vent persons who :nay have been injured from
having that remedy-which the law provided for
them, be trusted the House would look well to
the provisions of the Bill itself, as well as to the
circumstances under which it was brought before
the House. It must he admitted, that it was only
in those extreme cases where the safety of the
State was at stake that such an extraordinary
measure should be resorted to. The House there-
fore ought to enter upon this with the solemnity
'to be observed in the exercise of judicial func-
tions—he said judicial, because the House was
now called upon to decide upon the causes of a
number of individuals, when they were in igno-
rance 'even of the very facts of their cases, and
were called upon to decide in the dark—to de-
clare that the doors of our own Courts of justice
should be closed against a number of individuals
unknown, who had sustained unknown wrongs.

These circumstances, however, were peCuliar to
all Bills of Indemnity, and they ought to make
the House extremely cautious how it decided up-
on them.' The present Bill might be said 'to rom-
prebend three different objects :—first, to indent-
ray his Majesty's Ministers againit the conse-
quences of acts done by them, not under the Sus-
pension Act, for that was itself an' indemnity
against all things done tinder its authority, but in
the execution of what they might have conceived
to be their duty in preserving the peace of the
country; secondly, to indemnify Magistrates for
acts done by them in suppressing disorders ;
thirdly, to protect those individuals who had given
information to Government from the effects of
having their information disclosed. As to the
first of these objects, he were sure there were
,many MeMbers in the House who bad very much
mistaken the nature of the Bill, especially two
Hon. Gentlemen (Mr. Marryatt and Mr. Pre.
theme), both of whom, on a former evening,
had said that they voted-in favour of the Bill, be-
cause they thought it the duty of. Parliament to
protect Ministers for acts done by them • in the
execution of those extraordinary powers commit-
ted by the Legislature into their hands. This
was a great mistake. The Suspension Act was
an indemnity for allproceedings authorised by it.
It was stated in the Reports of the Secret Com-
mittees of both Houses, that one man had been.
arrested for treason, or on suspicion of treason,
but only upon information on 041 h. Indeed his
Majesty's Ministers at times admitted that this
Bill was not wanted. for themselves, but only to
screen those persons who had given information.
The statement that the committals had all been
on information given on oath, was no satisfac-
tion to him. The persons who gave that infor-
mation did so, knowing that whether it was true
or false, they would never be called to account
for it ; indeed the Attorney-General bad actually
said, that the informations had been given under
a promise of secrecy. This was no warrant
whatever for depriving any subject of his
liberty, and to administer an oath to the in-
former ander such circumstances was a use-
less ceremony. He did not say that his
Majesty's Ministers bad abused the powers en-
trusted to them ; but he did say there was no
reason for saying that these powers had not been
abused. One Hon. Gentleman (Mr. Preeinantle)
who spoke on this subject on a former -evening,
and who began his speech by professing his con-
sistency, said that there was no reason to accuse
Ministers of the abuse of that power but what
was founded on petitions presented to the House,
every one of which had been disproved. This was
one small mistake of the Hon. Gentleman, and it
was no less than taking a denial for proof. It was
to be recollected that the House was called upon
to; give protection to Magistrates for acts into the
nature of which all examination was refused. This
refusal Was as' much as telling the people out of
doors—" You need present no more petitions to
us." On a former evening, when it had been
truly observed, that not one of his Majesty's Mi-
nisters took a part in the debate, the answer was,
that it was not to be expected of Ministers that
they should be over-ready to take part in a debate,
the subject of which was their own conduct. And
this answer was just. But how was it consistent
with this that Ministers should have formed the
very Committee that was to examine into their
conduct, and even it might he said that they drew
up the Report of that Committee ? It was absurd
to say that the mode of electing tie Committee
by ballot made it the less the Committee chosen
by Ministers themselves, since it was notorious
that the lists for the Committee were made out
and distributed by Ministers ; indeed it appeared
that out of 103 lists 97 were found by the Scru-
tineers to be in the same hand-writing. In pro-
gress of time it would probably be found more
econotnical to have the lists for the ballots of such
Committees- printed. And yet the Committee
thus chosen was said not to be the Committee of
Ministers. Mention bad been made of the pre-
cedents for Bills of this kind. So far as he knew
(and he spoke with diffidence, because be had not
been able to examine that part of the question so
minutely as he wished) there was no instance of
such a Bill of Indemnity as the present except that
of 1501. It was tree that on the several other occa-
sions on which theHabeasCorpus had been suspend-
ed, the Suspension. Acts had been followed by Bills
of Indemnity, but in none of these cases was the
Indemnity Bill introduced as the consequence of
the Suspension. After the Suspensions at the Re-
volution—the Rebellion of 1715—and that of
1745, there had been Acts of Indemnity, but they
had no reference to the Suspension of the Habeas
Corpus ; they were occasioned solely by the cir-
cumstances of extraordinary clanger to the coun-
try. No Act of Indemnity at all followed time Sus-
pension at the time of Atterbury's conspiracy, or
that which took place during the American war.
As to the second object of the Bill—the protec-
tion of the Magistrates, he would ask whether
the House was not taken by surprise in find-
ing any provision upon this subject in the
Bill ? The only case in which it Appeared that
the Magistrates had exercised extraordinary pow-
ers was in the proceedings at Manchester ; and
there the prisoners were dismissed, and not brought,
to trial. But the Statute of George the Second
was sufficient indemnity to Magistrates in such a
case. Why was the effect pf the Bill carried back
to all proceedings since the 26th of January,
1817 ? There was something. black sad mysteri-
ous in this, which Ministers were afraid to dis-
close. One part of the. Bill had been most just-
ly animadverted upon, namely, that which justi-
fied the seizing ot.papers. In the whole of our
law books there was no judgment to he found
which had given more general satisfaction than
that memorable one of the late Lord Camden Iv

