believe that a single action would be suspended in both. It was a melancholy brought, though the bill of indemnity reflection that the victory of Waterloo, were never again to be heard of. But the success of our allies, and the recursupposing twenty or thirty actions were rence to the old principles of legitimate instituted, what mighty harm could they government had produced, under the occasion? In times of danger and dis- existing administration of Great Britain, turbance, the disclosures which they the same suspension of the Habeas Corwould elicit might be prejudicial; but it pus that Mr. Pitt felt himself compelled was impossible they should be so in the to resort to, after long war, with à despresent times, than which none could be perate faction consuming the vitals of more tranquil or free from apprehension. the country, with our allies defeated, and When had evils resulted from similar dis- with the destructive principles of the closures? In 1813, for instance, it was French revolution triumphant.-Whatthought necessary to make the sanguinary ever might be the fate of our constitution example of executing seventeen persons to whatever destiny it might be reserved at York. The parties who prosecuted whether it was to fall by sap or by aslived ever afterwards in perfect tranquil. sault-whether it was to surrender at dislity, without any especial protection. On cretion to the open attack of major Cartthe subject of informers and spies, both wright at the head of the apostles of sides of the House had, perhaps, spoken reform, or (which appeared more probawith too little deliberation. So abhorrent ble) to be gradually undermined by the were such agents to the temper and corruption of government and the servigenius of our constitution, that their em lity of that House-whether it was to be ployment, in ordinary times, could not scared into despotism by the apprehension be sufficiently reprobated. But emergen- of the crimes and horrors of which Jacocies could easily be imagined, when there binism had shown itself to be so fruitful, was not a man in that House who would or urged into revolution by the obstinate not implore the secretary of state to make perseverance of a weak administration in use of such means for the detection of measures of alternate violence and imbetreason. It was only, however, when cility-still it was the duty of every Engthere was but a choice of evils that their lishman, whose breast glowed with the fire employment could be reconciled to the of genuine patriotism, to watch its conmild and free spirit of our constitution. vulsive struggles; and at least to endeaOf them it might be said, as it had been vour to retard the consummation of that said of ghosts by Dr. Johnson, "all rea- calamity which it might not be possible soning is against them, but all experience for him eventually to avert. It was with is for them." Briefly adverting to the the strong impression of this feeling that precedents which had been adduced by he intreated the House to pause before the hon. and learned gentleman on the they acquiesced in the measure now proother side, he observed that there was posed to them. They had not the excuse but one at all applicable to the present to plead, that they were legislating in case. The acts of indemnity of 1692, the dark, for they were in full possession 1716, and 1746, were all passed in con- of all the occurrences of last year to aid sequence of open rebellions, and in fa- their judgment in the decision.-The hon. vour of transactions that took place when gentleman concluded by taking a short the country was in flagrante bello civili, retrospective view of the disturbances and it was absurd, therefore, to maintain that had occurred last year. In Scotland, that they afforded any justification of the respecting the state of which a learned measure before the House. And with lord had attempted to excite so powerful respect to the precedent of 1801, the an alarm, no act whatever of insurrection circumstances of that period were very had occurred. By the blanketeers no viodifferent from those of the present. In lence had been perpetrated. In Derby1801, the country had been eight years at shire and Nottinghamshire, where the an internal faction was in active disgraceful system of Luddism had been correspondence with a foreign enemy; so long allowed to flourish, and where, and the doctrines of equality had signally therefore, the people were prepared for triumphed in an important portion of the crime, about two hundred persons ascontinent. In fact, there was but one sembled, and after committing some serious point of resemblance between the two outrages, and a detestable murder, disperiods the Habeas Corpus had been persed near Nottingham without farther war; danger to the state, on the first appearance of a military force, and indeed exhibited so little principle of coherence, that a magistrate of that district, with a single dragoon, pursued and arrested thirty or forty of them. In Yorkshire, he knew of his own knowledge, and there was not a magistrate who would not say, that the danger was much greater, that there was much more of local outrage, much more of disposition to break the peace, in 1812, when nobody thought of suspending the Habeas Corpus. Much better would it be that the costs and damages of any actions that might be brought for recent excesses of authority, should be paid out of the secret service fund, than that the people should be deprived of their just and hereditary rights. Thinking, therefore, as he did, that the grounds on which the present bill was proposed had not been satisfactorily established, he was the more averse to its passing into a law, on account of the precedent which it would set to future times. He was confident that the present bill would never have been required of the House, but for the bill of 1801; and there was therefore great reason to apprehend that, some