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

INDEMNITY BILL.

The ATTORNEY GENERAL having moved the
Order of the Day for the House resolving itself into
a Committee on the Indemnity Bill,
Sir SAMUEL ROMILLY rose to oppose the Bill.
He objected not only to the general principle of the
Bill, but to all its parts. When it was considered
that the general object of all government was the
administration of justice, and when it was recollected
that the object of this Bill was to prttvent persons
who may have been injured from having that remedy
which the law provided for them, he trusted the
House would look well to the provisions of the Bill
itself, as well at to the circumstance; under which it
was brought before the I louse. It must be admitted
that it was only in those extceme cars where the
safety of the State was at stake, that such an extra-
ordinary ineasule should be resorted to. The House
therefore ought to enter upon this with the solemnity

NICE N(B.

to he observed in the exercise of judicial functions--
he said judicial, becatisa the louse was now called
upon to decide upon the causes of a number of indi
',Kist's's, when they were in ignorance even of the
very facts of their cases, and were called upon to de-
side in'the dark—to declare that the doors of our
own Courts of Justice should be closed against a
number' of Individuals unknown, who had sustained
unknown wrongs. These circumstances, however,
were peculiar to all Bills of Indemnity, and they
eu&ht to make the House extremely cautious how it
decided upon them. The present Bill might be said
to comprehend three different objects :—first, to in-
demnify his Majesty's Ministers against the conse-
quences of acts done by them, not under the Suspen-
sion Act, for that was itself an indemnity against ail
things done under its authority, but in the execution
of what they might have conceived to be their duty
in preserving the peace of tl.e country ;—secondly,
to indemnify Magistrates for acts done by them in
suppressing disorders ;—thirdly, to protect those in-
dividuals who had given information to Government
:from tea alliktsaf having-their information discloraid.
As to the first of these objects, he was sure there were
many Members in the House who had very much
mistaken the nature of the Bill ; especially two Ho-
nourable Gentlemen (Mr. Marryatt and Mr. Pro-
theroe) both of whom, on a former evening, had said
that they voted in favour of the Bill, because. they
thought it the duty of Parliament to protect Minis-
ters for acts done by them in the execution of those
extraordinary powers committed by the Legislature
into their hands. This was a great mistake. The
Suspension Act was an indemnity for all proceedings
authorised by it. It was stated in the Reports of the
Secret Committees of both Ilouses, that one man bad
been arrested for treason, or on suspicion of treason,
but only upon information on oath. Indeed Ministers
at times admitted this Bill was not wanted for them-
selves, but stili,lttlsesereen those persons who had given
information. statement that the committals had
all been on information given on oath, was no satis-
faction to him. The persons who gave that infor-
mation, did so, knowing that whether it was true or
false, they would never be called to account for it ;
indeed the Attorney General had actually said, that
the informations had been given under a promise of
secrecy. This was no warrant whatever for depriving
any subject of his liberty, and to administer an oath
to the informer under sue circumstances was a
useless ceremony. lie did not say that his Majesty's
Ministers had abused the powers entrusted to them ;
but he did say there was no reason for saying that
these powers had not been abused. One Honoaraloe
Gentleman (Mr. Preemantle) who spoke on this sub-
ject on a former evenly, and who began his speech
by professing his consistency, said that there was no
reason to accuse Ministers of the abuse of that power
Ibut what was founded on petitions presented to the
House, every one of which had been disproved. This
was one small mistake of the Hon. Gentleman, and
it was no less than taking a denial for proof. It was
to be recollected that the Hcrise was called upon to
give protection to Magistrates for acts into the nature
of which all examination was refused. This refusal
was as much as telling the people out of doors—
You need present no more petitions to us." On I
former. evening, when it had been truly observed,
that not one of-his Majesty's Ministers took a part in
the debate, the answer was, that it was not to be ex-
pected of Ministers that they should be over•ready to
take part in a debate, the subject of which was their
own conduct. And this answer was just. But how
was it consistent with this that "Nliiiisters should have
formed the very Committee that was to examine into
their conduct, and even it might be said that they
drew up the Report of that Committee ?—(llear.)--
It was absurd to say that the mode of electing the
Committee by ballot made it the less the Committee
chosen by Ministers themselves, since it was noto-
rious that the lists for the Committee were made out
and distributed by Ministers ; indeed it appeared that
out of 103 lists 97 were found by the reau;ineers to
be in the same hand writing—( Hear, lwar, hear.)—
In progress of time it would probably be bound more
economical to have the lists for the ballots of such
Committees printed—(a laugh.)—And yet the Cam-
mince thus chosen was said not to be the Cr mmittee
of Ministers. Mention had been made of the prece-
dents for Bills of this kind. So far as he knew (and
he spoke with diffidence, because he had not been
able to examine that part of the question so miatudy
as he wished) there was no instance of such a Bill 4.. f
Indemnity as the present, except that of 1801. It
was true that on the several other occasioas on which
die Habeas Corpus had been suspended, the Susi en-
sion Acts had been followed by Bills of lideiohiky,
but in none of these cases was the Indemnity Bill i.._
troduced as the consequence of the Suspemion.--
: After the Suspensions at the Revolution—the Rebel.
lion of 1715—and that of 1745, there had been Acts
of Indemnity, but they had no reference to the Sus-
' pension of the Habeas Corpus ; they were occasioned
solely by the circumstances of extraordinary danger
to the country. No Act of Indemnity at all follow-
ed the Suspension at the time of Atterbury's con-
spiracy, or that which took place (Itt: ing the Ame-
rican war. As to the second object of the Bill e
protection of Magharates, he would .e,k
House was not taken by surprise in fo.di ig any pto-
vision upon this subject in the Bill:? Tiie cnlJ Mdse
in which it appeared that the Magistrates had e.aa-
cised extraordinary powers, was in the p,oceedii,es
at Manchester—(hear, hear, hear); and there ike r, i-
sorters were dismissed and not brought to trial. But
the Statute of George the Second was sufficit nt in-
demnity to Magistrates in such a case—(hear, hear.)
—Why was the effect of the Bill carried back to all
proceedings since the 'alith of January, 1817 ? These
was something black and mysterious in /Ma which
Ministers were afraid to disclose. One pa. t of Ole
Bill had been most justly ar.i mad s rted upon,
namely, that which justi:ied the seizing of papers.—
In the whole of our law books there was no jtoli;-