'on tiers subject. There were before the lionce
petitions from persons who stated that their
houses bad been broken into and ransacked by the
authority of Magistrates, to search them for libels ;
that the .petitioners themselves had been carried
to th'e House of Correction, loaded with irons,
and compelkd to bard labour. Such was the ccin-
sequence of the celebrated Circular Letter issued
last year_ by Lord Sidmonth. Could any thing
be more mousaroesly illegal than tbat a man,
without trial, should he loaded with irons and
condemned to hard lal,oer in a House of Correc-
tion, fur a crime of which, even if be had been
found guilty, the law would have awarded no
such punishment ? He particularly referred to
the statement of the petitioner (hitherto uncon-
tradicted) named Charles Swindon, who had suf-
fered such treatment ; nay, worse, his house
broken open at the dead of night—his :wife, far
advanced in pregnancy, dragged from her bed—
the house ransacked, and the petitioner himself
carried to prison. The consequences were, the
premature labour of his wife, the death of
his child, and the most revolting cruelties
exercised upon the man himself, and all this
because he was suspected of having in his pos-
session certain libellous papers. This at least
remained. The House might pass this Bill--they
might pass Bills to suspend or destroy the liberties
of the people, bat they could not suspend the laws
of God and Nature—they could not deliver the
perpetrators of such acts from the torments of a
guilty conscience. He contended that the cir-
cumstances on which the Indemnity Bill of 1801
bad been founded were very different from the
present. Then there had been supposed and real
conspiracies with a foreign enemy, and the pre-
tence was, that to discover the names of the per-
sons who had given information would be to ex-
pose them to his vengeance. Now it was that
they would have to fear the fury of the populace
and the actions of the persons whose confinement
they had occasioned. But was it not known that
witnesses brought forward iii Courts of Law were
perfectly safe, and had any of those who had given
evidence at Derby manifested any apprehension of
ill-treatment ? The House were called upon to
embody iu a law a declaration that such was the
situation of the country, that persons giving infor-
rotation of conspiracies dangerous to the State
could not do it safely without the protection of
Parliament. He would not give his sanction to
such a falsehood. A new system was thus at-
tempted to be established. Persons were employ-
ed to sustain characters which did not belong to
them, to go among the disaffected and excite them
to insurrection, and then they were to he protect-
ed by the House ! Notwithstanding the ridicule to
which be had rendered himself obnoxious, he
should still contend, that the employment of spies,
in the manner in which Oliver had been employed,
could not be justified. Had this man not appeared
among the diseffected as an Ambassador from
London, they would not have stirred a hand. No
one could read the Derby Trials without seeing
that those deluded men relied entirely on his state-
ments and promises. But it was said those men
were disaffected, otherwise the supposed repre-
sentations of Oliver could have had no effect upon
them, and consequently he did not deserve the
blame cast upon him. Were Ministers aware,
that in saying this they were taking exactly the
same ground of defence as Vaughan, e execration
of mankind I—He did not speak of Brock
nod his accomplices, for they had attempted to
betray innocent men into crime. But Vaughan
had engaged thieves by trade to commit an easy
burglary, in order to seize them, and obtain the
miserable reward given as the price of blood. It
was to sanction a similar conduct in his Majes-
ty's Ministers that the House was called upon to
pass the present Bill. But even its importance
shrunk into nothing when a higher considera-
tion was embraced, and it was viewed as part of
an oppressive system, to deprive individuals of
their most valuable liberties, and then indemnify
111agistrates for all acts which they had done (even
those not under the Suspension of the Habeas
Corpus) in open defiance of justice. Amid the
House were told that this was a necessary conse-
quence of the Suspension Act ! So that in future,
Magistrates would know that as soon as the Ha-
beas Corpus should he suspended, they might
eommit every illegal and unjust act they pleased,
and be sure that they must of necessity be pro-
tected by a Bill like the present !—He knew that
this melancholy precedent would be established,
and that it would he said in future times that the
House had refused inquiry whilst ifs Journals re-
corded cases of the most flagrant injustice and
cruelty. His only consolation was, that when
these proceedings should be read, when these pre-
cedents should be turned against the people, and
all constitutional freedom destroyed with all jus-
tice, it would be known that there ha'l been a
few individuals, who, conscious that they would
be overpowered by numbers, and that the down-
fall of time public liberties would he hailed by the
acclamations of majorities, had protested against
such acts of violence, and endeavoured to lead
back their country to a system of laws and justice,
which had been its own boast, and the envy of
sutrounding nations. His Majesty's reign had
been distinguished by many brilliant victories,
but Ministers would end by a melanenoly triumph
over the liberties of their country, and in the words
of its immortal Bard,

