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

them.

The LORD CHA NCELLOIt wished, in the first
plice, to observe, that he did not consider binsiell
so great au adept in the Criminal Law as to be &ways
prepared to give their Lordships a satisfactory 41)4
niott upon every difficulty that might be started.—
fn the present case he must also confess, that he
could not recollect the terms of the qeestion which
the Noble Lord had put with sufficient precisow, to
enable him to give it a full answer, were ice in other
'respects capable of an doing. With regard t• what
had been said es to this Bill being founded on preeo.
dent in all its provisions., he certainly had Hever so
argued it. He had, oa the contrary. observed, that
when the Habeas Corpus was suspended in the reign
of King William, it was distitreily acknowledged,
in the Bill of Indemnity, that illegal acts bud been
committed; but it was at the same lime declared,
that these acts were so necessary for the safety of the
country, and the preservation of the Constitution,
that it was fit no persona should be pot to the et.
pence of defending themselves in suits which might
be brought for theirjgommission. The principle of
thi Act of 1801, though different, was a just prigs,
cfple 61..4. It was this—that the names of persons
who had given information, should not he disclosed.
Whether that principle was to be, bona fide, in any
particular instance maintained, depended oriAlsoisi tom,
whom the Constitution had given the right of dedd.
ing on such questions. That informations had bed
properly received in the cases referred to in the prea
sent Bill,was of course aquestion of confidence iv thoep
who bad ordered the most% and must be so from the
nature of the case, and it was for the 11901.• FP*
to consider whether that confidence ought to be re-
posed. With respect .to the questions proprq by
the Noble Lord, he wished they had been peerinosly
communicated to him, but he would answer them as
far as he could at the moment. lie was not aware,
till he came• into the House this evening,
.That the
word dischatged was introduced into the OM, but
that the reasons for it were quite sufficient he had 110
doubt. •It
.was certainly true, that a Magisttate,
having committed an individual upon an easiness
chsrge, could trot afterwards discharge him ; but
cases might occur, in which such conduct on 'tiepin
of Magistrates might be perfectly jostifiabli, and
strictly proper. Take, for instances the case of the

'

Blisuketeers en they were called), at M.A.cheoter.—
There was no doebt that 'then 10,00Itor 12.000 per.;
some set shoot Marching fn a body to-London' that.
.the Magistrates were perfectly justified in eirdeareor.
Joel ..4% the emit of the ringleaders, to ptsennr so
-fiagrowt a breath of the peace. It Mil also perfectly
proper, that when the siltation bed alighted' Mod
persons so arrested aboul4 be released, whims, de-
Wolf% the. to he dischetesid in doe reuse at,
It sags therefore, highly prolver, the as; fodeasaity.
should be extended to Magittratet• sthe bed so
acted, thoegh not id strict conformity ebb law,
yet froth the best motieeal and from soothes whirls
oust be reco"oised to bet hi petfect abided whit
public expediency.. its to the dischdrge of WA
*Masi, by order of the *velar? df State; upon
recogeletussea •to appear it, the Calk of King'!
Ire selit he bid a* deign *bitterer Burt it was per.
fete adoeleteste• 'kb Witt 'at 'bedlam% rocegilifell si
wok. btket-shr Juars Hat bed ewer tittle shettiorrt4
moue of Orison 'had ewe doubted the legality af-ehtlf
practite.
The Hogue resorted Itself info I ebniatittee spots
the Bill, Earl of Shaftesbury in-the Chair:
The title of the Bill hating been read. I short
pause ensued, it baring been ingot to pristpotie the
readable, till after the discussion of the clauses. .
The Lord CHANCELLOIL said. that in this caws
the preamble was so inter stoten oith the clausal of
the Bill, that.ba thought it would be proper not td
postpt,O, it, but to consider the preamble in the hrst
inosuce.

