The Sun.
London, England, 1818-03-17 00:00:00

FOR THE SUN.

SIR SAMUEL BONIILIN AND MR. BROUGHAM.

cantare pares, et responders parati.

VIRdIU.

'Confute, change hands, and still confute.
Hu DI BRAS.

Ma. Eorrott,--In the discussions on the In.-
Aemnity Bill, the great point at issue was, whe-
ther his Majesty's Ministers ought or ought not
to be obliged to give up the names of the indivi-
duals on whose information persons suspected of
treasonable practices had been apptehendel during
the suspension of the Habeas Corpus; for it is
Obvious, that if actions were brought against
them by any of these parties, it was only by so
doitig that they could make Out their own justifi-
cation. The supporters of the Indemnity Bill
contended, 'that such disclosures would be a vio-
lation of all confidence ; and that in whatever
circumstances of danger the State might here-
after be placed by the machinations of Traitors,
Ito met, of respectability would ever again come
forward, it the hazard of being exposed to the
resentment OT-those against whom they had given
information. They farther argued, that if Go-
vernment was thus deprived of the means of ob-
taining intelligence from respectable sources, they
would be under the necessity of depending alto-

gcther upon spies and informers ; and that the
employment of these miscreants, which was now
only casual and occasional, would then becOme a
constant and regular part of our establishment.—
Those who opposed the Bill denied the force of
these considerations. One of them asked, "What
security was there that all the commitments which
had taken place might not have originated in ma-
lice or resentment.; while the individuals were
-assured of perpetual oblivion ?" Another of
them asked, " Where was the difficulty of pro-
Ancing such witnesses, in the face of the country,
in open Court, in public and honourable trial ?"t
The great advocates for giving up the names of
The parties who had furnished information to his
l‘laiesty's Ministers were Sir SAMUEL RoMILLY
and Mr. BROUGHAM. Both these Gentlemen are
Directors of the African Institution ; and a Re-
port, published some time ago by that Society,
states it to be " a necessary precaution to conceal
the names of individuals, resident in o; connected
with the West Indies, who send them, from hu-
mane motives, useful information : the transmis-
sion of it might Otherwise expose them to popular
odium, or private resentment, in- that country."l
A few months ago, the African Institution pushed
this principle (of concealing the names of in-

formers) to such an extent, that they actually

suffered an innocent and lionourAble man, the
Publisher of their Reports, to be convicted and
punished as a libeller, rather than give up the
name, not of a respectable person, who front h►►-
mane motives transmitted them useful informa-
tion, but of a wicked calumniatnr,who made them
the instruments of publishing a slanderous attack
upon the character of the whole West India com-
munity, and the administration of justice in a
West India Colony, unsupported, as was proved
in zvidence on the trial, by a single vestige of
act, or even of probability.

Being a great lover of consistency, I feel much
surprised at the different conduct of these learned
Gentlemen, in their different situations as Di-
rectors of the African Institution, and as Mem-
'hers of the House of Commons. As Directors of
'the African Institution, they even permit the in-
nocent to suffer for the guilty, rather than give
up the name of the author of a libel, which the
learned Judge who tried the cause charactetised
as " a wilful and wicked fabrication;" and al-
though be told them from the Bench, 4‘ that it
was defeating the purposes of justice, to prevent
information, by which the wicked calumny might
be traced up to the original anthor."§ As Mem-
bers of the House of Commons, they call upon
the Legislature to oblige M.ijesty's Ministers
to give up the names of all the individuals, who,
when the safety of their country was at stake,
'gage them such information as enabled them to
avert the .impending danger. In the latter case,
surely the reasons for concealment are far more
cogent than in the former ; for the resentment of
disappointed Traitors and Conspirators (who of
all descriptions of men are the most likely to be-
come assassins) is infinitely more dangerous than
that of the libelled and calumniated Vest Indians.
Perhaps some of your learned Readers may be
able to explain, what, as an unlearned man, I am
altogether at a loss to comprehend, how it is that
the very same line of conduct, which certain
Gentlemen maintain to be a just and meritorious
rule of action for themselves, becomes extremely
unjust and reprehensible when adopted by his
l'ilajesty's Ministers. Unless this can be satisfac-
torily made out, I must think that these Gentle-
men take up and lay down principles with just as
much ease as they put on and take off their gloves ;
and that the Public have only to look to their
actions, to find a complete refutation of their ar-
guments upon the late debate on the Indemnity
Bill. I am, Sir,
Your constant neader,
'VERITAS.

• Sir Samuel Po►nilly's Speech ou tint Indemnity
Bilij—
(Times, March It.)
t Mr. brougham's ditto, ditto, ditto.
Reasons for Registry—page• ss.
§ Trial of The King v. Hatchard—page 123.1