The Sun.
London, England, 1818-01-30 00:00:00

ITAP,EAS CORPUS SUSPENSION REPEAL BILL.

'l,+. 13/10GDFN and ether Members of the House
tar Commons brought up the Habeas Corpus Sus-
pension Repeal Rill.
Agreed to %vitbottt amendment.—Adjourned till
Sdturday.

HOUSE OF COMMONS.

LUNATIC ASYLUM IN SCOTLAND.

Lord BINNiNG pave notice, that on Monday
next he woull move for leave to bring in a Bill
to.establish District Lunatic Asylums in Scot-
land. _

Lord 'lv EY presented a Petition from the
inhAbitants ui Downpairi(k and others, praying
for a repeal of the Window Tax.—licad, and or-
derrd io lie on the Table.

I-1 CORPUS ACT' SUSPENSION REPEAL BILL.
.A Message from the Lords brought in the Bill
passed by their Lordships yesterday, for repealing
the Act of last Session, by which the operation
,f the Habeas Corpus Act was suspended, to•
ivrilich Bill their Lordships desired the concur-
r' c:: of this House,
The CHANCi,.LLOR Of Me EXCHEQUER said,
t;•at as it would be vent 'desirable that this 13111
s!,ouni pass with- as little,deky as possible,' he
onld suggest to those Hon. Members who might
be disposed to offer to the House any observations
on the subject, that it would be better to defer
th,m till tie vet y early day on vthich a comtntini-
e.ithut was to he made to the House. He should
himself ab,tain from entering into any discussion
of the general question till that d:iy, and would
only now move that this Bill be read a first
time.

Sir \V. BußnotlGns ‘rished the Right Hon,
Civittkat:th to name any day, or any nro'oable dav,
on which the promisvd communication would be

imAde.
The CHANCPLLOR of the EXCHEQUER said, So
far as he knew he tui4ht name Mumlay as the day.
Mr. T;EliNEY—What course WAS it intended to
ptwole after the communication was made ?
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER appre-
beudra that ti,e course to be pursued would be
the usual oue on such occasi,us—rhat the House
sbouid take into consideration the Ruval com.
mullication relative to the inteinal State of the

Country.
Mr. 'ft NEY—Witht teas to come next ? Was
a Colni)sitice N) a 1 pointed, and was it to he
Coolmittee, or a Svieet .Committee---a
Commitzev to be elected by ballot, or appointed
by Ili(P ion

CIIANCELLOII of the EXCHItQUVR said, that
as tar as he knew, on Monday a flay would be ap-
!unwed fur taking the :,lessage into consideration,
kw! a Committee for theft purpose would be ap-
poipted in the UStud way.
Mr. TIERNEY—Last year there were two Com-
mittees of the sane kind appointed in different
w.ls,r3; one of thent chosen by ballot, the other
appoioted on nomination by motion without
I. -I;llotiGnAm said the Hight Hon. Gentle-
man left the House 11111(.11 in the dark as to the
course of proceeding with re*pect to the Commit-
tee, ‘eliich was the most iwportant pa' t of the
whole. lie shift the Commit,ee was to be ap-
poiiJed " 11l thc. usual way.'• Whi;:li vets the
IVitV ? Litir there were two ways—by
ba!!ot tootioi).

The CtiANCFI,LoIt or !he ExCHEO.URR believed
that tbe-most pr per mode was to appoint the
Committee by
Mr. Bitottottam--:,Was the Committee to be
appointed on Monday, or some future day?
The CHAN.CELLOR of the EXCHEO.UER —The
Consideration of the Message would be fit:(l on
the eallies( possible day.
riThe Rill wus then read a first time.
The SPEAKER Observed, that though it was not
usual tbAt -a public Bill 'shook' pass thrOugh se-
ver d Stages on the sante day, there were• no
Standing Orders-at present against it.
The Bill was then read a second time; and on
the.quesihm that it should be committed,
Lord.Fot.x"EsToNtr rose:—Fle did not wish to
make the sii4htest opposition to the Bill, which
he 'thought, should he passed without a moment's
(Irboti. hot he complained of the subject being
4nong• t forward hetore the usnal hour; for he
snTe 'there were many Members who would
wish to he in their seats while it was passing
through the Llonse, in order to express openly
their assent to it. It seemed as if Ministers ex-
pected some opposition to the measure, or at least
expected it might give rise to some discussion
which they would rather avoid. It appeared to
hint' that something4nore was'requisite than mere-
ly the silent passng of this Bill, A duty was
owing 'to petions already taken tip under the Act
of last Session, tunny of whom might continue
a state little worse titan that of actual confine-
ment, if no more was done than sitnply to repeal
the Act. "Un this subject he spoke under correc-
tion of those more skilled in the Law. But as
far as Inc was able to judttge, all dose who had
been taken uri under the Act, and afterwards dis-
charged on their recognizance, had been unjustly
ts voted, inA•ntuteli as there was no tight to re-
pilre recognizances front them:- He would wish
t.. know, trout the Learned Members, how the
Luw vtood upon this point, According to laic
notion. no recoplitance could be legally taken,
4.%„, epSeS Whrt the party accused was con-
-tiouttd lace to 4-atte With his accuser. He knew

