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

trim STATESMAN,

The LORD CHANCELLOR said, that ON! Bill
before 'heir -Coplabtps ntlilenerfl,W..conal
templated a case.of Cass eatrenrdinary and spectet user
ture in which iewas indispeOsible to protect ill Me-
&train who were connected with it., I
Lord HOLLAND snowed that ae eatreordinery
and special case ought to be decided milts own merits,
but maintained that the former argument of . the No-1
ble end Learned Lord was applicable to the casoAet
1111 Migiitrates 'rho dispersed tomato-outs assembliette
... The Earl of LIVERPOOL admitted that in the
Act of 1801 there was no provision of the nature no-
des. consideration, the reason of which was, that al.,
though many persons having been taken up on suspi-
cion of High Treason, and not afterwards brought to
trial, Parliament thought it right to pass an Act of.
Indemnity to protect Ministers, yet in that period
there was nothing like insurrection which demanded
a measure of this nature with reference to Magi*.
Crates. In the late occurrences not only had persons
been apprehended under the warrant of the Secretary •
of State, bet insurrections of a formidable nature had
taken place which required the interposition of Me.
gisterial authority. large bodies of people were
taken op by order of the Magiitrates—in one place
ao lest, than 250—with a view to prevent the further
progress of the Meetings of the 10th of March. This
Isaving been the state,of the country, would Perlis-,
merit act fairly by the Magistrates, if it did not pro!
!Oct them from vexatious suits? Their Lordslsips
should never forget that the preservation of the pub.
lic peace depended on the voluntary efforts of these
respectable Genilemen, who were generally unpaid,
and who came forward independently to discharge
duties of the highest importance, attended in many
cases with great personal risk, and which therefore
entitled them to the protection of the Legislature.
The Earl of CARNARVON observed, that the
arguments of the Noble Earl and of the Noble and
Learned Lord, went to prove that an Act of Indem-
nity was necessary on every occasion in which the
Magistrates exerted themselves to preserve the peace
of the country. Did the Noble Earl mean to say,
that the Magistrates last year exceeded their powers,
and that they therefore came to Parliament for in-
demnity? If so, and if the necessity was manifest,
that indemnity Parliament would not refuse. But
he denied that it was to be taken for granted that
when Magistrates exerted themselves in the case of
tumultuous assemblies, they necessarily violated the
law, and must have an Act of Indemnity to protect
them. He supported his Noble Fliend's amend.
merit, not because he thought Indemnity unnecessary,
but because in this, as well as in other parts of the
Bill, their Lordships were legis!atioe in the dark.
The amendment was then negatived without a di.
vision.
Lord ERSKINE said, he felt as much es any man
the necessity of protecting the Magistrates of the
country in the bona fide discharge of their duty.—
Before the 41st of the Kilg, if a person was con-
victed by one or two Magistrate', and afterwards
that conviction was quashed, the Magistrate or Magi-
strates were subject to an action. When their Lord.
ships considered in how many cases en honourable
man 'might fall into error, they would acknowledge
thWexpediency of the Act of the 41st of the King,