few years hence, a bill of a similar description might be justified by a reference to the present. The necessary consequence of passing such measures must be to les sen the respect of the people at large for the laws, by showing them, that those laws did not always distribute a common measure of justice, and afford redress for injuries to all men indifferently. Mr. Brand said, that on a question of such high constitutional importance, he should feel regret in giving a silent vote, particularly as it was probable that from circumstances, he should not be able to avail himself of the opportunity of discussing the measure in its future stages. If he wanted additional reasons for his strong opposition to any farther proceeding with this bill, he found them in the speech of the hon. and learned gentleman who submitted it that night to the consideration of the House. When that hon. and learned gentleman laid such stress upon the precedents on which he grounded his proposition, he begged the House to pause, before it added another, and on such comparatively weak reasons, to that number. In his opinion, those precedents were not applicable to the circumstances of the present time; but as that part of the subject had been so ably argued by his hon. friend near him, and as another noble friend of his had thrown down the gauntlet on that subject, it would be unnecessary for him to enter into any observations in regard to them. The House would, however, feel that this was the first time in a period of profound peace, when no danger from abroad menaced our security, that the ministers of the Crown had ever called for the suspension of the Habeas Corpus act. He never could consider the recurrence to such a measure as the suspension, under such circumstances, as justifiable. But if the suspension of that law was unadvised, under what pretext could ministers now claim a bill of Indemnity? Should that claim be sanctioned, he feared the House and the country must prepare themselves for frequent renewals of those violations of the rights of the subject. He much feared that, if now adopted, it would be hereafter frequently resorted to; there being unfortunately, a feeling of disrespect in the people's minds towards that House, which was fostered by the inat. tention with which the House treated the petitions of those whom they represented. So long as these unconstitutional practices were adopted, the same irritation and discontent would continue to prevail, and a similar pretence often present itself for suspending the rights of individuals. Whilst such a state of circumstances existed, there never would be wanting pretexts and occasions to stifle the public voice on the reports of committees nominated by ministers to judge of their own acts. If he could be persuaded that the powers bestowed by the Suspension act had been mildly exercised, he should not be disposed to withhold his assent from the present measure; but he could derive no satisfaction from the reports of committees nominated by ministers themselves. He was not convinced-as the House ought to be before they passed a law of this nature-that the proceedings under the act were justifiable, as well as the mode subsequently pursued of securing themselves against the consequences of them. The bill under consideration indemnified, or rather protected, not only the secretary of state, but all magistrates and gaolers, for every thing done by virtue of the suspension of the Habeas Corpus. The proper description of the bill appeared to him to be, a bill for depriving the people of England of the benefits of law. He concurred with his hon. friend who spoke last, that it would be better to pay such damages as might be recovered, out of the secret service money, than to preclude the people from all legal redress. Such enactments were unknown to the old law of the country, and he still trusted that a provision would be introduced to enable the individuals in question to obtain some compensation. He did not think ministers had cleared themselves from the suspicion of having abused the powers intrusted to them, nor could public opinion be satisfied with the reports of committees so constituted as those were upon whose authority this measure was founded. He had no parlia mentary information to warrant him in excluding from their legal, hereditary rights, any portion of the people of England. The bill appeared to him to be one not of indemnity but of injustice; and, viewed as a measure for taking away the liberties of the people, ought to be rejected by those who professed to represent them. Mr. Marryat observed, that he had voted against the Suspension act, and he looked back with considerable satisfaction to this vote, which he thought every subsequent event had tended to justify. Every person who had since been convicted, had been convicted in the ordinary course of the law. The question now, however, was, whether ministers had abused the powers with which they were invested, or whether they had acted upon them with discretion and moderation? He thought that the government had demanded those powers from a conviction in their minds of the necessity of the case; and while he took credit to himself for the vote which he had given, he was equally bound and willing to give credit to those who had proposed the introduction of that measure. From what he had heard, he could find no ground whatever to charge his majesty's ministers with any abuse of authority, and therefore he saw no cause to induce him to withhold from them an act of indemnity. For these reasons, although he had voted against the suspension of the Habeas Corpus act, he should now vote for the bill of Indemnity. Lord Althorp said, that his view of the case was very different from that of the hon. and learned gentleman. The only ground, in his opinion, on which the ministers could claim a bill of Indemnity was, that they had exercised powers