That England, wont to conquer other nations,
Hath galled a shameful conquest o'er herself."

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL contended, that his
Bon. and Learned Friend had kept out of sight,
with consummate skill, the circumstances which
bad led to the measures adopted last Session, and
ultimately to the proposal of the present
He then took a view of the conspiracies on which
the Repots of the Committees and the Suspension
Acts of 1 51 Thad been founded. After having
obtained extraordinary powers on the ground of
necessity alone, his Majesty's Ministers had sur-
rendered them as soon as that necessity had
ceased, though the time fixed for their duration
had not-yet expired. There had since been a new
inquiry, and the Bill now before the House had
been recommended. It had,been said that Mi-
.uisters wished. an indemnity-..for the. illegal acts
which they had committed. He denied it. Ile
denied that they had exceeded the powers en -
t rusted to their hands. The real ground on which
the 13111 was asked fur was, that if the circumstances

'of -ct tnitr7 were suci, 'as to r'elnite extraor-
dinary powers, they were also such as eo justify
tie idts done by Government in, the exercise of
those powers to protect the peace of the nation,
' The Bill itself did not recite that his Majesty's
Ministers had exceeded the powers of the Act.—
It would then be said, what was its necessity ?
It was necessary,. because it was not consistent
with the safety of the country that the names of
the persons who had given information should be
disclosed. Not that Ministers could not be able
to defend themselves in any action which might
be brought against them,' but because they could
not do it without sacrificing the faith pledged to
individuals whose names it was the more important
to conceal as long as disaffection continued to
exist in the country, that sources of information
might be retained. As to the charge that Ma-
gistrates had exceeded their powers, and made
themselves amenable to the laws, what evidence
had been produced ? They.bad been represented
as having entered the houses of individuals ac-
cused of libels, and searched for papers; his Ho-
nourable and Learned Friend was wrong, it
he thought that the present Bill would protect
them in such cases. It only extended indemnity
to them if they had acted so towards individuals
charged with high treason, and against whom
warrants had been issued. As to the case of
Swindon, which his Hon. and Learned Friend
had stated with so much effect to the House, as
it was one of libel, he would have a remedy in
law against the Magistrate, notwithstanding the
Bill of Indemnity, it ha bad suffered in the man-
lier which had been described. In 1780, there
had been no suspension of the Habeas Corpus,
and nothing but the necessity of the case had
made Magistrates act beyond the powers of the
law. That was therefore a case in point. For
it there had existed any necessity at Manchester
for committing persons immediately to prison in
order to prevent mischief, the Bill should give in-
demnity for the Act. As to the employment of
spies, lie contended that no two cases could he
more dissimilar than that of Vaughan and the de-
fence made on the present occasion. Had it not
been negatived by the First Report itself that
Oliver had been sent- by Government to create
disturbances in the country, for did not the Re-
port state, long before Oliver bad been heard of
by his Majesty's Ministers, that a dangerous con-
spiracy existed ? Did his Hon. and Learned
Friend wean to say that Government had sent