by'which it was provided that Magistrates who had
acted bona fide should not he liable to such actions;
adding that an action might be brought charging the
Magistrate with malicious motives, and that if the
,jury were of opinion that he was influenced by such
motives, then that he should be subject to all the
Consequences of the suit. lie proposed (although he
had not drawn his proposition with sufficient correct-
ness) introducing into the clause a provision, that
nothing therein should extend to any act of any per-
son committing maliciously, or without reason nr
competent cause. Were the ACt to pass without such
prevision, the most atrocious and the most notorious
outrage might escape with impunity. Ile anticipated
that. one answer to his proposition would be, that the
preamble of the Bill stated that the persons to be pro.
tected by it, were to he so protected, not on their
own account alone, but on the account of those who
might be called upon to disclose their sources of in.
formation. "Good Gnd !" exclaimed the Noble Lord,
" to what are we brought!" While a.conspiracy was
going on it might be extremely proper not to disclose
any sources of information. But now when the
peace and liberty of the country, as far as the latter
had been mutilated by the Act of last Session, were
restored, if any man could justly bring an action
against a Magistrate for malicious motives in an act,
not secret, but witnessed by • hundred or a thousand
persons (lie hoped and believed that no such act had
been committed), would any one say that that Me.
gistrate, if guilty, ought not to be exposed and pus
rushed ? It was said by Noble Lords, that in intro.
ducing this measure they consulted the safety of the
country. The beet measure to which the Legislature.
could resort for securing the safety of the country,
was to secure the liberty and privileges of the sub-
ject. It was extremely necessary for their Lordships
to be cautious in the way in which they dealt with
ribs present Act, for the principles on which t
.proceeded in tips case would be equally applicable te
Lk.at
others. A Magistrate ought to be protected
he acted bona fide; but their Lordships ought not
Yo shOw the subjects of the realm that they would de.
'Arno Magistrates who acted in public, and whose acts
':were not of that honest character.
k The LORD CHANCELLOR said, he bad a short
Ilenswer to make to the observations of his Noble
?Friend. Ther.had proceeded some way in passing a
Ittlt of Indemnity—hut, if they adopted the clause
'hisw-iitirodueed they would nullify all they had pre.
rltinaly done. The general principle, certainly was,
this! as Wien could not be maintained against a Ma.
gistate for This officiat conduct, unless be acted ma.
liliooily ind without probable cause. But they were
passing a Bill of. Indemnity, which necessarily in-
terfered With general '
principles, and they had it in
their power, if they, did not choose to persist in it,
to abandon it at once. This was a much better way
than agreeing in'clauses that Would defeat the object
tof theßilf. :Now, suppose an action was brought
igainst a Magistrate, charging him with having pro.
Ceeded Maliiioosly and in' the absence of probable
cause, the plaintiff might declare thsit he had been
Maliciously taken into
,custody, end, if the Magis-
trate had proceeded on evidence which, consistently
with a due regard to the public safety, he could nut
disclose, he had no Rower whatever to make to the

