H'

ISTORIANS have generally confidered an act of indemnity as the fevercft cenfure upon an adminiftration. It is feldom that circumftances can arife, when even a temporary violation of law is neceffary; but when the error extends to nearly the whole of an adminiftration, the fault must be great indeed, and the abufes frequent. We have feen acts of indemnity paffed on particular occafions, as on the landing of the Hef. fian troops during the American war; but Mr. Pitt's we believe to be the first in which an act of oblivion for a period embracing nearly ten years was ever required. What might be the compact made by the ex-minitters on abandoning their offices we cannot prefume to fay; but we must add our with that fuch a requitition had never been complied with, but that their conduct had been left open to the fair inveftigation of the incomparable jurifprudence of their country. The late parlament unfortunately was not of our opinion; and the only duty

1301.

which remains to us is to report the proceedings upon this important measure.

On Friday, May 27th, in the houfe of commons, the attorneygeneral rofe, according to a previous notice, in confequence, he faid, of the urgent recommendation of the committee of fecrefy, to move leave for a bill to indemnify all perfons in fecuring, imprifoning, and detaining, individuals under the fufpenfion of the habeas-corpus act, fince the 1ft of February, 1793.

He entered into a thort explanation of the juftice and expediency of the bill. When perfons, in doing a public duty, were fo fituated (in confequence of an act for general tranquillity and good order), as either to be liable to punishment or compelled to difclofe what they ought to conceal, it was but juftice to give them fuch protection as common forms of law could not. It was needlefs then to difcufs the bill's principle at large, therefore he should only explain its defigned application. He intended it to be

large

large and extenfive, and its operation to apply to all who were liable to be impleaded by executing the act, that they might then be able to ftay proceeding, and if judgment were given against them they might apply to stay execution. After fome more obfervations, he wifhed that the bill thould be read a first time the next day, and, after printing, a fecond time on Tuesday, and its principles and provifions fully

canvaffed.

Mr. Grey could not confent to the bill's introduction on the explanation then given. The honourable and learned mover feemed to think it enough to fay it was an act of immediate juftice; but it might be extremely oppreflive to many individuals. In former times, it had been neceffary to fufpend the habeascorpus act; and thofe who exercifed the powers then granted had as much refponfibility and claims to immediate juftice as the prefent minifters. But he did not recollect that a legiflative provifion was had in fuch a cafe; therefore that fhould be flown to be neceffary now which was not confidered fo formerly. He faid that the principle of the bill was more hoftile to the conftitution and the fyftem of English jurifprudence than any other meafure of the late adminiftration. Therefore he could not confent even to its introduction.

The attorney-general, in explanation, referred the honourable gentleman to two precedents, in 1746 and 1780, when fuch bills were adopted.

Mr. Archdall quoted lord Somers's authority, that such a bill was not unconftitutional.

Sir F. Burdett thought the bill quite of a piece with all the other measures of the late minifters, who, confcious of their own criminality,

1

were for fcreening their inferior agents.

Mr. Tierney ftrongly objected to the mode of bringing in the bill, faying that the committee had no power to examine the subject of it. The papers referred to them regarded the plans of the difaffected here and in Ireland, and formed the only ground of their inquiry; but they had taken up a fubject quite diftinct, and founded a measure on it wholly irrelative to the great object of their inquiries. This proceeding was difhonourable to the houfe, and only intended to fcreen the late minifters by an ex poft facio law. He allowed that indemnities might be necessary in fome cafes, but this was a very peculiar cafe. Minifters had formerly affered their conduct to be legal in this matter; and when he and his friends withed to know the extent of their refponfibility, they had been told by lord Eldon, now raised to the highest legal honours, that a bill of indemnity was unneceffary. No dreadful confequences to minifters for want of such a bill were then infinuated. But if they had doubts for forming the present bill, why were they not stated for fix years, but brought forward with a demand of general indemnity? He afked the chancellor of the exchequer, Whether a bill fo introduced deferved his fupport? It was reported that the change of adminiitration was only a juggle: this he would not now difcufs; but bad men might argue in fupport of this notion from the mode of the bill's introduction, and fay that the late minifters had gone out to get a committee for fcreening them from punishment. Be ended by recommending the appointment of another committee, on whofe report, if needful, the bill might be grounded.