Oliver purposely to produce and contrive the very
riot for the discovery of which he was employed ?
Witnesses had declared at Derby, that they had
been deterred from coming forward earlier, on ac-
count of the threats used, and lest they should
lose their lives. ‘Vhat would have been said if
Braudreth had been taken up before his enter- •
prise, and no insurrection had occurred ?—(Hear,
hear, from the Opposition !)-1171iy it would have
been said, that for men of such a class ro form
such an attempt was impossible, and that no
plot had ever existed. He contended that the
means used by Ministers had alone prevented the
explosion of other insurrections ; and that in
justice to them, the Magistrates, and the country,
a Bill of Indemnity ought to be passed.

Sir F. BURDETT observed that the Hon. and
Learned Gentleman who had just sat down had
' taken it for granted that the circumstances of the
country last year justified the measures which had
been adopted. This was the very point on which
he ought to have brought proofs, if he could,
which he had not done. He had said that the
Bill was not to protect his Majesty's Ministers,
but to prevent them from being forced to disclose
the sources of the information on which they had
acted. This was an argument which could nut be
supported. What, were men to be deprived of
their liberty, and never know who their accusers
were ? And this was pronounce:l a pat t of the new
system to be established ! He recollected that there
was formerly a lion's head in the Place of St,
Mark, at Venice, into which secret accusations
were thrust, and the atrociously despotic Govern-
ment of that city used to act upon them. What.
difference was there between such a country and
one where there was a Secretary of State ready to
receive every secret accusation, and to conceal and
protect informers ? He really believed the dis-
turbances to have been created by Ministers, in
order to prevent themselves from being impor-
tuned about Parliamentary Reform, for he found
that they alone could derive any benefit front them.
They bad violated the Coronation Oath, the laws
of the country, the Constitution, and the liber-
ties of the people. ►'hen they had asked for the
powers which they had so scandalously abused, it
hal not been with a view to indemnity. They
had obtained them by telling the House, that in
assuming them they should labour under a heavy
responsibility, and that the time must come when
they must give a strict account of the manner in
which they had used them. But the whole of
their transactions had been illegal and unconsti-
tutional, and the abuses of power which they had
committed were of a nature which ought not to be
indemnified. He then repeated the statements
contained in several petitions presented to the
House, respecting the cruel treatment alleged to
have been inflicted on prisoners under the Sus-
pension Act, who had been discharged as illegally
as they had been apprehended. He thought that
there should always be some proportion be-
tween the end and the means, for it was ridi-
culous to fear that Brandreth, with a few weavers,
should be able to destroy an army like that kept
on foot by Government. He knew very well that
lawyers considered intention as constituting guilt;
but suppose that the King should be passing, and
that a man should blow a feather and say, " that's
to kill the King," would that be treason ? He
still saw no reason either for suspending the Ha-
beas Corpus or confining individuals, and should
therefore give his vote against going into the
Committee.