that a man who had been-tried might be bound
by recognizance to appear to receive sentence ;
hot the cases of the persons apprehended under
this Act, so tar as he could see, bore no analogy
to the other cases in which it was legal to re-
ptire recognizances. It he was right in bis un-
derstanding of the law, the Justices who took
recognizances from the persons in question, bad
DO right to do so without first confronting them
with their accuse's ; and this being tire case, he
should think it his ditty to propose two clauses
which he haul drawn up, the purport of which
was to declare that all recognizances taken from
oelsons arrested under the Act of last Session
should front henceforward be considered as
'cancelled.
Mr. TIRRNEY considered the Secretary of State
was bound to give the House the fullest informa-
tion of the reason and grounds which prevailed
upon his Majesty's Goi*Troment to require these
parties to enter into these recognizances.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL —The Act passed last
Session was one merely to suspend the Habeas
Corpus Act. It had nothing to d(, with recogni-
zaoces, and left the law as to them in exactly the
sante state as it was before. Whether the recog-
nizanees taken from persons arrested under the
Act of last Session were or were not legal, was a
fit question for a Court of Law to determine ; but
it had nothing to do with the passing of the Bill
now before the House. The taking of recogni-
zances rested in the discretion of Justices. Where
men were brought before a Magistrate on certain
charges, and it was •thought unnecessary to de-
tain the persons so charged, they might in many
cases be relieved, on binding themselves in re-
cognizances to appear when called upon to an-
swer to the charges against theln ; and in other
cases they might be required to find bail for their
appearance. If a recognizance was illegally taken,
a Court of Law could set it aside, and was the
proper tribunal to pronounce on the legality or il-
legality of the. case. If the Noble LIM asked
whether a Magistrate having a person in custody
tinder a warrant issued by himself, has power
to discharge the person so in custody, on his en-
tering into recognizance, in point of law
the Magistrate has such power. Unquestion-
ably a Magistrate in such a case has power
to require bail. And why might he require bail
It was because by' so doing he obtained the
security of another person for the prisoner's ap-
pearance. A recognizance was a less security,
being that by which the prisoner was bound for
his own appearance. If it was lawful to require
the greater security a fortiori, it was lasetul to
require a less ; and the Magistrate might at his
discretion require the greater security or the less.
In cases of treason, the Magistrate had the same
power to require recognizances, with thii diffe-
rence, that the discretion did not so far rest with
him that he could do so without consulting his
superior in office, in cases where the apprehen-
sion was upon the warrant of such.. superior.—
Where the committal was upon a warrant from a
Secretary of Sta'te, he might, through the Ma-
gistrate before whom the person apprehended was
taken, agree to release that person on his own re-
cognizance. This had at all times been the prac-
tice ; the law upon the case was quite established.
But it was a mere question of law. If io a cer-
tain case it was alleged that a recognizance was
required by a Magistrate where he had no power
to require, the question as to the power was one
for the decision of .the Court of King's Bench.—
As to the case of those persons who had lately
come up before the Court of King's Bench, re-
quiting to be discharged front their recognizances,
the only reason why they had not been discharged
before now was, that some of them had given
notice that they meant to object to the legality of
the recognizances. Soroe of those persons op-
plied to him, when be told them it was not ins
tended to call upon them for their appearance, and
that the recognizances should be discharged, on
which they said that they mestot to object to the
recognizances in point of law. When. this was
said, he told 'them that' nothing which he said
need to prevent them front any proceeding to try
the legality of the recognizances. They decided
to reject this offer, and said they would try the
questitos at law.
Mr. BRAND said, that the Attorney-General
seemed to mistake rite tint stion raised by his Noble
Friend (Lord Fo:kestont) as being a met e ques-
tion of laW instead of a question of legislation.—
Certain persons btiog confined under a certain
Act, so soon as that Act was repealed, ratty further
detention of those persons was illegal. But the
Attoroev-General said, he bad not moved that the
recognizances entered into by those persons so
confined should be dichargrrl, because he wished
to give theta an opportunity of trying the guess
tiros at to time legality of their recognizances.—
It therefore appeared, that there was 'sorbing in
the object of the Hon. and Learned Gentleman's
proceedings on this subject **hid) was inconsist-
ent with the proposal of his Noble Fs lead. The
object Of that proposal was solely to afford a re-
medy to those persons who had been bound by re-
cognizances under which it was no longer wished,
even by the Government, that they should cons
throe bound.
Lord CASTLEREAGH-1f he rightly understood
the operation of the Act passed during the last
Session, it was too that it enabled Magistrates or
the-Secretary of Stare to detain persons, but that
it prevented the Bench from discharging persons
so detained. When the law which thus operated
was repealed-, the power of discharging would be
restored to the Bench. The proposal of the No-,
ble Lord might be a very fit subject for the
distinct consideration of the House, but was not
connected with the Bill now before it ; the object
of that Bill being only to restore the law to its
operation.
Mr. BROUGHAM---14e.bardly thought the Nt,ble
Lord rightly understood the observation of the
Hon. Member for Hertfordshire (Mr. Brand).
Undoubtedly the Act of last year made the writ
of habeas Corpus inoperative ; and its this respect
the Noble Lord (Castlereagh) bad rightly stated
the mode in which it operated. But how had the
recognizances in question been taken ? It he was
right, they had been taken voluntarily. The
party detaining said to the party detained—"
I
give you the choice of continuing itt custody till
the Bill under Which you are confined expires, or
is repealed, or else you may go out on such and