Mr. Pitt taid he would not detain

the

the houfe in this stage of the bufinefs, but the bill ought to be rightly understood. It was not to justify certain individual measures, but to protect perfons from punishment for acts conformable to their public duty, whofe legality they could not defend without endangering the lives of others. The most important information had been derived from fources which could not be difclofed but with danger to their lives who gave it. To prevent this the meafure was defigned;—that evidence fhould not come before the house, that the fafety of difclofing might be judged of. He owned his refponfibility deeply implicated, and trufted that when the independence of the committee was confidered, their impartiality would not be difputed.

Mr. Bragge fpoke to order, and faid, that though felect committees had no power to form refolutions, they might fuggeft what might arife from the fubject of papers before them.

Dr. Laurence would accede to a bill of indemnity under proper modifications, but refolved to watch over the bill with conftitutional jealoufy.

The chancellor of the exchequer hoped what had been stated by his honourable friend would remove doubts as to the committee's power. They might advife what meafures feemed expedient. Mr. Tierney had faid the bill now propofed did not fairly arife from the papers. It was impoffible that perfons wifhing for indemnity could be defended with out facrificing public and private duty, and therefore the bill was necellary. As to what Mr. Tierney had faid of a juggle between his majefty's minifters, it was unworthy of him. No fuch expreffion fhould ever deter him from his public duty.

He had often differed from those minifters, but never in thofe meafures which had faved the country; and he would protect thofe who had protected it. He now afked for others what perhaps he might have to afk for himself. But he fupported the bill from no felfish emotion. Each who did his duty claimed protection; and, whilft he performed his own, he hoped to experience the fame.

Mr. Tierney explained, profeiling, that though he fufpected a connexion between the late and prefent minifters, he would not hazard an opinion till he had better materials for judging.

Sir R. Buxton defended the late minifters.

Mr. Jones never spoke of the change of administration as a juggle, differing herein from his best friends: but were he asked on his honour whom he thought firft minifter, he could not tell.

Leave was then granted to bring

in the bill.

On Friday, June 5th, the order of the day being read, fir Francis Burdett prefented a petiion from Jafper Moore against the bill, ftating, that he had been confined three years under the fufpenfion of the habeas-corpus, when he had had the fevereft treatment, chiefly from the jailor of Cold Bath Fields prifon : he was arrefted in April 1798, and fent to a damp ftone cell, where he remained twenty-three hours without any food, or even water. He was examined on the 5th day before the privy council, anfwered every queftion, and prayed an immediate trial, which was refused, and he locked up in Newgate in a ftone cell, where he was fuffered to walk out only a few hours in the day; but Mr. Kirby's treatment was humane, contrary to that of

Mr. Aris. He had been removed to Iptwich jail, and harthly ufd; but his ftate was bettered by the magiftrates. He was brought to London on the ift of March and liberated by Mr. Ford, who gave him 15 for his wife and children: he was arrefted again on the 12th of April, and foon releafed. His health was fo much injured, and his character, which he longed to clear by a trial, that he was difabled from maintaining his wife and four children, who must now atk parochial aid. He entreated relief, and prayed the houfe not to pass a bill to indemnify his perfecutors.

Petitions of a fimilar kind were read, and ordered to lie on the table; and one from Thomas Goodluck, prefented by Mr. Jekyll.

The attorney general having moved that the fpeaker leave the

chair,

Mr. Jekyll faid, that this meafure, though unufual, was fupported in a manner fill more fo. He expected that the learned introducer would have detailed its provifions, explained its operations, and adduced reafons for its policy and juftice. But he much regretted the change of thole conftitutional principles in his right honourable and learned friend, which he once fo greatly admired. His robe feemed like that in hiftory, producing delirium, and he whom it cofered was no longer to be known by his former friends. He was furpr.fed that minifters could come as delinquents, and pray that juftice might be stopped for their fecurity. They feared not what parliament might do; but the courts of juice were uncorrupted, and minifters must be fcreened, left the injured fhould apply to thofe courts for redrefs. He faid, that the report on which the motion was founded was a far

