The Statesman.
London, England, 1818-03-04 00:00:00

CLIMBING BOYS.

The Earl of LIVERPOOL, in answer to a ques-
tion from the Earl of Lauderdale, relative to the
second ►eeding of the Chimney-sweepers' Regula.
lion Bill, observed, that he did not think that the
Hove, from the state of its information, could yet
be considered fully prepared for acceding to the
principle of the Bill. Ile did not, liossever, think
that the second reading ought to be resisted. It might
be allowed to go into the Committee, and the prin.
dple could be discussed on the Report of the third
• Lord AUCKLAND said, that their Lordships
wisuld hues a great body of evidence heft).* them,
antes theritoppel of itm-Cerosseitevee of tke Hesse et
Commons was communicated.

The Marquis of LANSDOWNE gave notice, that
he would, on Thursday nest, move the second read-
ing of the Jail Chaplains' Bill.
The Bishop of LONDON thought it proper
.to
take this opportunity of stating, that lie would op-
pose one of the clauses.
The LORD CHANCELLOR stated, that an ac-
count of persons who had forfeited their recogni-
lances bad been presented on the motion of a Noble
Lord. As that Noble Lord was not present when
it was presented, he bad moved that it be printed,
sod it would ins few da)s be before the House.

The Earl of CALLNARVON made the motion
of which he gave notice )estertlay, for en account
of the persons arrested and warrants issued, &c.
under the operation of the Habeas Corpus Act.
After a few words from Lord SIDNIOUTII,' who
said that part of the information asked for was al-
ready before. the house, the motion was agreed to.

INDEMNITY BILL. •
The Older of the Dry being read for the commit-
ment of the Indemnity Bill, _ _ _

Lord HOLLAN6 rose, but not, he said, with
the intention of resisting the motion for referring
this-Bill to a Committee. There were, however, two
or three questions which he thought it right previ-
ously to ask, the isomer to which might perhaps
enable their Lordships to proceed with more preci-
sion and dispatch when in the Committee than they
could otherwise do. His present purpose was not
to discuss either tho principle or the details of the
Bill ; but as their Lordships were about to go into
the Committee, it was important to know what was
the object which 'they had there to carry into execu-
tion; for, after all the discussion which the subject
had undergone, there were still some points
with respect' to which the intention of thole who
had introdeced the Bill was very obscure. On
one or two of the grounds on which they rested the
measute, they seemed to be at variance with them-
selves.---It had been said, that precedent was fol-
lowed in the present case; hut if it had been the ob-
ject of the framers of the Bill to establish it on pre.
cedent, the result of their labour was not consistent
with their intention. All former Acts of Indemnity
in this country had acknowledged nr implied that
certain illegal acts had been committed, and on the
ground of that illegality the indemnity was grimed ;
but thepresent Bill, according to the assertions of
those who supported it, the Report of the Com.
mines*, and its own preamble, came before their
Lordships with the allegation that no illegal act had
been done. The Report which had been made by
their Lordships' Committee stated that the persons
who had beets taken into custody had been arrested
on oath. According to all the assertions and
gations, there had been no illegality ; and if there
was no illegality, there c.eld be no need of indent-
'
fitly ; but it was said, that if Ministers should be
called upon to justify themselves in Courts of Law,l
they world be obliged to produce evidence whkh it
would be improper to disclose. Ile could not say

