Star.
London, England, 1818-03-11 00:00:00

LIVERPOOL PETITION.

Mr. BROUGHAM presented a Petition against
the Indemnity Bill from the Merchants of Liverpool,
who had applied in vain to the Mayor of that town
to convene a public meetir.g upon the subject. This
Petition he stated to be signed by several of the most
respectable Merchants of Liverpool, and he would
refer their names to the Members for that town for
the confirmation of that statement.

General GASCOYNE said, that he did not mean
to question the statement of the Honourable Member,
as to the respectability of those by whom it, was sub-
mitted, which indeed he could not undertake to do,

as he had seen the driatures to the Petition, bat he
would venture to say that the sentiments of the Pe-
titioners were in opposition to those of a great majo,
rity of the merchants and inhabitants of Liverpool.
Nlr. BIRCH bore testimony to the respectability
of the character of those who h signed Peti-
tion, alleging that they comprehended the greatest
part of the mostrespectable merchants of that town.
In reply to a question from General Onscolows,
Mt', BIRCH repeated his declaration as to the supe-
rior commercial consequence of thcse by whom the
Petition was signed.
The Petition was ordered to lie on the table.
SALT DUTICS.

Mr. CALCRAFT said, that understanding there '
was no intention to oppose the motion of which he
had given notice upon this subject, he should merely
move for the appointment of a Committee, for the
purpose of considering the Salt Ddties, and the best
means of providing a remedy for the inconvenience
resulting t
Mr. CCRWEN congratulated the House and the
country upon the benefits likely to result from the
appointment of this Committee.
Messrs. Eclearox and DAVENPORT concurred in
the sentiments of the last speaker, and expressed their
thanks to the Chancellor of the Exchequer for con-
ceding to the motion.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER ex-
pressed his acquiescence in the motion, while he telt
the importance of the large proportion of revenue to
which the object of that motion referred.
Mr. CALCRAFT said, that while it was proposed
by this motion to interfere with such an amount of an-
nual revenue as one million and a half, it would be
absurd to suppose, that in the present circumstances
of the country especially, such a revenue could be
done away without providing some substitute--(hear,
hear, from Lord Cartkreagh and the Chancellor cy:the
Exchequer.)—But those points would be taken, into
the consideration of the proposed Committee.
The Committee was appointed. The several Pe-
titions presented with regard to the Sale Tax, the Re-
port
of the Committee upon the Salt Duties, in 1801,
and the- Pam: laid on the Table respecting the Salt
Tax, last Session, were, together with the Report of
the Committee of last Session, upon Rock Salt, re-
ferred thereto.
Mr. CAMPBELL moved for leave t 9 bring in a
Bill to repeal so much of the Election Laws as related
to the Land Tax Assessment—Granted.

INDEMNITIC SILL.
The ATMRNEY-GENERAL moved the Order
of the Day for the second reading of the Indem-
nity Bill.
Mr. LAMBTON suggested the propriety of pro-
ceeding with the other Orders of the Day that were
yet undisposed of ; they would not take up much
time ; and after what passed last night, many,Mem-
bers did not expect that the Indemnity Bill, if pro-
ceeded in, would be brought on so early.
Sir W. BURROUGHS said, that if the House
would calmly consider the provisions of the proposed
Bill, it would feel it impossible to proceed thus
hastily, or indeed without obtaining most necessary
information. The Bill comprehended three new heads,
on which inquiry was absolutely essential, and on
which the Reports of the Secret Committees were
*holly silent, although the present Bill was supposed
$ emanate From their recommendation. These were,
the seiztire of arms by entering the houses of the
King's subjects, the seizure of papers, and the seizure
of persons found in tumultuous assemblies. A Bill
demanding indemnity for proceedings of that charac-
ter, took the House by surprise. No man, from read-
ing the Reports of the Secret Committees, could have
been led to expect such provisions of indemnification.
They were to include, not alone Magistrates and con-
stables, but private persons who might have entered
the houses ipf•people without proper authority.-
-This was an abuse of power not contemplated in
any precious discussion of the measure. He put it,
therefore, to the candour of the Noble Lord (Castle-
reagh) to say, whether it was not due to the House
to obtain information before it was called upon to
pass provisions of that extraordinary character ? No
injury could arise to any party from the delay, as
the Bill of Indemnity had a re:rospective operation,
and as no legal process could be acted upon during
the existing vacation before the next Term.
Lord CASTLEREAGH observed, that the argu-
ments of the Honourable and Learned Gentleman,
though applicable to the Bill in Committee, did not
bear upon the principle of the mew-tire on the second
reading.
Mr.'FIERNEY said it was impossible to discuss
the principle of a Bill, the one half of whose provi-
sions had reference to transactions, of which the
House had not the slightest knowledge. But the
truth was, his Honourable and Learned Friend and
the Noble Lord could not agree, for die best of all
reasons, that they sought different objects. The Noble
Lord wanted to have the Bill passed, without the
information—while his Honourable and Learned
Friend wished to have the information before the Bill
was passed. The observations of his Honourable and
Learned Friend were both unanswerable and unan-
swered. Were not Ministers bound to shew that
these searching of houses and arbitrary seizure of
papers were justified by necessity ? If they did not,
he had a right to believe, and he did believe, that
they were capriciously, maliciously, and improperly
exercised.

