Star.
London, England, 1818-03-10 00:00:00

drc.ls, what harm could accrue to the witnesses on
whose testimony they had been imprisoned, if they
had stated nothing but the truth ? In the year 1813,
seventeen persons were executed at York, on the evi-
dence of accomplices, for crimes against the public
peace, and yet, for all that was known to the con-
trary, witnesses had returned to their homes,
and lived there without fear or clafiger—(hear, hear).
He would not detain the House on the subject of
spies, but merely to observe that what Dr. Johnson
said of ghosts, might well be applied to them, namely,
" that all reasoning was against them, but experi-
ence was for them. He then compared the present
with former times, when the Habeas Corpus Act had
been suspended ; and contended, that the reasons as-
signed for the measure at this moment, were weak
and nugatory, compared with the inducements in
former instances. In reviewing the different disturb-
ances in• the country within the two last years, he
considered, that in Derbyshire, if any where, they
might look for full-grown rebellion ; but even there,
the great theatre of the treason charged upon the
people, not more than 200 persons rose into open tu-
mult ; and even these dispersed before a single troop
of Dragoons, without having infected the people
either with their principles or their purposes. He
could assert, from his own local knowledge, that the
alarm of the people in Yorkshire, in 1812, was much
greater than what was produced last year, and yet
no suspension then took place, and no Bill of Indem-
nity was required by the Executive for the means
adopted to suppress the disturbance. He thought
.that Ministers might let judgment go by default in
any actions that might be brought against them; and
pay the damages out of the secret service money. At
all events, some plan of redress ought to be provided.
Mr, BRAND maintained that the precedents quo-
ted by the Attorney General would not bear out the
present proceedings, and in fact they were rather cal-
culated to show that the Bill before them was not en-
titled to the approbation of the House. Had the
House of Commons been duly attentive to the peti-
tions of the people ; had the. Committee appointed to
investigate the state of the country been chosen fairly
, and impartially, instead of being composed chiefly of
the Ministers, sitting in judgment upon t,he Ministers,
he should not have objected- to an Indemnity Bill.—
,He hoped Ministers, however, would recommend
some plan to the House, by which the sufferers under
the Suspension Act should obtain redress. This
might be done without precluding the Government
from the advantages of an Indemnity Bill. Ministers
had not placed themselves in a situation to demand
this measure ; they had in fact deprived the people of
England of the protection of the laws, and the House
would not do its duty, if it did not reject a Bill which
wat to.give impunity for such an offence.
Mr. MARRYATT believed that Ministers had
acted throughout from a conviction that their mea-
sures were necessary, and he should support the Bill

of Indemnity.
Lord ALTHORPE contended that as Ministers
knew the extent of the danger, and had required from
the House the powers necessary, for the public fafety,
they were not entitled to ask for indemnity for hay-
ing exceeded those powers which were granted to
them as sufficient, upon their own &hewing, to met
the necessityy of the case. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. FREEMANTLE felt himself bound to give a
,public avowal of his eentimeau, from a regard to
consistency—(hear, hear.) He could not but observe
that the arguments used that night applied more to
the measure of last yeari than to that which alone was
then before them. If the people had been swindled
out of their rights, it was the Parliament who had
swindled them—(hear, hear.) And it should adopt
this measure from a regard to what was due to the
Ministers—but he got up to support this Bill, from
an anxiety to be consistent in his own character. It
WAS idle to talk of the people being cajoled. He be-
lieved that treasonable acts had been committed—
that revolutionary designs were entertained, and he
therefore supported this measure. He would remind
the House of the opinion of Mr. Ponsonby, who came
out of the Committee with a conviction that there was
danger in the state of the country—(hear, hear, hear),
though he did not approve of the measures which
were adopted to arrest its progress—(hear, hear, hear.)
But he recollected that estimable man and enligh-
tened statesman, declared, that if he had been in the
Cabinet, he should have advised similar measures to
those which were followed—(Na, ;so, and hear, hear,
from the Opposition beaches).—What was the fact,
with regard to the statements of the petitions from
persons who had been imprisoned? Why, they had
all been disproved—(Hear).—Those from Manches-
ter had been rebutted by the testimony of the most
respectable persons in that neighbourhood. The In-
demnity Bill Was part of the general proceedings on
this subject, and the House was bound to go with
the Ministry now, as it had done in suspending the
Habeas Corpus Act before— ( Hear, hear).—He
should never regret the vdte he intended to give on
this occasion, because Ministers had laid the evidence
of their conduct before a Committee of that House,
which Committee had given a Report, sanctioning;
and even applauding, all they had done—(Heer).
Mr. BRAND said, in explanation, that he felt it
his duty to object to this measure, because it de-
prived the people of their legal remedies.
Lord NUGENT admitted, that his lamented friend
(Mr. Ponsonby) came out of the Committee with a
persuasion that a spirit of disaffection was abroad in
the country ; but how did he illustrate this convic-
tion ? why, by voting against the Suspension Bill—
(hear, hear,)---maintaining that the ordinary powers
of the law were sufficient to preserve the public tran-
quillity—(hear, hear.)—He was sure, too, that if his
lamented friend had been spared•to the country, he
would not have violated his consistency by support-
ing the present measure—(Acar, hear.)—He agreed
with his Honourable Friend (Mr. Freemantle), that
the question before them was the Indemnity Bill, and
not the Habeas Corpus Suspension Act; but he, as
well as his Honourable Friend, had some regard to
consistency—(bear, hear);—and from the honest im-
pulse of his conscience, he should oppose the In-
demnity Bill, as he had condemned the measure
which gave rise to it. He they proceeded to remark
upon the case of the Petitioners, who, he maintained,
Lad been cajoled into recognizances, to give a colour
to the injustice of their imprisonment. .Much stress
had been laid on the Report of the Secret Committee;
but he trusted the opinion of a Committee, however
formed, would not be final and imperative upon that
Hosts:- The Report in question, however, was en-