Star.
London, England, 1817-02-27 00:00:00

4,1, „ He 4;d cut linpo!e• to hies a illegal act—
, ,::'-aCt, which, though illegal, might be excusable,
which a Bill of Indemnity would cover. A cri-
:nal charge was of a very different description ;
r,4, if the Honourable Gent eman adhered to
.it,
-1e House ought to insist n tiis naming an early day,
r order to state his charge at length, and endeavour,
he could, to support it. If the Honourable Gen-
;ieirian meant to say, that the Noble Lord acted so
;:tega:ly as to render a 8.11 of Indemnity necessary,
:t might be passed over as an oh:creation made in
the heat of debate.
air. W. WYNN said, however he might regret
the charge that had been made, it appeared tc him
not to be personal to the Noble Lord, but to be
levelled against his Majesty's Ministers generally—
(Hear, /war). He might labour under a mistake, but
attending, as far as he could. to the subject, the:hi
cf the Honourable Gentleman's speech was, to oppose
the placing of extraordinary powers in the hands of
Lis Majesty's Ministers—(Hear, hear). It was not
iirectt4 against an individual. Long discussions
Wright be avoided, if the expressions which gate rise
to them were properly known. The charge, as it
struck him was this—that his Majesty's Ministers
lairing acted criminally, had called for a Bill of In-
dronity, in order to protect them. This was a charge
to which he disclaimed being any party ; but it was
one which, he contended, did net authorise the Noble
ird to interrupt :he debate, as in his view of the
ctte it was not inconsistent with Parliamentary order.
Mr. BRAND said, that his Honourable Friend,
to WAS convinced, from the sense in which he. used
Ow word criminal (which w. I by no means appli-
v2ic to the subject), did not mean to have intro.
dsced it. This was evident from his.having alluded
to it Lill of Indemnity, which, though it might pro-
tect Ministers from the operation of illegal acts during
the.suepension of the Habeas Corpus Act, could not
protest them from answering for those which were of
a criminal nature.
The SPEAKER—" I apprehend that the point
of Order tainnected with the question hinges on this—
whether the Honourable Member meant to charge
his Majesty's Governivient, in the aggregate, with
acts of criminality, or to impute criminal offences
against an individual Member of this, House ? The
two charges are, tirat, that some person or persons
had imbrued their hands in the blood of their coun-
try; and, next, that they had abused the powers in-
trusted to them. Now, in my view of the Orders of
this House, an act of criminality charged against the
Government in general is not .a broach of those Or.
den, but it advanced against an individual, it is a
direct infraction of them. The Honourable Member
will satisfy the House in which sense he made use of I,
the expressions complained of."—(Hear.hear)'.
Mr. 113i.NNETT said, he would be the last man
alive to retract any thing which he meant to have
stated ; but he had ao hesitation in declaring most
distinctly, as a Gentleman and a man of honour, that
he used the expressions generally: He did not allude
to the two hands of any Member of that House, but

he spoke of those who formed's' part of that Admi-
nistration during whose lamentable reign those scenes
took place in Ireland which he ever must lament.
He spoke of those who under an Act similar to that
which now cause before them for discussion, had done
many Aid actions. This, be believed, was a more
correct word than the word criminal, for if they had
conducted themselves criminally, the Act of Indem-
nity which was passed in their favour, would not brie
availed them.
Lord CASTLEREAGH said he understood the
Honourable Member had addressed himself pew"-
sully to him, he now had learned that he alluded to
the Government generally:" He believed that the
Honourable Member would not retract any word that
he meant to have used, and as he understood from
the Chair that be had no right to complain of any
imputation thrown on hint, as a Member of the Go-
vernment, he should not notice the observation far.
ther. But he begged to state, that if cruelty were
imputed to him as a Member of the Administration,
to which the. Honourable Gentleman alluded, he
leould, in his charaCter of Minister, give the state-
ment the same term of contradiction which the Ho-
nourable Member bad applied to the Report of the
'Committee, of which his Right Hon. Friend (Mr.
Ponsonby) was a Member.
Mr. BENNETT.said, he had not spoken of any
cruelty that was exercised under the appearance of
law, but of that which took place under the eyes of
Government in the Castle-yard of Dublin. -
Lord, CASTLEREAGH said, the Honourable
Member had alluded to measures which had occurred.
in Ireland when he was a Member of the Irish Go.
vernment. If the subject were regularly brought tor-,
ward, be would meet the charges and refute themsj
but he put it to the feelings of the Honourable Geo-
tleman, and to the good sense of the House, whether
the character of Ministers and the peace of the country
were to be mixed up in debates up,pn other subjects ?
Mr. BENSETT said, he alluded to the measures
that had taken place in Ireland, because the Noble
Lord had denied them—and, in denying them, had
applied to him a phrase, which, it seemed, he had
'used in speaki,ig of the Report of the Committee,
though he did not mean it. The Noble Lord charged
him with a take statement of facts, and he wished to
set himself right with the House, by declaring that
which he knew to be truth. The Honourable Gen-
tleman concluded with observing, that he hoped he
'would be excused for departing from the general line
of argument, because he felt most warmly on the
A.tec; ; and he pledged himself to oppose the present
B'll, aiid that telatire to seditious meetings, in every
•
.:!re,e of their progress.
Mr. F. LEWIS said, he came to the decision that
would vote for the suspenSion of the Habeas COP,
Act with sincere regret. He was convinced.that'
r At which they were about to suspend was a shish,
mpo:tant part (he might say the perfection, the very
consummation) of the Constitution; but be was of
cp.nion, looking_ to the balance of evils, that 'this.
•tempated with others that threatened us, WAS infs..,
z.le:y the least. The Spencean doctrines were, not,
tr, be counteracted by the publicatioe of pamphlets of
z", opposite nature ; but they should be met as a cruise,
"'d the publication punished by an express law. Tlw,
?mat-less of the danger in which the Constitution
L td b. 2,11 placid was a full and ample justification.
There had been considerable powers g, anted to Mi.
:taters by a very sums Act, that of the year 1799,
by, its reference to that of 1796, which since
..1p.4-1, had defeated the pa/ability vt ainisurs jict•