Mr. LAW saw little more in the speech of the
Hun. Baronet than his usual extraordinary zeal in
the cause of Reform.- Let him know, however,
that Reform could only be discussed with Success,
not at a period of disturbances, but in a state of
complete tranquillity, such as that likely to be
produced by the measures of his Majesty's 114i-
!livers. The dangers which existed at the time•
when the Suspension Act had last year been passed,
scented now to he forgotten, and that monstrous
union of Luddism anti politics, formed into a sys-

tern of teg ul a r plundee and orgatilied assassina-
tion. • On those clangers the Act 'of Suspension
had been fo'unded, and thoOgh not iMmediately
consequent upon, yet connected with it, was the
present Bal. Ile contended that Ministers 'ought
to be borne harmless, unless it should be proved
that they had exceeded their powers. That they
had made a moderate use of them, there was some
proofs before the House. The number of indi-
viduals taken up was small that showed some
moderation ; none of- them had been confined,
save on information confirmed by an oath—that
displayed some discretion. There was besides the
opinion of two Committees. 'Prue, it was said
that those Committees had been appointed by Mi-
nisters, and bad a cause to support. But let the
opponents of the measure appoint their own Com-
mittee, and let the House see which of the two
would be honoured with the coofidenee of the

country. It the opinions of such Committees
were to be discredited, was implicit faith to be
p►aced in the petitions presented to the House ?
(Hear, hear !)—But suppose the same degree: of
credit should be given to both, yet the Bill must
be voted, as no case had been made out against it.
The Hon. and Learned Gentleman might have

had charity enough to suppose, that persons

coming to give important information on oath
were not guided by resentment, especially as he
had represented the declaration of one of the men
of Derby as entitled to credit, because he was
religions.
Sir S. ItomiLLY.—l never said that, nor any
thing like it.
Mr. LAW was glad that he bad been mistaken.
The Hon and Learned Gentleman, however, had
charged his Majesty's Ministers with a gross libel
on the wkole people.
Sir S. RoMILY.—I never said that.
Mr. LA w was sorry that he should have so com-
pletely misunderstood the Hon. and Learned Gen-
denten. He supposed that the expression had
been used by another lion. and Learned Member
behind him—
Mr.
BROUGHAM—I have not spoken a single
sentence !
Mr. LAW had beard the sentiment expressed by
so many Gentlemen on that side of the House,
that it was not astonishing be should have lost
sight of its original propounder. He then de-
fended the conduct of the Magistracy, and trusted
that they would continue to do their duty, to put
down the spirit of insurrection, and to deserve
and enjoy the approbation of the country. The
'louse had a duty to perform towards those whO
had given information. it had to shelter them
from the daggers of assassins. The real ques-
tion was, whether the House would protect
those who prevented, or those who committed
offences

Sir WILLIAM 13IIIIROUGIIS maintained, that not-
withstanding what had been said to the contrary,
the very first clause of the Bill sheaved that it was
intended to indemnify Ministers for hating ex-
ceeded their powers. It was indeed the first time
that he had heard it asserted that a man who issued
a warrant on information given upon oath might
enter into an engagement to keep that information
a profound secret. His Majesty's. Ministers had
last year come down to the House to ask for
greater powers than the occasion required.. They
had obtained them ; and their first act had been
to exceed them. And on what ground had they
exceeded them 1 Lest any danger should accrue to
the persons who had given the information. But
there had been trials in London, at Derby, and
at York ; and haul any one heard of any of the
witnesses produced on those occasions having
been attacked ? He believed that the individuals
taken up had been discharged that they might bring
no action ; for they could not do it unless they
had seen acquitted or legally delivered, neither of
which had been the case. It was contended that
Ministers had not exceeded their powers ; if so
why was such a Bill proposed ? But they had ex-
ceeded their powers. in discharging those men as
they had done. Lie continued to argue, that the
seizing of arms and papers of persons under a
warrant, on suspicion of Treason, was always
usual, and therefore no indemnity was wanting
for those who had executed such warrants. But
was every man to be indemnified for making such
seizures under common circumstances ? They did

