Star.
London, England, 1818-03-12 00:00:00

fixed for their duration was not yet expired. There
had since been a new enquiry, and the Bill now
before the House had been recommended. It had
been said that Ministers wished an Indemnity for the
illegal acts which they had committed—he denied it.
He denied that they had exceeded. the powers en-
trusted to their hands. The real ground on which
the Bill was asked was, that if the circumstance! of
,the country were such as to require extraordinary
4towers, they were also such as to justify the acts,
done by Government in the exercise of those powers,
Ito protect the peace of the nation. The Bill itself
did not recite that his Majesty's Ministers had ex-
ceeded 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 infor-
mation 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 impor-
tant to conceal, as long as the disaffection continued
to exist in the country, that sources of information
might be retained. As to the charge that Magis-
trates had exceeded their powers, and made them-
selves amenable to the laws, what evidence had been
produced? They had been represented as having en-
tered the houses of individuals accused of libels, and
searched for papers ; his Learned Friend was wrong if
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
Honourable 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, I
notwithstanding the Bill of Indemnity, if he had
suffered in the manner 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 if
there had existed any necessity at Manchester for
committing persons immediately to prison in order,
to prevent mischief, the Bill should give indemnity
for the act. As to the employment of spies, he con-
tended that no two cases could be more dissimilar
than that of Vaughan and the defence made on the',
present occasion. Had it not been negatived by the
first Report itself that Oliver bad been sent by Go-
, vernment to create disturbances in the country, for
did not that Report state, long before Oliver had
been heard of by his Mesty's Ministers, that a dan-
gerous conspiracy existed?. Did his Honourable and
Learned Friend mean to say that Government had
sent Oliver purposely to produce and contrive the
very plot for the discovery of which he was em-
ployed ? Witnesses had declared at Derby, that
they had been deterred from coming forward earlier,
en account of the threats used, and lest they should
lose their lives. What would have been said if Bran-
dreth had been taken up before his enterprize, and
no insurrection had occurred—(hear, hear, from the
Opposition).—Why, it would have been said, that for
men of such a class to form such an attempt was im-
possible, and that no plot had ever existed. He con.
tended that the means used by Ministers had alone
prevented the explosion of other insurrections ; and
that in justice to them, the Magistrates, and the coun-1
try, a Bill of Indemnity ought to be passed.
Sir FRANCIS BURDETT observed, that the Ho-
nourable and Learned Gentleman who had just sat,
down had taken it for granted that the circumstances
lof 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 not be supported. What,
were men to be deprived of their liberty, and never
know who their accusers were? And this was pro-
nounced a part 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 se-
cret accusations were thrust, and the atrociously des-
petic Government 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 con-
ceal and protect informers ? He really believed the
disturbances to have been created by Ministers, in
order to prevent themselves from being importuned
about Parliamentary Reform, for he found that they
alone could derive any benefit from them. They had
violated the Coronation Oath, the laws of the cdtm-
try, the Constitution, and the liberties of the people
—(hear, hear, hea)—When they had asked for the
powers which they had so scandalously abused, it
had 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 unconstitutional, and the abuses of power
which they had committed, were of a nature which
I 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 Suspension
Act, who had been discharged as illegally as they
had been apprehended. He thought that there should
always be some proportion between the ead and the
means, for it was ridiculous 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 consti-
tuting 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 vote against going into the Committee.
Mr. LAW saw a little more in the speech of the
Honourable 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 com-
plete tranquillity, such as that likely to be produced
by the measures of his Majesty's Ministers. The
dangers which existed at the time when the Suspen-
sion Act had last year been passed, seemed now to