chargg. Fe coul. -‘0:-...
d not state the nature of the itsfoi-1
leettoxilte had received, and w hich "'forded the pro.
beble ground' of proceeding. Admitting some illlegali-
des to ha* been committed, still it was for 60 public
interest that Magistrates should be protected, not,
onjy against vexatious suits, but against those which,
by their number, might perifize the efforta of any
man, even though he were possessed of a good de.
fence. Would their Lordships leave thee) in that
situation, that every one of the perpuns against w horn
they had acted, either at their own instance, or by
"the direction of others, might persecute them with
potions which they mast defend? He :never knew
each a clause as this introduced in any Indemnity
Bill. In the reign of King William, the Habeas
Corpus 'Act was suspended on the ground of public
exigency—and theargument came to this, that when,
for the public safety, the liberties of the People were,
for a time, abridged, the same exigency which called
for that abridgment, demanded that those who hid
acted for the general good, while it existed, should.
be protected, when the necessity was at an end. The
Noble Lord, on all these occalions, exhorted them
to take care that they did not trifle with the iiherti..s
of the Peeple—and God forbid Met he should do S 0 to
But surely they were not to scquiesce in the destruc•
riot) of the country, by suffering their feelings for in-
dividuals to overpower every other consideration.
1 The Earl of ROSSLYN was as ansioes for the
safety of the Crown and Constitution-.—was as de-
sirous to forward the tranquillity and happiness of
i the country, as any Noble Lord opposite; but he
never would consent that the-liberties of the People
should be unnecessarily sacrificed to an apprehen-
sion of danger. lie was glad to find it now con-
fessed, that the preamble dill not meet the .matters
contained in the Bill. It had been said_at first, that
the Bill was introduced merely to indemnify those
who could not justify themselves without disclosing
matters dangerous to the public safety ; bat it now
turned out that illegal acts had beeir.cosnoritted,
or why should an attempt be made to - indemnify
those who could proceed to their defence without
making any improper disclosure? ..
The Amendment was negatived.
The Marquis of LANSDOWNE expressed his
surprise that Ireland was mentioned in the Bill, as
the habeas Corpus Suspension Act, under which
Ore transactions took place that called for ibis In.
demnity Bill, did not extend to that country. His
Lordship moved, that the word " Ireland" .be
omitted.
Viscount SIDMOUTH said, a special case did
occur, which rendered the introduction of Ireland
netiessary. . •
The Marquis of LANSDOWNE said, it was a case
never yet before Parliament—and in land had beep
introduced without any notice whoever.
Viscount SI DM ouni—it i, pa. I of the informa-
tion laid before both Houses of Parliament. A per,
son charged with treasonable practices was arrested,
on a warrant, in Ireland.
. ,
Lord HOLLAND strougly opposed the intredoc.'
tion of Ireland into the Bill. If there were a special•
case, the proper mode would be, to insert a particular
clause to meet it.
The Earl of LIVERPOOL said, 'that" no perton
had been taken op, under the Habeas Cor.
pus Suspension Act, for any thing done in Ire.
land. The case alluded to was that of Beirbow,. a
person against wham a warrant was issued. He
' escaped to Ireland, *trete be was taken, when pre-
paring to embark for Americs.
After several observations froth the LORD CHAN-
cELLott, Lords LANSDOWNE, I. toneito.tLe; ItEDEi.
DALE, and HOLLAND, the amendment: was agreed to,
'with an understanding, that a clawre should be intro-
duced applicable to the particular case alluded to.
The Earl of CA RN ARVON, after ezpatiatin4 on
the unfairness of depriving a plaintiff, by this Bill, of
his right of action, and, at the same time saddling
'him with double costs, moved, that double costs
should only attach to any suit commenced after the
passing of this Act.
The LORD CHANCELLOR opposed the pro.
position—but moved, that double costs should not
be taken from the plaintiff, when Vie action was
commenced before the 27th of February last, and
was not continued.
After a few observations from Lords KING and
HOLLAND, the proposition of Lord CARNARVON
was negatived--and that of the Lotto CHANCELLOR
agreed to.
The Earl of CARNARVON moved a clause, by
which a Plaintiff might bring his action, against a
Magistrate, provided, that, a month previous to his
bringing it, his Solicitor gave notice to the Secretary
of State of his intention. 1 f the Secretary of State
then made oath, that the justification of the defend-
ant depended on the disclosure of information income
patible with the public safety, the proceedings to be
stayed—but if he did not make such an affidayit, the
plaintiff to be at liberty to proceed:
The.cla.use rese.sregatived, after a few words from.'
the Earl of LIVERPOOL
The Earl of CAR N A ItVON gave notice, that be
would move it in another stage.
Tim- Earl of- LAUD4RDALE. mewed several
Amendments to the preamble, taken from the woke'
est part of the Report of the Secret Committee, for
the. purpose, he said, of making, the Bill and theft.,
port agree together. They. were negatived.
After a few verbal Amendments were made,_ the
House resumed, the Report was received, and the
Bill ordered to be• read a third time on Thursday.
Adjourned at Half-past Two n'.Clock.

