arguments that rested upon this necessity of secrecy be applicable to the case of persons taken in tumultuous and disorderly meetings? Why should a magistrate be prevented from proving his own justification in this case?

The lord Chancellor and the earl of Liverpool defended this clause, while lord Holland and the earl of Carnarvon attacked it. In conclusion, the amendment was negatived.

Lord Erskine said, he would now move the amendment he had before mentioned; which was only to place all magistrates and others as, but for this bill, they would stand by the general law of the land. It was never heard of in England that any magistrate or other person whatsoever, could act with malice to the injury of another, without a most severe and exemplary visitation. He wished, therefore, after the clause expressing free acquittal and indemnification in favour of every person who shall have done, or commanded to be done, an act against any person or persons committed or imprisoned &c., the following proviso should be introduced: Provided always, that nothing herein contained shall extend, or be construed to extend, to any act, matter, or thing, done to any person whatever, if committed maliciously, or without reasonable or probable cause." As the bill stood at present, putting aside every case where necessary secresy of information could have any possible application, no magistrate or other person could be impleaded or questioned, though he had acted with the most palpable

malice in the presence of a thousand witnesses ready to come forward to prove it. This error, so affronting to common sense, was all he desired to rectify.

The Lord Chancellor said, that the answer he had to make to his noble and learned friend was very short-it was simply this, that the clause proposed by him would nullify the bill. After dwelling for some time upon this idea, he added, that for which their lordships should feel the deepest interest was the public safety. The public safety ought to be secured with as little injury towards individuals as possible; but without being afraid of adopting even harsh measures towards individuals, if such measures were rendered necessary for the preservation of the state and the constitution.

After some observations by the earl of Rosslyn, who warmly defended lord Erskine, the proposed amendment was negatived.

The Marquis of Lansdowne next proposed, as an amendment, to leave Ireland out of the bill, and to retain only the words " in that part of the United Kingdom, called Great Britain." The provisions of the act, he said, did not extend to Ireland, and that country should therefore be excepted from those of the indemnity bill.

Lord Sidmouth stated that the indemnity had no reference generally to Ireland, but the name of that part of the united kingdom was necessary to be retained to meet a special case.

The Earl of Liverpool would have no objection to an amendment, on the third reading, that

should

should limit the operation of the act as it regarded Ireland, to the special case contemplated. The magistrate who had executed the warrant in Ireland was liable to an action in the courts of that country. It was necessary, therefore, for his protection, that Ireland should be introduced into the provisions of the present bill. The clause, however, extended no indemnity to magistrates in Ireland, where the suspension did not operate.

The amendment leaving out Ireland was at length agreed to, on the understanding that, on the bringing up of the report, a special clause should be inserted embracing the case alluded to.

The Earl of Carnarvon protested against the payment of double costs by the plaintiffs in such actions as might have been already commenced, without any anticipation of this act.

Lord King was desirous that the infliction of double costs should be entirely withdrawn from the bill; and moved to omit the word "double."

The Lord Chancellor observed, that the next provision of the clause enacted that those who had commenced actions, but who staid proceedings, would not be liable to any costs. The double costs were only to be imposed upon those who, notwithstanding parliament had taken from them the ground of action, still proceeded.

Lord King's amendment was negatived.

The Lord Chancellor then proposed his amendment, to exempt those from the payment of any costs who commenced their ac

tions before the 27th of February; which was agreed to.

The Earl of Carnarvon proposed a clause for the purpose of limiting the operation of the bill to those cases in which the interference of the legislature was indispensably necessary. The object of his intended clause was, to deprive any person of a right of action, whenever the secretary of state should make an affidavit before a judge, that the action could not be defended without danger to individuals, and injury to the public service.

The Earl of Liverpool said, that the effect of the noble earl's clause, if passed into a law, would be to subject all the magistrates in the country, and all persons who had acted under them, to the discretion of the secretary of state to determine whether or not actions might be brought against

them.

The Earl of Carnarvon affirmed, that unless his clause was acceded to, the evils growing out of this act of indemnity would be much greater than the benefits resulting from it. He would not at present trouble the committee by pressing his clause, but he gave notice that he would re-introduce it in the ultimate stage of the bill.

The clause was negatived.

The Earl of Lauderdale having in a kind of ludicrous style selected a passage from the Report, which he begged leave to substitute for the first clauses of the present preamble, it was read, and an amendment was grafted upon it, which was negatived.

The House was then resumed, and the report was received. The order of the day for the [D 2] third

third reading of the indemnity bill occurred on March 5th.

Lord Auckland said, that notwithstanding the amendments which this bill had received in its passage through the House, he was of opinion that it ought not to pass, at least in its present shape. His intention was not to oppose the bill altogether, but to move its recommitment, with a view to its being divided into two bills. Only one ground of defence had been moved for the measure when brought forward; namely, that ministers or magistrates who, under the suspension of the Habeas Corpus act, might have arrested persons improperly ac cused of treasonable designs, should be protected from the consequences of such arrest, and the persons should of course be discharged. But how far did the indemnity extend? It was not merely to the secretary of state, and to magistrates, but to every petty officer of police, to every creature who, to use the language of a former report, had instigated the treason he was employed to detect. What was this but to shield the infamy of wretches by preventing the possibility of their being confronted with those they had accused. To this alone did the plea, that the names of those giving information which ought to be concealed tend. Upon what ground so sweeping a bill of indemnity was proposed, it was difficult to understand. After several explanations, the argument seemed to resolve itself into this: that if ministers had acted under the suspension of the Habeas Corpus so as to render an indemnity necessary-then an indemnity

was necessary. It was to the real circumstances of the case their lordships had to look, in considering whether ministers had established any ground for passing this bill. Now what were the circumstances? A committee of secresy had been appointed under the pretence of inquiring into the state of the country and the conduct of ministers, but in fact, with the sole view of stifling all effectual inquiry. It was most unjust that this protection should be given to conceal evidence. The sanction offered to secret information was deeply to be deplored; and he almost equally regretted that their lordships had in the committee given their sanction to the preamble of this bill, which was so inconsistent with all the grounds on which it was pretended to be introduced, and the purposes to which it was proposed that it should be applied. For all the reasons which he had stated, he should move, that the bill be recommitted.