_
indeed Want an indemnity for this conduct, be-
cause it was contrary to law ; and he would say,
on the whole, that this was one of the most odi-
ous and atrocious Bills that ever came before Par-
liament.

Sir F. FLOOD said he owed it to his country and
his constituents to come forward in support of
this measure. The Party, as it was called on the
other side of the House, proved, by its sentiments
militating against each other, that that Party was
nearly dissolved. The Bill had been twice ap-
proved of by this House, first, by a majority of
126, and then by one of .65 ; and if it had any
defects, they could be remedied in a Committee.
The Bill had already been carried by an immense
majority of the Lords, and it ought to be eater-
tained with due respect by this House. Persons
in the highest offices and the highest rank had in-
vestigated the State of the Country and were
unanimous in their Report. Therefore time House
ought to go into the Committee on the Bill with-
out further argument. The late 'Committees had
had amongst them his able countryman, who had
reconciled all the jarring Powers of the Continent,
and had therefore proved himself the fittest man
on earth to be of that Committee. He could
have wished the Hon. Baronet (Sir NV. Burroughs)
had left all his special pleading behind him in
India, instead of coming here to talk of the in-
juries of the people ; as he might have found
front Judge Black Stone, that such measures as
those he condemned were stated by that sound
Judge to be necessary to preserve time Constitu-
tion for ever. His (the Hon. Bar6net's) opi-
nions were therefore unfoontled, and contrary to
law; and though he (Sir F.) was one of time
Members who voted the Right Hon. Gentleman
into the Chair, he would, on this occasion, have
the greatest pleasure in voting him out of it.
Mr. LAMBE declared it due to himself to say,
that the deliberate opinion be had formed on the
measures that had been adopted still continued in

his mind. Ile had voted lor thcselrmastire'S last
year upon general principles and legida,ive
grounds ; and he would say that those grounds
were not necessarily affected by the result of any