HOUSE OF-COMMONS.

--- -
Mr. LUSIIINGTON presented a Return of the
Amount of Poor Rates collected in the course of last

year.
Mr. D. GILBERT obverved, that the subject
quired much consideration. Ile alluded toe Bill itµ
troduced by himself two ur three.yesrs back. Ttie
Committee, last Session, had made a Report on the
subject, and he hoped and trusted that their enqui.
' ries and labours would be productive of public be•
nefit to the country, and afford satisfaction to the
People at large.• Regulatkuis in minor points would
not be sufficient. That the matter might be folly
considered, he should n►ute that the Papers be
printed.

Sir C. MONCK agr•el with the lion. Gentleman
who jut sat dm. Much was expected from the

. •

, 1

lileknuniittee ; but he still deipaired of any thisik
factory to the country being dude, airless IsfG 11,
ty's Ministers came fobwardi and applied a radical
cure to the evils, which wrre so lumen)" and so
deep.—[Hear, hear!}—Nothing short of ariair arid
open examination and support of the subjeol, epea
their 'parts, would satisfy the nation.
Mr. CA I.CRA FT admitted that the Posse Rees
were unquestionably a great evil. lie, however, gat •
sofprised to beer all usions•to. Midi& reesesilett.la
these rates ought to be done away with altogether,
[Hear, hear!]—No doubt many *louses misted its-she.
administration of the Poor Laws; and from these
all the evils of the system had their beginning.
the Honoorable Gentleman opposite (Mr. Gil bees).
would have done• much more for the public good;
and for the alleviation of the Poor Rates, if he tisit.'
lent his hand towards the diminution ut tasation.-1
[llear,hear,hearl)—No man was more inclined thee.
..r
himself to put a stop to the evils' of the present system
and he was sure that the most effectual w*y of doing
so, would be, to lessen the amount of the lases. it
the lases were diminished, then individuals would
have it in their power to employ a greater bomber of
labourers, and this would inevitably go so lower that
Poor Rates,•because it would redttre the no.obar
those dependent upon them.—[hear, hear!]-1141
spoke the more confidently on this point, b.couse
very well remembered the time when the I'utir lutes
were low, and he had every expectation of seeing
them low again. But Gentlemen must have Ogle,.
Corn 11111,—that is, they most have high prices for
their corn, and low wages for their labourers. The
one necessarily followed the other, If corn washighi
labour, was low ; because the dearness of provisiok .
rendered the earnings of thp labourer comparatively'
trifling. The contrary, however, should be the ease
labour should be high, and corn should he low, be,.
fore the Poor Rates would esperience any sensibler
relief.
Sir Cr. MClNGicaed .14r. CALCRA FT mutually.

- - ..,....,.....
It . i
'''''''.4l/fr ' I
• •
. . . •
i •
I
t
I k 1
i _

!mai*
1-:__

explained. • .
Mr. FILANKLAND LEWIS Blinded to the prod
ceeditigs of the committee on the Poor Lass, and
conceived. that• any imputation upon them was most
likely to arise horn their over-caution. Bat hi
anaioasly wished that the Noose wi.uld fully con.
sitter the the present system, which might affect

.all landed property.
Mr. BROUGHAM said, his Hon. Friend had en-
tered rather at large on several branches of a a. ,at ao4
complicated question of she greatest interest to the
country.; and he had added a sort of appendix re. '
specting the effects of taxation in w t ich his sliscoretni
were OW completely evident. The argument went
to the extent that tasation did not increase peeped's,
not withstanding the esperices incurred, such es 10001,
a year to a Sinecure Lord of the Admiralty, &c.--
[I/ear, -Aearq—aad4hat there was no difference in
the results.
Mr. FRANK LANDIEVVISimpIainPd. He "had
never meant to say that taxation had had no effect ill
the increase:of paupers.
Mr. BROUGHAM was•pleased wish the mien"
lien;; but observed, that the Spenceans, so sin*
talked a boot, had said, that paupetisia %sob occasion,
ed by taxation alone.—[A laugh )
eu,kw EN said a few words. There wasnot
a labourer in the kingdom• who di() not pay throngla..

the /Nattily's. •
Mr. It SUMNER presented a Petition from three
Magistrates of the Epsom, Division of the:Cnunty
of Surrey, complaining of calumnious evidence wing
been given before the Polite Committee with respect
to their conduct in Licensing Publicans, and statint
that they conceived their characters *ere reflected oe
in the Report of the Police Committee, and prayial
that they might he allowed. to dirprove•that evidence.
Mr. BENNETT said, that no part of the Report
was directed against the Gentlemen alluded to.—
Though he thought it would he extremely difficult
for them to explAin every part of the transactions
stated in the evidence in e satisfactory manner. He
should certainly feel it his duty to move the revival
of the Committee, to allow them an opportunity of
justifying themselves.
Lord LASCELLES instanced a case where di
reason for withholding a licence was mistated la the
evidence taken by the Police Committee.
Mr. HENN Icll' said, in such a large body of
evidence, otot ititstanding the utmost
.pains, it was
impossible that much that was once• should not fail
admittance into it.
Mr. H. SUMNER bore testimony to the character
of the Magistrates whose PelitiOn he had presented._
Mr. Sergeant ONSLOW and
.NIr..THOILNTON
expressed themselves also in strong terms to Use Saara•
effect.