rago of nonfenfe, and compofed of old and hacknied materials. lle denied any precedent exiting for the act. That paffed in 1746 indemnified the fuppreflors of a dangerous rebellion. In 1780 there had been an open infurrection in London, and the act of 1781 reach ed only to what was done for reftoring tranquillity. In thefe cafes there was a right to call for indemnity. But where had been infurrection now, or any danger of rebellion? The period alio was indefinite. The terminus à quo was the year 1799, but the terminus od quem God only knew. The bill ftated the mafs of the people as difaffected. He maintained them to be loyal. Thofe who were discontented had reafon. When the prople faw a war protracted without neceffity, their fubftance wrung from them by tax-gatherers to be lavished on pentioners, and they deprived of privileges for which their ancestors had bled, could it be wondered at if they were diatisfied with their rulers? Had they not been deprived of their natural organs, they would have expreffed their difcontents to the houfe long before. But the people were well affected to the conft tution, and not difpofed to innovation. It was now owned, that in fome cafes perfons not charged upon oath had been taken up. What became of the law of treafon? No man could be charged with felony but upon oath, and yet the law meaned that thofe charged with treafon should be in a better fituation. Ought a man to be tried without an information upon oath? He knew that juftice Buller had complained that the informations taken before the privy-council had not beet fubinitted to him at Maidftig He condemned keeping fecret accufa

tions with the names of the accufers. From a court of this kind no one could be fafe for a moment. He was aftonished that Aris thould be kept in office after his multiplied cruelties. He expatiated on the fympathy of the late and prefent adminiftration. He thought it fo clofe, that nothing could benefit the one without the other. He concludel by giving his negative to the motion.

Mr. J. II. Browne defended the committee, and their rècommendation of the prefent meature, and thought that the prefent adminiftration ought to follow the example of the former to deferve the confidence of the country. The neceffity of the measure alone induced him to fupport it.

Sir W Elford faid, that no part of the bill precluded the petitioners from legal redrefs. He juftified the committee's conduct, and his majefty's late minifters, who had acted for their country's good, believing that its prefervation was due to their firmness and vigilance.

Sir Francis Burdett faid, that the fecret committee's report fhould be called a pamphlet, and only a long vindication, declamatory, but unfupported by facts. He was glad to find that the bill was not to fcreen the oppreffors of their fellow fubjects. He thought the fecret committee condemned perfons without evidence. He asked the attorneygeneral if the bill was his own, or came from thofe employed to draw bills? It was crowded with powers, and what even the committee did not intend it to be

Mr. Martyn, of Galway, fail, that minitiers alone ought to complain of the bill. Their conduct was legal, which they could prove if fuffered to produce their evidence.

Mr. Grey faid, that he greatly

regretted the confidence expected from the houfe in whatever meafures were propofed by thofe in power. He was not furprised at the principles of the bill, nor the mode of its fupport, but was filled with grief at what deferved reprobation on all accounts. The preamble ftated, that a confpiracy exifting, indemnity fhould be given to certain perfons, excufing them from producing the evidence laid before them.

The true name of the bil was, "A Bid for the Protection and Encouragement of fecret Ac cufers." Such agents might fometimes be neceffary, but now they were openly recognifed for the first time. No precedents in point had been brought from the hiftory of this country. In ftates deprived of their liberties, and oppreffed by their laws, fuch practices had prevailed. In the annals of Tacitus they might be found, but not in the British hiftory. What had made the English administration of juftice the wonder of the world ? Because it was done for bus apertis, and the accufer and accufed are confronted. Thus innocence is fecure, and punishment effectual, all being convinced of its juttice. Arbitary power might have fome conveniences, but the good and evil of fyftems ought to be weighed together. Secret informers might detect a confpiracy, and often become the agents of tyranny. The escape of a hundred delinquents was lefs injurious to the community than one breach of the principles of jurifprudence. The powers of government might fufpend, but not abolish, the rights of the fubject. It was faid, that minifters, not being tempted to abuse nefe powers, they would affo be deterred by perfonal refponfi ility Now athained to detain these men longer, the day