Lord King thought it necessary to say a few words on the motion made by his noble friend for recommitting the bill. In the shape in which the measure came before their lordships it obviously extended the protection too far, and much farther than the grounds of the bill warranted. It not only indemnified the magistrate who had acted in good faith under the Suspension act, but also the spy who had provoked disorders which afforded the pretext of that law. With respect to the report of the committee which preceded the bill, it was notorious that the evidence on which that report was founded was altogether ex

parte;

parte; for their lordships had refused to refer to the committee any of the numerous petitions from persons who stated themselves to have been aggrieved by the Suspension of the Habeas Corpus. The report of a former committee admitted that spies employed to discover treasonable designs had instigated to acts which they were employed only to detect. Did not this warrant the suspicion that many of the persons who complained of the operation of the Habeas Corpus suspension had suffered innocently? When the bill was in the committee their lordships had been told that it was necessary to protect persons who gave information of illegal designs. Here he could not help asking himself whether he was living in a country governed by law. Was it meant to be said, that if a man performed his duty by giving evidence tending to the punishment of crimes, he was liable to assassination? In what part of the world were witnesses so secure as in England? Their security rested on a solid foundation; on the publicity of all legal proceedings, and on the excellent practice of confronting the accuser and the accused. Witnesses were safe, because there were no secret tribunals to excite the jealousy and indignation of the people. If bills of Indemnity of this sort were to become the consequence of the suspension of the Habeas Corpus act, a most fatal encouragement to the abuse of power would be afforded. He should therefore oppose the bill, unless the indemnification were confined to magistrates, and spies were

altogether excluded from its operation.

Earl Bathurst recalled the attention of their lordships to the nature of the motion before the House. It was not to reject but to recommit the bill, for the purpose of dividing it to three parts, so that the king's ministers, and the magistrates, acting under them, might be protected, and informers exposed to punishment, or at least be excepted from the proposed indemnity. No ground whatever had been laid for dividing the bill in the manner proposed by the noble lords, nor had they any argument to prove its necessity or expediency. The House was aware that all cases of suspension of the Habeas Corpus had been followed by bills of Indemnity, which bills had been granted without an inquiry, or without any appointment of a committee. The only exception to this practice was in 1801; and the circumstances of that period were very different from those of the present. On the present occasion the conduct of ministers had been referred to the inquiry of a committee; which had found not merely that no abuses had been committed, but that no warrant had been made out except on information on oath. With respect to the secretary of state, he did not conceive him bound to abide by such a rule, but that, abiding by it, he had succeeded in saving the state from all the horrors of anarchy. This it was which afforded the strongest presumption that the powers confided to him had been well and properly exercised.

His lordship, in the progress of debate,

debate, used the following argument: Another objection had been made by the noble lords opposite, to the practice of a bill of indemnity following a suspension of the Habeas Corpus. Their objection was this" that a sus pension was first proposed, and in order to smooth the way for it, it was held out that persons in the execution of extraordinary powers were to be restrained from exercising them in an improper manner by the responsibility they were subject to; but this was all nugatory, if a bill of Indemnity was to follow every suspension." To whom, then, were the persons entrusted with such powers responsible? To parliament, that gave them the power, and would not have given it unless it had been necessary, but which would certainly protect those to whom a proof of that necessity had been entrusted. Their lordships knew that they had given their sanction to such measures over and over again, but their doing so had never injured the prosperity or liberties of the country. The practice of passing bills of indemnity showed the necessity there was for so doing, and that necessity showed the responsibility of those for whom they were passed. As he did not perceive any argument against the bill in all that had been urged, he could not possibly accede to the motion made by the noble lord.

Several lords appeared both for and against the motion of the former speaker, but with little addition to the weight of argument. The amendment was then put, and was negatived without a division. The earl of Carnarvon

then moved, that the bill be read a third time on that day three months; upon which a division took place, presenting Contents 12; Proxies 15;-27: Not Contents 45; Proxies 48-93: Majority 66. The bill was then read a third time and passed.

A Protest was entered on the Journals, signed by ten lords.

In the House of Commons, the Attorney General, on March 9th, moved the order of the day for the first reading of the Indemnity bill. He began with giving a view of the origin and progress of bills for the suspension of the Habeas Corpus act, and the bills for an Indemnity which were their successors; and his principal purpose was, to show that all the late acts, down to that at present under consideration, were fully justifiable. Having gone through the well known stories of the riots at Manchester, the trials at Derby, and the attempts at Nottingham, he submitted, that from every consideration of necessity, propriety, and justice, the House was bound to pass the bill proposed, and in consequence moved, that the bill be now read a first time.

Mr. Lambton said, that it was not then his intention to enter into any discussion respecting the principles or details of the measure before the House, as other opportunities would offer for that discussion. But he would apply himself to the broad principle which had been little adverted to by the hon. and learned gentleman who spoke last, namely the conduct of those ministers who had brought forward this measure of Indemnity. The hon. gentleman then began a severe attack

upon