such. coedit ions. If you choose to remain, well
and good ; hut if you choose to go, it shall be on
the conditions I shall name." These conditions
may be what the -detaining party chooses to im-
pose—such as falling down upon their knees, or
in short any thing else. In the present case the
condition was, that the party should appear from
day to day at a -certain place. Could any one say
that these recognizances would have been required
from the persons in question if the Act of last Ses-
sion had not passed ? Therefore it was plain the
recognizances flowed from that Act, In all the cases
in question, the recognizances had been given
under the choice which he had mentioned. There
was, indeed, a separate case which* had- not yet
come before. the House, but which soon would
be ; he meant the case of a London Justice, who
had detained three persons arrested before the
Act was passed. But in every other case, the
recognizances had been entered into under such a
In all other cases of arrest, the thing
1-as not done in the dark, and when the man was
iberated, he inigliVof course seek his remedy at
aw. But here. the power was merely to detain
persons, and therefore recognizances taken from
lersons detained under that power were taken on
lifferent terms. Their legality or illegality was
a question purely of law. What the House had
to consider was; that they were entered into by
choice, and under certain conditions, and the
question now was, whether the persons who bad
made the election of submitting to the conditions,
should be, now when the Act was repealed, in a
worse siteation than those who had , chosen the
alternative of remaining under confinement.
Thinking that it would he most unjust to have
them remain subject to' recognizances after the
Act was repealed, be conceived it incumbent on
the House to adopt the proposal of his Noble
Friend. _

choice.

The Sor.tcyroa.-GEsertAt. thought the Hon. and
Learned Gentleman who spoke last was mistaken
RS to the Act of last Session. Suppose that Act
had not been passed, would it not have been com-
petent for, the Secretary.of State to commit per-
sons in certain cases ? .The question was, whe-
ther this Act conferred a power on the Secretary
of State to take .recognizances from persons COM-
tnitted. The Act conferred no such power. Its
operation was merely to deprive the subject of his
remedy in the cases of committal. The House
was now about to restore that remedy. What
then was the proposal submitted for discussion ?
It was (what was quite irrelevant) to pronounce
upon the legality of recognizances, respecting
which the Act about to be repealed had no opera-
tion whatever. The legality of these recogni-
zances was as much open to discussion as ever,
whether the Bill now before the House passed or
not. This, therefore, was not the proper season
for discussing the validity of the recognizances,
and as to the proposal which related to them, it
was out‘ of place, and could not be rightly adopted
on the present occasion.
Sir Wm. BURROUGHS maintained that the
poWer exercised by the Secretary of State with
respect to these recognizances was illegal and
usurped.--A condition had been annexed to the
release of the persons. in question which the Se-
cretary of State had no right to exact. tither
they should have been released without any con-
dition, or they should have been put upon their
trial. The Law Officers of the Crown gave it as
their opinion that Magistrates could admit to
bail persons committed upon charges of treason ;
but he must deny that Magistrates had any power
to exact recognizances where they bad no power
to admit to bail. It was admitted that the per-
sons were kept in custody for a temporary pur-
pose. And what was that-temporary purpose ?
ft was to keep alive the notion that there was
danger, and so to gain the support of a party,
which, without the cry of danger, the Ministry
'could not have obtained. The question, on the
proposal of his Noble Friend, because it related
to the mode in which the powers .committed by the
Act of last Session had been exercised, was ma-
teria!ly, connected with the Bill' before the
House.