Sir C. MONCK said, that if any proposition had
been made to Parliament to legalize the searching
of houses for arms, it would have been received with
considerable distrust. It was a constitutional duty
with every Englishman to keep arms in his house in
defence of his property and family. The man who
did not keep them was deficient in his public duty.
Let the House then consider the time in which these
searches took place. Why, the very troublesome
period in which men should have arms in their pos--
session. It was with astonishment he read these pro-
visions of indemnification, when he first received the
Bill. The house of a British subject could not be
entered without a warrant. nor a door forced but at
the suit of the King: The House should pause before
it passed a law of this extent, without the information
on which alone a judgment could be formed. If it
acted otherwise—there was no necessity for further
delay—it would be more consistent at once to get
rid of the discussion—it could not be considered a
real Parliamentary proceeding, but a mere mockery.
Mr. BATHURST contended that the objections
Were premature. When the Bill was in Committee,

it was open for the liottse to discuss theground; on
which the provisions in the Bill thut alluded to weft
,founded.

The Order of the Day for the second reading of
Ithe Indemnity Bill being read,
Mr. GRENFELL expressed his anxiety not to give
a silent vote on the question. He had twice last Ses-
sion voted for the Suspension of the Habeas Corpus
Act, in the fullest reliance on the statements com-
municated in the Reports of the Committees of both
Houses of Parlltament, and to which Reports were
11appended the names of a Noble Lord (Milton), not
then in his place, the late Mr. Ponsonby, and other
constitutional authorities. When to these Reports hb
-added the state of the country, and particularly the
metropolis—the distresses of the manufacturers and
labourers in the year 1816—the manner in whichthe
House was assailed last Session with petitions, at
once a compound of folly and mischief, and which,
under the colourable pretext of Reform looked to
revolution, he could not regret the vote he had given.
Under the influence of that feeling of justice, which,
similarly circumstanced, he would himself expect, l.e
could not withhold his assent from the indemnity.
Lord LASCELLES defended the character of
Mr. Stavely, the jailor of York, from the imputations
cast upon him, in the Petition of Mr. Lee, who had
been there imprisoned, under the Suspension of the
Habeas Corpus Act. The Noble Lord read the copy
of a letter from the jailor to Lord Sidmouth, in
which he stated that Mr. Lee had trequendy ex-
pressed his gratitude for the treatment he received
to prison, and his contrition for the offences that led
to his imprisonment. The Noble Lord also produced
the affidavit of a fellow prisoner of Lee's, named.
Carter, that contradicted the allegation in the Petition,
which stated, that Lee was obliged to remove from
his cell the congealed blood of an unfortunate man
of the name of Reilly, who had cut his throat during
the time he was imprisoned under the Suspension Act.
It was true that he had been confined for five days
with a felon, who was afterwards executed, but he
was removed as soon as he could be accommodated
elsewhere. With regard to the case of Riley, and
the assertion that his death had proceeded from ill-
ness caused by his confinement, it was here stated,
that Riley was deranged before fie was confined. He
thought it necessary to call the attention of the House
to these facts, not for the purpose of caitiog blame
on those gentlemen who presented such petitions,
but merely in justice to the character of the jailer,
who had meritoriously discharged the duties of his
office for a period of twenty-six years.
Sir FRANCIS BURDETT observed, that he did
not intend to enter into a detailed discussion at pre-
sent on the Indemnity Bill, particularly as it was his
