The Statesman.
London, England, 1818-02-28 00:00:00

-v7l!
-

71.7"7

•

----.-- . ----- .
Wiry ties itlespetwied thee? That Sespensioo.es-
pined is 1795, ',benzin indemoity took piece; ends
possibly, it Noble Lords wished to know any thing
seem foisting to the *mots of them times, the.
Leaped Lord, who took so conspicuous a share in
in Bien, !maid illesteste them more fully. Arsether
Aet of Seopeweboit wet found neceseery.le the year
1797, end in the year 1801 a •Bili of Indemnity
followed it. At all these periods- no persoo
thought of commencing a snit at law, till, in 1801,
some inertviduals beget to complain, when Parlia-
ment indemnified the Ministers of that day. The
principles their Lordships were called to act upon,
had hew atkesswiedgedever since the Reealotiost.....
They were required to sanction the Bill by every
principle of law, not upon the recommendation of
their Secret Committee, but upon its Report; and
the same reasoning that was opposed to the measure
now, might be urged with just as mach plausibility a
fortnight hence. That Committee bad been compos-
ed in the established way, of. Noble Look on either
side; and, unless they were really such rogues sod
vagabonds as as not to be .Me to trust one another,
the Secret Committee did tint deserve the language
whirls was applied to it. But there were differences
of opinion as to the necessity that had toasted for
suspending the Habeas Corpus Act. Nothing had
taken place- but to little rioting at Spa-fields, a tittle i
robbing in the City, end a little treason at Derby.--I
(Neer', hear!)—ft wienied the fashion to forget all
that had been prevented, end make little of what
had been done. He would tell his Learned and
Noble Friend, however, that if mute designs had
not been frustrated by the late Suspension of the
Habeas Corpus Act, the Noble Lords might not have
been there debating as to the propriety of indemni-
fying those who acted for the preservutimr of the
Country by virtue of that Suspension Act. He be-
lieved that the Learned Lord and his party nsight have
suffered more than even the Ministers of the Crown, in
proportion as sew pretended friends were worsethen
open enemies.—(Hear!)—That man must possess a
very stout heart indeed, who, residing then itr the
metropolis, had entertained no apprehensions from
the Meetings of Spa-fields. He would not esectly
say that those Meetings were guilty of treason; but
be would maintain, that Ministers would have been
guilty of a groins dereliction of duty if they bad omit-
ted to submit the parties tea trial. Scenes of a sitni-1
ler kind would hue been acted in Derbyshire, and
other parts, if the conspirators had been suffered to
.prosecute their plans. Reform was not wanted by
sects men, but the destruction of the Constitution.—
Let
their Lordships look at the state of the country ,
now, whose tranquillity was more owing to the Us-
pension of the Habeas Corpus Act—mild, merciful,
preventive of misAief, instead of occasioning it..—,
But it was enough that the practice of Parliament
said it was reasonable that an Act of Indemnity I
should pass, as otherwise there remained no means
whereby to prevent fresh commotion. in the State.—
The question was, whether What was done had not
been done for the public good ? The Learned Lord ,
(Erskine) on a former night said, he expected tol
beer doubts suggested en the Bill; hut in this he
would be disappoitited, as he entertained no doubt
upon it. The country was called, by Learned and
Noble Lords, great and free; and it was justly
called tor.' Butit would be neither great nor free,,
if its inhabitants hail not the good sense and patriotism
to agree to a temporary suspension of their liberties,
in entre to preset,. them in perpetuity.
Lord HOLLAND said, the Learned Lord had
contrived to entangle and puzzle the subject, rather
than to elucidate it. If what was said to justify the
present measure was true; if Ministers had only
done their duty under the Suspension Act, from the
consequences of the execution of the- power granted
by which this Bill protected therm; if they had ar-
rested no person but upon oath; if they had met-
sured out against their victims a greater measure of
severity than circumstances warranted; if, in short,
they had not 'needed their powers, and committed
injustice ander pretence of preserving the Laws and
Constitution of the country, with the care of which
they were intrusted, then they bad no need of in-
demnity. Indemnity was only necessary in cases
where law wield yield no protection; but where
there had been no oppression, there was nc breach
of law, and, consequently, no use in the precerit
measure. If in Indemnity Bill, as bad been men.
tioned by the Noble Duke who introduced this mea-
sure, wee always to be a corollary, es he called it,
to a Suspension Act, then it would Lebow, that any
jest exercise of :he powers conferred by Ake letter must
necemarily been eacess ; or, in other words, that rip
Act of Parliament could not be executed without be-
ing abased.-( [lcor !)—This argument of the Noble
Duke appeared to him to cut doable, and therefore
was as dangerous in his hands as against him. But
other Noble Lords opposite had defended the Bill
before the Hosea on different grounds. They said it
tits necessary to protect this Gournmentegainst suite
or actions instituted to remover damages by. those
whom they bed oppressively ermined sud detained.;
&mese, in allowing legal proceedings to go on against
them, it would be necessary for their own jestifies-
tion to disclose the information on which they acted.
What was this {rut stating in other words, that the
Noble Secretory of State for the Home Department,
who, in his zeal for the protection of theiCoossito.
. ties, or in his alarm for the public safety, might
have bees led to commit acts of• individeal heedelses,
which his opinion of theezirney might too cuter)
extent !Scams if tat justify, stood is so modest in-
demnity ; bet that hie informers most be protected
against the cmseqweirces of their falsehoods, their
calumnies, and their delinquencies ?;--(fleer !]---
What was it bet sayirre, that this horrible miscreant
(Oliver) most net suffer the reward of his crimes ; ,
that the shield of power must be held before this tile
wretch ; that in elevating this shield for bus protec-
the victims of his atrocious arts and- raglan'
iniquities were to be left without redress, to pine
tinder the effects pf his machinations; and • that
ill law and justice were to be trampled under foot,
lest their retriblitive force sboold eaten(' to him
cendien punishment, or expose him to merited in-
. lams l— [Loud crier of Ilermiteer!]— Out the Noble
std Learned Lord (Chancellor) had said, that he-bad
toted for the Suipension Act in 1795, which was
repealed in 1797 ; and. that, though the liberty of
England was thus destroyed for two years, and the
iihject was left at the mercy of the Executive, no
attune was instituted for any abuse of poster exec-