The Earl of LA LiDERDALP observed, that the
usual course was to postpone the preamble, end.
`therefore he thought the Noble and Learned Lord
ought to briag forward some precedents far deputing,
iu the present instance, from that usage.
Lord REDESDALE contended, that it would me-
tecially serve the convenience of the House to pro-
ceed first to the consideration of the preamble, be-
cause the preamble itself was intimately connected
with the enacting clauses and would, in fact, be no-
cespory as a point of reference to explain many of
the objects to which those clauses were directed.
The Hart of CARNAR VON admitted that there
was a close connection, grammatical se well as sub-
stantial, between the preamble and the enacting
clauses, but the question was, whether in proceed:,
iug to pus an objectionable Dill of that description
it would be more proper, as well u more convenient,'
to go to the enactments in the first Instance, and
afterwards to seit the.preemble to them, or to fix tho
preamble first, and then proceed to the enactments,
thackleri god embarrassed by that previous step.---1
This was a point of great constitutional impatience.
For his ewe partlss could see no objection is 'the
()flitter, made of pow penieg Ike peosabite,AmLimat
hoped they .wowld west he Gelled epee sereepliareely
to recognize principles in that which *ben they camel
to the enactments themselves, many Noble Lords
might be disposed to queetion and to resist.
The LORD CHANCELLOR said, that la many
Acts the preamble was a mere form, reciting the oba
.the eneetnients that were to follow I bet the
present was so materially connected with the sub:
stance of the Bill itself, es to render its postpone.
mint inconvenient. Hee, for instance., cneld they
decide upon the propriety of the clause *bich re-
ferred to tomeltooes,earreesblies, without looking to
the preamble to re what was meant by tumultuous
asseMblies? Evefrometing which took place in the
ceur;eof the last two years was net to be concluded
is necessarily of a tameltateet character. The pre.
amble, therefore, in which the precise description
was marked out, oodla seem to come naturally ke
order before those parts of the Bill which would re.
quire to be referred back to it is order to be under.
stood.

Lord GRENVILLE.—The noose, of ederte4
',award e discretion in this emitter, bat some good
reasons aught to be required wby their •Lordships
should depart from their accustomed forms. With
respect to the words which were supposed to connect
the pre.mble and the first enacting clause, if the
',tremble were omitted altogether, the clause would,
of course, be unintelligible ; . bet Noble Lords melt,
in the discussion, beat in mind that the preamble was
only postponed, and it was better, in hitr mind, to
loon the Committee free to investigate the various
objects of the Hill, and, having determined on them,
their bordships.would thee be in a situation to as-
certain hoe comprehensive the words of the preemble
°iglu to be. .
lord -II EDESDALE concurred is this seggestioef
end the preamble was postponed.
On reeding the first chew, indetstoitying sit per.
seas mho, -since the lit of Joinery. had arrested, or
cooped thaarrist, &c. of soy individual,
. The Atari of LAUDERDALE objected to the
words !' first day or 'nullity." The Suspension
Low hordmot been enacted until the 4th of March,
. while shio•Bill wield estend the indemnity to the
tat et lea... Seth.* proposition undermined the ne-
comrity of the Suspension Law altogether, for the Ino
demitgv.llllll.ivosild of itself have set all things right.
Yorohir mends ;" first day of Joinery," the Noble
Earl propeled that there be substituted the " fourth
depot Mirth."
TbeiCesl et LIVERPOOL objected to this mo.
lien.. Acts ipight be done in the progress of a mea-
-1
tors, which, snaring the nature oil the measure,
wept also often kb fate. A rettaspecti,ve efect was
obsoletely necessary. It must be remembered, that
on the eery Grade, of the meeting of Parliament, a
grass oolongs hod been offered to the sacred person
of an illestrions Individeal, .and if person, bad been
arrested in consequence of Wit event, *by should not
the present Bill estend to these who coined inch
rests ? . He had no objection that the wools " 96th
day of January" slionald beinserted.
The Berl of LAUDERDALE.—This implied a

li'

. ..

-1

4
'‘i

~'