_,....
Ibliit ghlitiltiat be possible that a Bill no this sob..
jad Its eetiololte; bet then the object of loch a Bill
csVill not be Indemnity. It *as thew proper that
MO Lordship, alsbeld. know before thy 1:-,.fritist tit!)
110 Committose I* which of thou Objects ihtlielitifoi
.... .
_. ~.
lien was to be directed, or subedit It wet tatift:
•
ottpected of them that they 'geld occompitsg
,ofejecte. Whitt were they. to'll' coned ipito in 4a t
themase clasper! awairoals sedoldaariiewer for ritistelf.
I siblocts he bad 'aimed tot. If git the isteeeedingaasid
legal. what danger reedit t litre be in eta-losing the ea 11
NI Mitch the arrests had Wei wide ? There was another ' ;
wiwilb Abe appeared to nth worth of their
11111epatissa., rimmely, how far this Bill flowed aid 00311111110elee
tt:the IfitTobsion Set of last Se&siou. !died hoes keel hoe
'Lordships could suppose that the Habeas Corpus Woisitt be
without this Hill %resoling necessary ; bet he new
eon that lie bad apt sees this natural coosequence 8 hat if it
✓ existed, alight it not to he Oki! Lord.litos' basiaess to
eon
mete eat that et-martian is .the Coillisit tee t The Hill, es h
weisd.essotaised ao re/teener tattle Seledeuthih nett frets which
it, welsaid to 'prim. Thlt greed* dociewed that es whiter**
'=ahad estistied. Veil shat waamensos bus t.
;insesatiled.dte..esiabilleillellhdia douse.
new themsgpeddisis stall thiv_tiewewidiega beam tint,
were prepowto he ressettd to. The MU, however, die not de-
ehsve that die* sew had been dose in coasequemee of the Saspeo-
sten of the Habeas Corpus. This B.N. therefore, applied gene-
rally to all arrests, and was in that respect were extensive in its
application than the measures which were said to have gives it
origin. Another dinieolty here arose in considering this BUI.
which, instead of being founded on preeedeat, differed in one
material respect. not only from all the old Hills of Indemnity ie
this cowetry, hot from that of 1/101, which had so often been al-
luded in, sanunnch al it granted indemnity. nut only for areal-
ing and detaining persons, but far diochargior. Have prisoner.
Ho- a been illegally di.ehareed ? It would become their lead
ships a ell to consider what might be the erect of the no roditc•
lion of ibis word into the Hill, ant merely with respect to the
protection of Ministers, hut to the future security of the permas
to wit to it applied. if Ministers, or the Maristrilei who, an-
der thew, carried the Habeas Corpus Sospeosion into execu-
tion. had acted legally in discharging prisoners, they would
stand in on need of indemnity. They could It sue 00 fettiof pro-
ducing evidence to show that they lead acted acord Mg to law in
aortiagtbe persons they had arrested at liberty. It via. neces-
sary, however, in call their Lordships' attentiou particularly to
this circumstance, as it appeared that there were casts in which
the discharge of prisoners by the Magistrates might be illeral.
la stonier this he tst.l.ed to refer their Lordships tun case which
occurred in Hilary Term. 171tN, before Mr. Juaire Aihhurst,
Mr Justice Huller, and Mr. Justice (irate. The case WAS en.
titled, Morgan v. Hughes. The plaintilf haulm! been ac-
cused of felony, and discharged, brought his action for mall.
cinus imprisonment against the Justice of the Peace. The de-
claration of the plai Allowed that he had been dilchargrtf.
Upon fists a speci .1 demurrer was entered, setting forth that it
did not appear by the declaration. that the plaint, ff laud Oren
tried and acquitted. or discharged by due course of Law. and
that it did not therefore appear that the commitment ss as with.
out cause, The declaration, in fact, must mate. that the prose-
cution is at an end; for a person aggrieved cannot bring an
action, without showing that be has been discharged acrauding
to a due coarse of law, either by a Grand Jury throwing out
the hi I of indictment preferred
.against him, by acquittal on
trial, or by a moll progeri. Their Lordships would therefore
perceive, that the extension of the Bill so cases of discharge was
of itself an indemnity to Ministers. That this was the unavoid-
ab!e con,equence of the in&todeetion of that word into the bill.
wits evident from the judgment given in the ease to which lie
had alluded. Mr. Justice Huller on that occasion said, " The
grounds of a malicious prosecution are, lit, that it nal *oar
maliciously; 2dly. wit out probable cause. The want &pro-
balite cause is she gi-t of the action s. fur it should have showed
sea the face of the record, that the prosecotiva was at au mid.—
hargiag that the *Waal' was ' di-charged' is oat Sae4.4 0,, ikie
last equal so she word • acquitted,' whir% law a Mot e mean-
ing. Where the word acquitted is used, it must be oiwleratood
in the legal sense, namely. by a Jury on the trial. lint there
are various ways by which a man may be di-chareedflom his
imprisonment. without putting an end to the suit. If, indeed,
it had hers alleged, that he was discharged by the Grand Jury's
not finding the bill, that would have shown a legal end to the
prosecution." Tile other Judges were of the same opinion.—
After what he had stated, and, en particular, after basing re-
cited this decision of the Court of King's lieuch, he thought it
right that their Lordships should he informed an the hollow jog
points:-Ist,
points : —lst, Whether a person discharged by sothority of the
Secretary, a Magistrate. without any bill of indictment egairot
him having beeu thrown out by a Grand Jury, or acquittal on
trial, or on a noli pratrfai. can he held to be discharged ac-
cording to law ? 2, Would *discharge by the Secretary of State
pr the person from beinf again arrested on the same
charge? S. Could a person discharged by the Secretary of
State insert in his declaration, on bringing an action, that there
was an end of the suit against him ? These were important
questions, and he thought them worthy of their tor.l.hip,' cosh.
sideration, on grounds totally independent of the Hill before