which were not made legal by the legisla ture. He could see no reason for indemnity, if ministers acted in the spirit and within the limit of the law. There could be no reason in asking for such a measure, unless from the consciousness of their powers having been abused. Why did not ministers call for powers commensurate with the nature of the evil, when they applied to parliament last session? If the provisions of the suspension law were too limited, why did they not get a parliamentary sanction to extend them? It was material too, to remark, that, in the preamble of this bill, there was one distinction which did not occur in any former measure of this description, except in the bill of 1801, namely, the recital as to the disclosure of evidence; and in the year 1801, it was introduced and passed on account of the actual state of the country. But it was impossible to believe that, in every one of the cases of the persons who had been arrested, it would be dangerous to disclose the grounds on which he was apprehended. Whatever some gentlemen might think of this question, he should always maintain, that the House had no right to deprive an Englishman of his legal remedy, unless a very strong case was made out. They would not be justified on any other grounds in acceding to this bill. His view of the case was this-that the acts of his majesty's ministers, which were done illegally, ought to be inquired into. The Commons of England were bound to institute an inquiry not only to satisfy themselves, but also to convince the country; and such an inquiry should be conducted in a very different manner from any that had yet been instituted. Mr. Fremantle said:-Although I do not think the arguments already advanced against this bill have had great force, yet I am anxious to take this opportunity of offering my public opinion in favour of it. I am anxious to do so, to preserve my own consistency, to maintain the character and dignity of the House of Commons, and to do justice to those who have executed the powers entrusted to them by the legislature in the course of the last session of parliament :::-when I say that the arguments do not appear to me to have great weight, I mean, Sir, to apply that observation as in reference to the bill now before the House; for I cannot but think that all arguments relating to the dangers which existed at the time the say, if I erred in my opinion with regard to the danger which existed previous to the measures which were adopted by parliament, I erred in common with Mr. Ponsonby, whose honourable and manly conduct on all occasions will not be questioned by the hon. gentlemen who still continue to disbelieve and deny the danger. legislature thought proper to adopt those | the existence of them, and he moreover measures for the preservation of the pub- said, that had he been a member of the lic tranquillity, were fair and legitimate cabinet, he should have felt it his duty to arguments against the suspension of the have recommended the measures which Habeas Corpus act, and against the mea- the government had adopted in laying the sures which followed it, but do not apply papers before the House, and making the to the question now before us of the In- communications under which the commitdemnity bill. I think, Sir, I might admittee had been formed. Thus then, Sir, I the whole of the argument founded on the disbelief of all danger ;-I might admit that parliament was deceived; that the legislature acted under false information, that the whole of our proceedings were founded in error, and yet it would not disparage the question now before us; for, if the government has acted upon our authority, and has not abused the power entrusted to it, if we are satisfied the measures pursued have not been detrimental to the state, but have been carried on with moderation, with temper, and with firmness, we are called upon, in justice to ourselves and to those who have acted in the government, to pass this bill, and it is on the ground of consistency, and of maintaining my opinions on these great and momentous proceedings, that I shall give it my support; but, Sir, though I have said that I might admit the fact of these dangers having been unfounded, without prejudice to this bill, yet in consistency with my former opinion, I still maintain the full extent of them, and every circumstance which has occurred since the suspension bill was passed. Every event that has taken place subsequent to the report of the first secret committee of this House, has justified and confirmed the opinions that were then entertained of the danger of the country. I hardly think it necessary now to refer to what passed previous to the measures adopted by this House in the last session of parliament, but I must advert to the opinion which was then given by a gentleman of whose character and abi'ities no man can speak too highly,-I mean the late Mr. Ponsonby, whose memory I hold in the highest veneration. It must be remembered, that he professed his disbelief in the extent of that danger with which the country was menaced; but when he came out of the committee of which he was a member, he was perfectly convinced that the danger had not been exaggerated. Mr. Ponsonby undoubtedly differed with the majority of the House, as to the measures proposed to be adopted to meet those dangers; but he admitted (VOL. XXXVII.) But, Sir, let us also look to what has subsequently passed, to the events which have arisen since the suspension of the Habeas Corpus act. Can any man look to the trials at Derby, and not feel that the proceedings in that part of the kingdom were of the most treasonable and dangerous description? Is there a magistrate, or a respectable inhabitant of that neighbourhood, who does not believe it to have been a deep laid conspiracy for subverting the constitution of these realms? I would ask the noble lord, the member for the county of Derby, who, I