1,--.-

;1?'.7

.~ -

•
•
•

confession on the past of the Noble Lord, that Mi-
misters were afraid to meet Parliament, even though
in their minds a necessity had existed for calling it so
early as the Ist of Jan. Events had taken place in
the November previous, to which much importance
had since been attached, and even then Parliament
had not been summoned. Ile would do a kindness
to the Noble Lord, and permit him to change from
the Ist of January 'to the 26th.
This was agreed to. •
Lord HOLLAND suggested, that some proviso
should be _inserted in the Bill, enabling those per-
sons who had been discharged to plead as if it had
taken place by due course of law. It would perhaps
he sufficient if the word " discharge" were omitted
altogether.
Tbe Earl of LIVERPOOL replied, that this
word was absolutely necessary. Ile asserted the pro.
priety of arresting and detaining persons actually en.
gaged in seditious proceedings, as were those persons
who had in March assembled in Manchester with the
intention of coming op with their Petitions to Lon.
don ; but it was equally desirable that they should
be released as soon as possible, and that those so
doing should he indemnified. To this there could
sot, in his opinion, be urged any objection of maims
magnitude.
Lord HOLLAND allowed that this was a point to
which but slight objections could be urged. He was
glad. however, that he had noticed it, as it induced
the Noble Lord opposite to confess that the Bill was
sotmerely for the purpose of preventing the disclo-
sure by Ministers of their sources of information,
but also for indemnifying persons who had released
certain• individuals from confinement, and for his
part, he should willingly assent is bear such persons
harmless. But the question proposed by him had
not been answered—" In what state those dis.
charges had left the persons .so discharged ?" If
those individuals should return to the enjoyment of
the rights of Englishmen, he should not object to
granting an indemnity to the Magistrates ; but if
not, the only way for restoring them to their rights
would be by proceedings in the Courts of Law.
'This, however, was denied them by the Bill. It
was, therefore, nothing more than a matter of jos•
lice to insert a provision in the Bill restoring them
• to all their rights, as if they had been discharged by
due course of law. Ile should, in courtesy, ask
the Noble Earl opposite, whether, if he were to pro.
pose such a provision, any objection would be made
to it j
Lord ERSKINE supported the proposition of his
Noble Friend (Lord Holland), thinking it very de-
sirable that some provision should be inserted in the
Bill, by which those persons so discharged should be
plated in the same state es if they had been discharged
byte enuthe of law.
The Eerl of LAUDERDALE remarked. that this
discussion proved the necessity of postponing the pre.
amble of the Bill until the provisions of it had been
ascertained.
The. LORD CHANCELLOR, said, the clause
went to indemnify Magistrates, who had discharged
persons illegally, and who were, in consequencel
liable to a prosecution by the Attorney-General.
The meaning of this part of the Bill was,that the Magis-
trate who called for the Act of Indemnity, had tint
acted legally—but still, for psrticutar reasons, ought
not to be prosecuted. The enactment must be men.
aidered with reference to the Magistrate, to the indi-
vidual discharged, aid to the Officers or the Crown.
If the Neble Lord could frame a proviso that' would
meet this view of the aul ject, their LordabiPs, he bad
movloubt, world receive it.
Lord HOLLAND expressed himself contented
with this declaration.
The Earl of LAUDERDALE moved, that, after
the word "practices," which was too vague and un-
defined, and 'which might prevent justice being oh.
*listed for acts worthy of consideration in that House
or in a Court of Justice, the following should be
serted, " other than such treasons or treasonable
practices, as those recited by the Bth and 9th of
William, the 6th of Anne, and the 28th of George
relating to the washing, gilding, colouring, or
couinerfeiting any of his Majesty's coin."
Lord REUESDA LE suggested, that it would be
better shortly to state, treasonable practices, relating
to the coin of the realm.—The Amendment was then
agreed to. • •
The Marquis of LANSDOWNE moved for the
omission of these words in the Bill,which went to ex-
tend. indemnity to Magistrates for arresting persons
in tumultuous assemblies.. The principle ot the Bill
was to indemnify for acts dangerous in tlo
but justifiable for reasons of state, which could not
be disclosed in evidence. Could any of the argu-
ments that rested on thi, necessity of secrecy, be ap-
plicable to the case of persons taken in tumultuous I
and disurderly meetings ? Why should the Magistrate'
be prevented from proving his own justification in this
case? Ile would admit that the Magistrates who
acted last year, were entitled. to' protection, bat he
was sure they would rather defend themselves in.an
open and avowed manner, while it cent() bt dope
with safety to the Public, than escape Within the pule
which that Act threw over them.
• The LORD CH A NCELLOR contended that such
an exemption would eipose the Magistrateslo actions
from. every indiridrial Iciest:id tenialtuius as-
semblies. That in limit .wair a great evil: 'Besides,
the Magistrates would have a right i.n their elefence to
enter into the information they had fee:Medals to the.
objects Of the Meeting; whichliould.leadAes the
closure objected against.
The Matqais of LANSDOWNE• colssetved, that
there were but few periorie committed fir leech In et.
fence, the cases therefore weild not "be so
merems as was apprehended, and the "side proofbf
shoe feet o.st it tea atootulloooii iissemb/i would le a
sttnicient justification of,tbi Magistrate; without any
further rlieclnarsee. • •
The LORD CHANCELLOR_ said, that many
might repreateet more force to hate been used than
was necessary I. disperse the geetierg, tfittooly means
of rebutting-which would bale enter into a disclosure'
of its natureisstd objects..
Lord %HOLLAND observed, that if•the argument
of the Neble and Learned bold.srere good, whenever
.. tumultuous assembly was diapereed 'the Migiiitrates
y whom they wares disperied wait. have recourse
to Parliament for an 'Act of. Indemnity. Ile defied
the piinciple, as it wouW go to overturn the whole
isN of the Mit try.