Mr. LoctznArcr was decidedly of opinion, that
if persons arrested under the Act of last Session
were continued in custody, or under the threat of
committal, after the Bill now before the Hoitse
was passed, it would be against the spirit of the
Bill. Therefore he could not but think that to.
continue those persons tinder the liability of re-
tognizance3, was equally against the intention of
the Legislature. The Solicitor-General attempted'
to defend the recognizances, by saying that They
derived their force from the Common Law, and
not from the Statutes. But he 'could not see.,
Orat this exempted the case from the scope of that
intention with which the House was about to pass
the Bill.
SANUEL ROMILLY.—There was no doubt
that the recognizances were extorted from the
persons confined under the Act of last Session.—
For, in fairness, the Secretary of State, before
he required the recognizances, should have ap-
prised those persons that it was not intended to
allow the Act to continue in force till the time
when it was limited to expire. Thinking that the
Act had existed much too long, it was far from
his intention to oppose the present Bill. The
House was now passing the Bill with much more
rapidity than the ordinary forms reqoired ; and
these forms were dispensed witth because of the
extreme urgency of the occasion. HoW long was
it since this extreme urgency occurred ? It was
not this day, nor yesterday, nor last week, nor
last month, nor for the two last months. In the
last Session, when the question was pot upon con-
tinuing the Bill only till 'the lst of December, in
order that it it were judged necessary to-con-
tinue it longer the opinion of Parliament might
be taken as to that necessity, the proposal was
rejected. But he would now ask, whether every
Member was not satisfied, that if the coutinuance
of the Bill had been limited to the Ist of Decem-
ber, it would not have been allowed then to ex-
pire, without calling Parliament together to pro-
pose any further continuance ? It had only con-
tinued thus long because his Majesty's, Ministers
had not thought proper to advise the Prince Re-
gent to assemble the Parliament sooner. The Bill
had been acted upon even_ within a few 'weeks. of
the present time, in order to keep up the pretence
of its necessity. For his own part, he thought
there was no occasion for the Bill since 'Nile, for