HABEAS CORPUS SUSPENSION.
Mr. BENNET I' wished to draw (lift attention of,.
the House toe Petition he had to present from-an ins'.
dividual w.ho had been apprehended and • confinetk,-
He adverted briefly to the Circular Lette, .03hg,Sre
eretary of State. The Petition was
(as We could
hear) from Jonathan Buckley, of Warrington, iss
Lancashire. It stated, that he had been apprehend-
ed by three officers, and confined and 1000 with
irons, and carried to the Quarter Sessions in irons;
in an open cart. He was subsequentli.discbarged on
his recognizance, after receiving a letter from Mn.
Nicholson, Governor of the House of Correction.
—During his coofirtement, his wife and family were
much distressed. He had been guilty of publishing
some parodies, &c., hut lie bad been treated differ•
ently from Mr. Hone. He (Mr. Bennett) wished to
move for an enquiry into such matters, as he ni
sure the sense of the country was alive to them.-e
This man was taken to a Public-house in the first int..
stance. He complained that the officers took from
him about 70 books, which were not reterneri.--•
Among them were Rollin's Ancient llistory, an
Evangelical llisiory, &c. He was confined for se-
.veral weeks at Preston, and came up to Court at s
great eapence.
The Petition was laid on the table, and ordered
to be printed.
Mr. RENNET:f bad also another Petition to pre•
sent from (as we heard) oue Samuel Billing, of War.
.rington., which made the same cpmiliaint as the for-
, met. Theßetition stated, ties the retitioner
publishetl par,ndieb that he kakhectt confined and
kept to fiaril labour for some time. and disharged at
.the geartot Sessions. being breath* la triq•
i The Petition also stated, that the turnkey of
prison in *lliCh he had been cortfitted had giv.ir to