. .
. •
trials or decisioris in atty Court's of Law, Witere
the guilt or innocence of a few individuals only
were to be decided. But some of the Honour-
able Baronet's arguments were totally untenable
in itistice and common sense. It was impossible
fur the House, when they legislated last year, w
know the extent of the clanger ; but there were
fair appearances of danger ; and would hu-
man credulity go the length of supposing that the
affair at Derby was an insulated conspiracy 1, Ie
waS clearly proved that it was only a branch of a
most complicated scheme of insurrection. It waS
the case of all civil services, that they could not
be fairly estimated, because their consequences
could not be ascertained, and therefore they were
performed amidst obloquy and rept smelt, and were
lost in the tranquillity which they were -the
means of restoring, and in the prosperity they
had secured. We had now returned to
the Constitution unimpaired, except by the
precedent that had been resorted to, and if
the measure was necessary, it was those who
had rendered it so that were answerable, by af-
fording the materials for disaffection, which was
always alive and in wait in manufacturing towns,
for availing itself of the distress of the country.
This detestable spirit still prevailed ; hut the pros-
pects of the country were now improved, and
trade and the spirits of men were reviving. It was
impossible. however, to look at the great mili-
tary establishments of the Continent, engendered
by the last war, and in sonie respects the unna-
tural and distorted state of society at home, with-
out something of a shuddering of alarm and ap-
prehension. These matters required the utmost
temper, prudence, and circumspection, on trim
part of those who held the reins of Governmente
There were two points respecting the employ-
ment of spies which he could not pass withottt
notice. We should take care not to become the
dupes of those Who would throw upon Oliver all
the odium of the transactions of which they them-
selves were the movers and instigators. He was not
at first employed by Ministers. It was the wive
spirators who first took him down, and who had
the design of mis-stating the nemhers of the
affected, and going from place to place, to, hold
out false hopes of assistance. It was this coaduct
that rendered the Suspension of the Habeas Corpus
Act necessary. The Hon. Gentleman then went
into a review of all that had been said against
Oliver by the Insurgents, and argued, that he and
those who were engaged at Manchester were welt
received while they held out hopes of numerous
bodies of the disaffected being ready to join theta ;
but when it was supposed they were informet se
every false imputation was thrown upon them
The next point was that Oliver had been slid to
have held treasonable language on the day the
Prince •Regent went to open the Parliament. tie
did not know that this might not be true ; for role
sidering the light in which he was held, by thos4
persons who committed the outrage, it was not
impossible that he might have excited the mob to
acts of violence. But he would say that it was
extremely unfortunate that the secret was not told
at that time, for it woul:1 have been very tlesirabW
to know who were the leaders of that outrage, anti
the apprehension of Oliver would have led to the
discovery of others, while it would have proved.
whether he was really a Government spy or osel-
Every one must concur that the use of slide
persons ought to be regretted ; but it desersA
serious consideration, whether a plan could be laid
down that-, front the perverseness and infirmi.ty
of human nature, could cause them to be dispensed.
with ; and it was impossible to draw a correct
line of distinction between the strict morality e 94
necessity of the question. We must recollect
that it was very easy to be misled in our feeiiugs
of such subjects : for it was very seldoes that cone
spiracies against property and individual Security
could be detected without the aid of accomplices
and if if public sympathy or italienat ion were alo"
consulted, rules might be laid downr that it migh=t
soon be found necessary to depart from. 014 (II
whole, he thought the Bill necessary, and should
therefore vote for it, as without it, the person*
Who had given information might be exposed taf.
the vengeance of those whose machinations ha°
been defeated. He was convinced that no uudttC
severity had been exercised, and that the effect*
of the proceedings that had taken place would
not be lost ; persons who might be henceforth
tempted to adopt violent measures would recoo'
shier the object of their deluders, and they wooll
see that such measures would produce a Goverod
ment more arbitrary and despotic than that whiOs
it was intended to displace.

Mr. BROUGHAM thought the Hon. Gentlemall
had gone so far in his entire support of Ministers►
that he deeply regretted to say be had richly dee
served all the approbation he land received. 'l3"
it was his arguments and not his authority that
ought to be weighed, and that upon their ourrt
merits, as if they had come from the Ministerial'
instead of the Opposition side of the House.°'
They were connected almost as much with aril
other measure as with the Indemnity Bill. Walt
the exception of two or three concluding see'
tences, he defied any body to point out a sinee
passage of the [lon. Gentleman's speech that re"
lated to this Bill, for they applied just as much-re'
any of the series of measures out of which the
Indemnity Bill I,ad grown. In going over thec
argutneots of the Hon. Gentleman in favour Ut
the Bill, he (Mr. B ) said he would admit [beg
at all times where services had been rendered De'
cessary front the circumstances of the ease, Buell
persons ought to be protected. But he wold 4
confine the indemnity to that which was not evil°
was sought for, but to hold out pa otection to thole
who had transgressed the law, from the worst of
motives, confounding the meritorious magistrate 4
with the miscreants who had deluded the people"
and bolding out to them the same indemnity"
tie then touched on the Reports of the Commit'
tee, expressive of the dangers to which Magis'
trates and witnesses were exposed. On former
occasions, when two Commissions were sent to
different parts of.the country, under one of whirl'
eighteen persons were convicted and punished:
was any one of those wituesses who appeared
against them in danger ? Yes, one, and one only,
and it was because a wro.ng person had bee"
brought to trial on his evidence. Here the flon-
and Learned Gentleman detailed the full porde";
tars of the case which took place at the
persons charged with Luddism, under the spe"4