since then there had been no symptoms of disaf`
fection. And as to what had occurred before that
time, it was in the month of June that in this
House the exposure was made of the conduct of
the missionaries employed by his Majesty's 0'
nisters in exciting insurrections.
Mr. B. BATHURST protested against the troth
of what the Honourable and Learned Member
vi,ho.spoke last had,with his usual candour, stated,
that the conspiracies were the work of Govern,
ment against the people, and not of one delude:"
part of the people against the other. The per;
sons alluded to as employed by' Government 101
clone nothing in forming conspiracies, but ha"
unquestionably been of signal service in detecting
them. This was particularly the case with. Mr.
Oliver, who, as it had come out on evidence, bad
accidentally and incidentally been introduced to .
the meetings of the conspirators. This fact w°s
incontrovertihle, notwithstanding, the dying er
clamation of one of the criminals, to which, °II
account of the means taken to procure it, not the
slightest importance was to be attached. It there
were no conspiracies now, it was not because Mr.
Oliver was no longer employed by Governmen,
but because of the trials which had taken pifte'
Ile denied that the Act of last Session could have
been sooner repealed consistently with the safety
of the country.
Sir S. ROMILLY said, in -explanation, that he
did not allude to the employment of Oliver in Par°
titular, but to that of other persons of the sani.e
description. He had higher authority than leis
own opinion, that the conspiracies were occasior
ed by.the agents of Government, for it was ex
e.;
pressly stated in the last Report of the See,'
Committee, that persons had promoted t,'134
Treason which they meant to detect. He I,',
heard it maintained (and he was astarthhe"
the doctrine) that it was the duty of Government
to employ such persons as Mr. Oliver. Norbitti:
could ever induce him to think so.
Mr. B. BATHURST protested againXt its being
supposed that all the. persons to whom the 14°I1.
and Learned Gentleman had alluded • were env.
ployed by Government. They might, lie emplor
ed. by Magistrates in the neighbourhood, while
.
duty it might be avail themselves of SijC -
assistance.
Mr. TIERNEY said, that there were two poin.,tie
which he understood to be maintained by tos_
Right Hon. Gentleman who spoke last. The
was, that R conspiracy existed up to the 20th ell
nnary, the time at which the persons (3006°
were discharged. Now, as to this, he would sfirti
that if there was one man detained in gaol,. or
separated from his family and his occOpatioo 1,,
a single hour beyond the time when the COOP'.
racy existed, a crime was committed, andi-o
heavy guilt rested with-the persons who were t
means of such detention. The other point been
that the persons employed as spies had never he%
the cause of any conspiracy. If the report of t"4
approaching Committee did not establish tbes
two points, how was the conduct of the Goverr,
ment to be justified ?
The Bill was then committed, and the (Rep
being broUght up, was agreed to. On the-clue
lion that the Bill should be read a third time, 0
Lord VOLKESTONIS rose to propose big 'llls
by way or amendMent.
.The adoptio„ of
clause would not prevent the persons who 11%
given recognizances from having their remedY '",
Court of Law upon the question of their dlecie
The Noble Lord then read two clauses,
first of which in substance released the recogt'',
zors from all the prospective effect of the rec! rii
fs ipt
lance ; the other contained a saving of ;their °gts
to apply for remedy to a Court of Law, on
gTound of the recognizances being illegally 0
quired. He moved that these clauses be added
the Bill.
gotise
Lord CASTLEREAH observed, that the
was placed in an extraordinary sit uatiolb ions
clauses relating to what was quite distinct nity
the subject matter of the Bill. Au opit"rt`te of
was afforded of investigating efore a C°',lreee.
Law the validity of the recogbnizances• oie
fore, even with a view to the subject to which
clauses related, they were quite unnecessarY• tbe
Mr. TiatmeY—Nothing was urged against s•
clauses except that they related to what a't'las
mere point of law. But, in his view, it wos of
a point of law, but of humanity ;, to get got 04
time reengnizances, an expensive legal trial w
be necessary. Was it then too much for Pii(.
ment to save the pockets of these u tnfortunate'tieac
dividuals friim this expence, seeing that if
had Fcferred remaining in jail for a few (134
they would now be set at large
,by the iterea'

•
Lord FOLKESTONE EXpl3iliC(.l. dfit
The ATTORNEY•GENERAL—AS to the 110-Millis
of the case, he must say, that it was ituF°9sl;eir
for any one of the persons to have mistaken ("tie
situation with respect to the recognizances. to
himself had told them that it was his intend° ii,
discharge toe recognizances ; upon which 01e.,,.0
legality of them was asserted by some oflfriot
persons. Helhought it his dutyto tell them,
if such were their notions, no act of his '3"°l4,f
prevent theta of their right to try thevestiollre,
legality. .'Their' attendance in Court, therefo b,
has been on the ground of taking their Irg',ll tees
jection. It was not true, that the recognii3°,oo
were held over their heads in order to e
them. It was their own choice that their recqr,j4
nizances should continue in force, and they 11//r3itis
the choice with a view to.a legal remedy.. ,i'dog
respect to the clauses proposed, he dente(' id
when an end was put to anAct, it was neceg)et
or proper to pnt an end to every proceeding
that Act. For instance, it mil.llbt still be neg'fiti
scary to try persons taken up under the Act' 'tit'
yet it might be very proper to repeal the Act f°rt.,,r
with ; he therefore could not see any necessity
the clauses.
Mr. BROUGHAM said, be would once more ,ge
deavour to ataie the grounds on which "-of
'1 Fr 'rt of the Act__,,

clauses were proposed. _ y virtue ,-ter
last year, persons were arrested, and upon
iug into certain recognizances were dischar4:o
The recognizances were a voluntary act•
pose, then, that those persons went before die
Court of King's Bench, to try the legality 0‘ •,,)
recognizances, wpuld the Court say, that .11"`T;0'4
entered into them with their eyes open, it scasvo',
late to complain that they Were illegal ? TheY„oo
luntarily entering into such recogn'zances ,

Toth
nber
ited,
ern'
uded
per-
bad

'had

It 116
Par.
anle

e -
'clot
Os;
!,1 itt
Ilenc

bill;

)IOY
lios°
such

e tile
so's/
beep
f
tbes6
vertr

;.toe
ti).