Star.
London, England, 1818-03-04 00:00:00

PAdZLIAMENTARY PROCEEDING 4.

HOUSE OF LORDS, MARCH 3.

The Annual Indemnity Bill and the Kilmainham Hospital
Regulation Bill, were brought up from the Commons by Mr.
BAIMIDEN and others, and read the first time.
The Bank Token Penalty Suspension Bill was read a first and
wooed time.
The LORD CHANCELLOR notified to the House, that
Geolot Ilisav Rosa, Esq. Clerk of the Parßanients, had ap-
pointed BMW Coons, Rig. his Deputy, for the performance
of certain acts, as the signature of particular papers, documents,
&c. which were more specifically adverted to by the Noble and
Learned Lord; and also certain other acts, incase of his absence
from indisposition, Ste.
Also, that the said Mr. Ross had appointed Joint WILLIAM
Buten, Esq. to act in the absence of Mr. Cowers in certain
cases, and to sit as Assistant Second Deputy Clerk of the Par-
liaments.
Also, that Mr. Ross had appointed B/DUAMM/ CLIRRIT, Esq.
act as Second Clerk Assistant, as occasion may require.
Earl GROSVENOR inquired, across the table, whether it
was meant to propose any regulation with respect to the fees, or
emoluments, of the office of Clerk of the Parliament.
The Earl of LIVERPOOL observed, that it was his inten-
tion, as he had stated on a former occasion, to propose, in the
course of the present Session, some legislative regulations for the
arrangement of the office in question, but prospectively, and
having a regard to the existing itterosts.
The Marquis of LANSDOWNE adverted to the very great
:aavenience which would result to Noble Lords, if prospectively
some regulation were adopted for having some official specifica-
tion of the business fixed for each day ; and intimated his inten-
tion to submit some motion on the subject.
The Earl of LIVERPOOL hoped the Noble Marquis would
not press any specific motion on that subject, as the object in
view may be better effected in another way; and he had no
doubt some mode may be suggested for obviating the inconve-
nience alluded to by the Noble Marquis.
The Duke of SUSSEX presented a Petition from certain
mrlshes in the Metropolis, or its adjuncts, in favour of the
17.1iimney-sweepers' BiU; as did the Marquis CAMDEN one from
sr Town of Chelmsford.
Some conversation took place between Lord AMIE/AIM and
the EA., of LAUDERDALE and Lummox, on the subject of the

iture progress of the Chimney-sweepers' Bill; in the course of
the Noble Minister expressed his wish that a consider-
able interval may take place between the second reading and the.
Committee on the Dill, in order to afford time fur a due con,i-
&ration of the allegations of the Petitions, and to enable the
House to give a then ough consideration to the subject in general.
Lord Auckland, who seemed inclined to move the second reading
on an early day, adverted to the Report sent up by the Com-
mons, as coutairing adequate information on the subject.
The Marquis of L A NSDOW NE stated his intention to move
the second reading of the Jail Chaplains' Salaries Bill (a mea-
sure to which he thought there was no serious objection), en
Thursday nest.
On the motion of the LORD CHANCELLOR, the Account
before the House of the number of Recognixances filed in the
Court of King's Bench for appearance upon certain charges,
tithtY by Information or in lictment, was ordered to be printed.
The Earl of CARNARVON, in pursuance of his notice of
yesterday, moved for an account of the number of Persons at-
rested and detained upon charges of being concerned in illegal
and seditious meetings; which was ordered accordingly.
Viscount SIDMOUTH observed, that he would afford every

i.:Dity in his powtr towards the desired production; but appre
i•nded that his office would afford Wilt little information with
~.tdpect to thu Noble Earl's motion.
- - -

INDENISITY BILL.

Lord HOLLAND,.previous to their Lordships' re-
,Diving Into a Committee on the Bill, spoke at some
length on the suhject, and in reference chiefly to the
statements in the preamble of the Bill, thought some
explanation was necessary, as in his then view of the
subject, he deemed some of the enactments not only
various but contradictory. These seemed to imply
that illegal acts had been committed, though the
Irincipal supporters of the measure alledged that
nothing illegal had been done. If they were to con-
.ider the Bill of Indemnity as naturally flowing out
of the Suspension Act, then he thought the leading
-rovisions of that Act should be recited in•the In-
demnity Bill. As it stood, he certainly entertained
much difficulty and doubt on the subject; the Bill
•ippeared to differ not only from former measures of
the kind, but that of 1801. Indemnity was provided
not only for committing and detaining, but even for
discharging. There were some considerations which
forcibly struck him in the way of query, and of
which he wished for a solution. The principal of
these seemed to be, whether an individual who had
been arrested and detained, and subsequently dis-
-.harged in the way that several of these recently had
)een, was recently exempted thereby from future
prosecution, or was placed in the full enjoyment of
all his legal rights as a British subject, in conse-
vler.ce of such discharge.
The LORD CHANCELLOR, in consequence of

.Lat had fallen from the Noble Lord, entered into
a legal view of the points adverted to at some length.
He argued most ably for the necessity, on the spe•
ial and extraordinary circumstances of the case, of
rotecting the Magistrates and all those who had
iecessarily acted under the authority which recently
:Aisted for the safety of the State; and above all,
''.at the sources of their information should not be

i:sclosed. With respect to the doubts entertained,
..to seemed of opinion, that the proceedings which
took place in the Court of King s Bench went on
those juridical principles on which all cases of the
kind proceeded; and tithe Judges of that Court, on
those occasions, had acted illegally, all those who
)receded them had so acted. This was the best opi-
nion he could at that time give, upon his view of
what was referred to, and he should be ready to
give any further information in his power respecting
tLe points.
Their Lordships then resolved into the Committee,
the Earl of SISAFTESBURY in the Chair. _

On the question of postponing the consideration
of the preamble, which in this case was proposed
• ith reference to its connexion with the next enact-

ing clause, to be forthwith considered,
lord GRENVILLE gave his opinion that there
was no necessity for departing from the ordinary
-mrsc of proceeding in this case.
In the result, the preamble, was postponed. The

:louses being entered upon,
The Earl of LAUDERDALE said, he intended
co propose an Amendment to the date of the Indem-
nit'', being the Ist of January, 1817. He wished
zo know how the Noble and Learned Lord should,
on a former night, have said that this Bill was a
corollary on the Suspension Act, when the latter
Act was passed on the sth of March ? This would
be an indemnity for actions cOmitted long before
the Habeas Corpus Act was suspended. He there-
fore moved, as an amendment, to insert the words
“ 4th of March, 1817," instead of the Ist 'of Ja-
wary, 1817.
The Earl of LIVERPOOL opposed the amend-
ment, because some. retrospective indemnity should
be given in all eases where persons might have been
apprehended for 'practices against the State, upon
the expectation that Parliament would pass an Act
to suspend the Habeas Corpus. It might be rccol-