-- -
the Petitieogr twe block, eyes.; SW be.had.been re-
moved several times ; and detailed various other •cir•
cornst Races of ill.tteatesent*-The' PletitiOn was then
brought op, awl laid on the table.
Mr. BENNETT wished to ask a question of the
Attorne):Gettesaf,' Which' vas, whether it. waikthe
intention to bring these persons to trial for the pub-
4ication of the parodies, after the acquittals of Mr.
Hone, the principal man who had been charged with
the offence in the commission of which they had been
implicaied, or 'whether he would feel it his duty to
discharge them from their recrignizancei ?
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said, that unless
those persons shouW.receiveooticee( trial, they were
not bound to appear. Unless they had notice' of
trial, the fact was that they had no obligation what.
ever for RITPR/Rucis. •
Mr. BENNETT said that was not an answer to
his question. Ills question had been whether he felt
It his dote to discharge those persons from their re-
tognizancea after the acquittalo of Mr. Hone?
The ArroßN EY-GEN ERA I.anserled that he
did not, on account of that acquittal, feel it his duty
to discharge the recognizances of those persons.—
'Whether It was his intention to prosecute them, trom
bariety of considerations that entered his mind,
that might he another matter ; hut it should not be
thought that • lie would forego the prosecution of
what deserved it inn one place, because the person or
pert us charged with the same offence had been au.
quitted In another. To state that as a general pro.
position was improper, and be did not think that the
One line of conduct was at all a consequence of the
ether.—llone had certainly stopped the sale of the
obnoxious publications, but what had been the con-
sequence ?—that others had set about their republics.
lion almost within a few doors of the place where
they had been formerly vended. With respect to one
shing in the Petition 'respecting the case having been
*loved into the Court of King's. Bench, he might
say that tire case bad beet, removed by certiorari into
that Court, and the reason of that. was, that he did
not think he was doing justice to the Country to pro-
secute him at the Quarter Sessions, till he had
brought so trial him Whom lie 'considered the prime
newer of the whole mischief, at that time.
Mr. LYTTLETON looked upon it to be the duty
of every men to contribute his mite towards correct.
lug the mischief which might be produced in the
country by the verdicts that the Juries had given in
the.case of Hone: Enquiries bid been refused upon
many Petitions which detailed circumstances that, if
true, reflected the greatest dishonour and disgrace
upon the country and the Oov.rnment, but which, if
false, ought, es ROMS as possible, to be disproved.—
He take the liberty of submitting whether tai
Juries might not have been indisposed towards any
state prosecutions, on account of the measures under
which the People had been smarting —Wear. hear
--and. the manner in which tither State prosecutions
had been conducted ; and it was a question how- far
such a state of mind might exist when the Bill of In-
demnity was going to be proposed to the House.
Mr. BROUGHAM was pleased that an opportu-
nity was, also offered to him of expressing his opinion
oe what formed a principal subject of the Petition
they had lately hoard. He agreed with his lion.
Friend io regarding with feelings of unqualified dis-
appeabstion the very repugnant, and, if be might so
say, in every point of view, the very disgusting pub-
Bastions that had been issued ; and he agreed with
him in not making any remark in disparagement of
the verdict of the Juries. Indeed, had It s been upon
the Juries himself, under aft circumstances of the
case, and considering the impunity of former libels
of the same nature, and the general conduct of the
prosecution, he\ should have felt it his duty to return
the same sertlict. The Tories were justified in their
conduct. They might, and no doubt did, wholl)
disagree with the tenour of the libels; but they con-
sidered that they were political prosecut' s, and it
they had ten times as much blasphemy in thew—if is
were possible that ten times as much blasphemy coulti
have been crammed into such a space—it they her:
been on the right side, they would not have been
called on to gibe a verdict of blasphemy against them.
They acted as British Jurymen ; they thought that hs
acting as they did they served the cause of religion
better than if they had given verdicts for those who
served it only when it suited the aide to which they
belonged.
Lord CASTLEREAGH rose to express his opi.
nion entirely against the doctrine laid down by the
/lon. end Learned Gentleman in his speech. 11.-
thought that that was open to many objections, sin'
deserved great reprobation, for he had never heard a
doctrine more fatal to the Trial by Jury, and to the
due administration of the laws. it was a dreadful
thing indeed, that the Jury were to travel out of the
question of .law, and to erect themselves into a poli-
tical tribunal, to consider of the motives of prose-
cutions. He could not conceive any doctrine so
completely contrary to all principles of law and jut-
tice, and so fatal to the pure conduct of all legal in-
- stitutions, if such a doctrine could obtain any sanc-
tion beyond that of the Honourable Gentleman.-
11 he could remember the parodies to which the lbo-
nourable and Learned Gentleman had alluded, they
were not•sent amongst the lower orders, nor pub-
lished with that intention, but had been introduced
amongst a higher kind of literary publication.
Mr. WILBERFORCE said, it ought, in his opi..
skin, to be considered, whether or not, Without
prosecuting, the libel wouldb.e. likely to have a great
degree or circelation, or would do- e great degree of
mischief. He remembered a,case of.prosecution, in
whiclue Noble Lord (Lord &Slane) had been parti-
cularlyengegeth Iwthat.cams, the question of pro-
secution and not prosecution wii fully comiidered.—
It NAN he believed., cwt' the second part of Paint's
Age of Reason; and at that• time he recollected it
was proved, that the circulation• was such amongst
all orders and classes-estsociety," that it could net be
brought into more notice or greater publicity.
Lord COCHRANF. said, the origin of the,griev.
ances complained of arose from political motives,
though these motives were .not •statetl. The prose-
cutions were carried oti strider the pretest of pro-
tecting the interests of teligionis This convenient
handle ,was laid' hold of • for the purpose of oppress-.
ing individuals who attempted to ezpose the conduct
of his Majesty's Ministers in the manner which
appeared to 'them' most effectual. Ile hOped the
House would listens with attention to the prayer of
the Petitien.leid: open their, table; and dull if the