am told, was foreman of the grand jury who found the bills against these wretched men, whether there was a doubt in the breast of any one man composing the grand jury, or in his own, of the treasonable intent? The object of these insurrections was, not to procure employment, nor to find relief from the pressure then existing from the low state of trade in the manufacturing districts, but distinctly and exclusively for the purpose of overthrowing all the great establishments of the country. The convictions which took place have unquestionably proved this fact, and it is therefore absurd to talk of a conspiracy not having existed. The conspiracy not only existed in these counties, but was carried on, by communication and correspondence with the disaffected in the metropolis. With regard to what fell from the hon. gentleman who opened this debate, I think he has dealt much in general declamation not new on this occasion.-He has told us that the people have been swindled out of their liberties by the government. Sir, if the people have been so swindled, it is not the government but the legislature who have been guilty of so foul a transac(3 N) tion. But to those who contemplate this subject with less prejudice, and to the people of England, I think it will appear, that the legislature acted upon the coolest and most deliberate judgment; that its proceedings were marked by the soundest wisdom; and that the people owe to those proceedings, not the loss of their liberties, but the retention of that peace and tranquillity, and the enjoyment of those blessings under which they live.-Another hon. gentleman has stated, among other arguments against this bill, that the persons who have been apprehended, are of such notorious bad character, that no indemnity is necessary against charges preferred by such men. This argument proves, undoubtedly, that government did not abuse its power by apprehending those individuals; but it is no argument against awarding that justice which is due from this House for the moderation of its proceedings. It has also been urged by another hon. gentleman, but I can hardly believe he was serious in the proposition, or that I distinctly heard him, that he disapproved of this bill because it shut the door against all future inquiry into the truth of those charges which had been prepared against the government for the abuse of its power, that "it might be wise and proper not to give up the authorities under which the information had been procured, but he thought that object might be attained by the ministers so charged suffering judgment to go by default, and if damages were awarded, to pay those damages from the revenues of the Crown." I must repeat, that I cannot believe this proposition to have been serious; it appears to be so preposterous, and so contrary to wisdom, economy, and justice. In adverting, Sir, to the other arguments which have been advanced against this bill, there is one charge which, if made out, would undoubtedly place the government in the most degraded state, namely, the having employed spies, not alone to gain information, but for the purpose of instigating to the crime of treason. If this were true, there is no punishment too severe, there can be no condemnation too heavy for such an atrocious proceeding. What does the charge rest upon? The worst description of evidence, namely, the petitioners implicated in the crime, and a general statement by 26 persons calling themselves the respectable inhabitants of Manchester, denied by all the principal and opulent and respectable inhabitants of that place and its vicinity. Sir, we have the strongest evidence to disprove this fact in the proceedings which occurred at Derby. Is it possible to conceive, that the counsel who so ably defended the prisoners on their trials, would not have brought forward evidence to substantiate this fact, had it been possible? Would any jury have convicted, if the fact had appeared? Would the grand jury have found the bills? But, Sir, it is impossible to believe that persons in the situation of ministers of this country, ̧ could have been so wanting to all character, so lost to all principles of morality, as to have committed themselves in such a manner. They would be considered worse than those desperate and horrible monsters, who, for the sake of bloodmoney, encourage to the commission of crime. Here it must have been an encouragement to crime of the most extensive and bloody nature, merely to establish the truth of their opinions, that their declaration of treason and danger to the state was well-founded and borne out by the result. With regard to the conduct of the government in the execution of that sacred and serious trust reposed in them by the suspension of the Habeas Corpus act, let us review the transactions. It appears that 46 persons have been apprehended, of which only 23 have been brought to trial, and pleaded guilty. Considering the state of the metropolis, which we had witnessed by the attempt made at the Spa-field's meeting, and the disposition manifested afterwards, looking to the proofs we had of conspiracy at Manchester, Nottingham, Derby, and spreading into Yorkshire, I, for one, cannot but be astonished at the few in numbers who were apprehended under the warrants of the secretary of state. If we are to give credit to the report of your committee, the proceedings on this subject seems to have been marked by every disposition to moderation and forbearance, and every principle of humanity and kindness. With regard to the other persons who have been detained on suspicion of treason, many of whom have petitioned this House, in no instance has it appeared that they were not fully connected, and participators in these dangerous conspiracies. They have been proved to be men of most abandoned characters, instigating and promoting sedition and seditious meetings. These men, in their petitions, have com |