intention to deliver his opinion on it after it came
out of the Committee, ou the third reading. He was
anxious to offer an observation on the statement just
made by the Noble Lord : he did not mean to imply,
that the person of whom the Noble Lurd spoke did
not deserve the character, at the same time that he
could not help adverting to the singular knit! of
phraseology with which he introduced the office of a
jailor ; as if, indeed, he was speaking of the Vice-
Chancellor of the University of • Oxford. Nothing
could be more unsatisfactory to the country than the
custom of producing in that House, letters from
jailors to answer grave charges of oppression, brought
by men who suffered, against them. To such state-
ments, or even to the depositions of prisoners who
were under their controul or courted their favour, lie
oould pay no attention. What he himself witnessed
in the investigation at Cold-bath-fields had convinced
him that no dependence whatever should be placed
on these very partial representations. The House
should not entertain them—(Cries 9f hcar, hear.)--
If they wished to enquire into the truth or falsehood,
they should have the question fully before them in a
regular Parliamentary shape. Having said thus
much on the Noble Lord's statement, he could not
sit down without expressing his surprise at the reason
given by an Honourable Member near him (Mr.
Grenfell) for his assent to the present Bill. That 110.
nourable Gentleman was induced, he said, to vote fur
the suspension of the I labeas Corpus Act on the au,
thority of the I:tte Mr. Ponsonby. This was at least
irreconcilable, because Mr. Ponsnn'iy voted against
the suspension. But then the country was in a state
of distress, and that was another reason. So that
because you could not give the starving people bread,
you were justified in taking away the pent nal pro-
tection of every man in the kingdom—(hear, hear).—
Another Honourable Member (Colonel Stanhope)
had attributed the necessity of the Act of Suspen-
sion to the writings of Mr. Cobbett. So powertelly
had that Gentleman written on the question of
Parliamentary Retinm, that s% ith all the talent the
Government Ii id at its command—with all their
Anti-Jacobin friends at their service—with a daily
press, with few exceptions, hired to uphold the sys-
tern of corruption—they could xast get these efficient
partizans to club their talents for the purpose of put-
ting down what they called " the two-penny trash of
Mr. Cobbett," without having recourse to a-violation
of the Constitution, by suspending the personal se-
curity of every man in the country. He certainly
thought Mr. Cobbett a powerful writer, but he had
never imagined that he possessed the degree of in-
fluence now attributed to him. The only conspiracy
that he (Sir Francis) knew of, Vas the conspiracy of
the Government against the rights of the people cf
England. The only treason that Government feared
was the treason of a Reform in the corruption of
their own supporters—(kar, hear).—lt was to uphold
the corruptions of that House that upon miserable
subterfuges and on scandalous pretences, the crimi-
'lA suspension of the law Was last Session carried by
that H.ouse—(hear, hear. hear;.
Sir SAMUEL 110 MILLY, adverting to the pre-
sent state of the House, which fully proved that Ole
debate was not expected so early, expressed his de-
termination, in the event of the other business which
stood for to-morrow being put off, to state his reasons
on this most important measure, by opposing the
motion for the Speaker leaving the Chair to proceed
into a Committee.

Lord FOLKESTONE was ready to postpone his
motion which stood for tc.nsorrow. He also wished
to know whether the Noble Lord opposite wouid
specifically accept the challenge he had giv,n as to
the applicability of the precedents, to wliich the
Noble Lord adverted on a frsrmer occaskn ?
Lord CASTLEKEAGH thought t!,c mig'lt
be discussed on any future stage of the Fl,l. _;b
'louse then divided on the question, flat Cnis dill 6e