cry of Hear! Hear!] He concluded by saying, that, if their lordships meant not to dethrone their sovereign, and exclude themselves from the house, they would pass the bill, which he entreated them to do if they would secure that constitution preserved to them by the blood and virtue of their ancestors; nor fear those acts done for posterity as well as for themselves.

Lord Rawdon (earl of Moira) opposed the bill, as dangerous. He hadexpected its object to be explained; and heard with much surprise a noble lord stating gravely to the house that he conceived no such explanation necessary. But for want of it, he said, he must himself collect the motives for the bill. He had perused the report whence the bill originated, and wished to give it all credit; but the conclusion was unfavourable. It showed the bad effects of martial-law in Ireland, from the suspension of the habeas-corpus, and the other measures pursued. This proved not its necessity. At all times the poor wanted the possessions of the rich, but what then? Were there no judges formerly to repress them? Why act differently now? The noble and learned lord preceding him had dwelt much on a conspiracy here, and the necessity of extraordinary measures.But had not the common operation of the law, with other powers of government, been sufficient formerly to repress rebellion and sedition. But if the ordinary law could not, a specific punishment might be provided. He knew not any conspiracy for which there was no adequate punishments He proceeded to the mode of appointing the committee-itspartiality; and, knowing that the opinions of those composing it had been long decided, their report ought to be received with the

utmost caution. He said, that hy all such proceedings the constitution was changed, and was now deplorably corrupted. The system of spies was hostile to all free states, but especially to our English liberty and laws. He stated the fatal effects of such an establishment, formed to create hostility between the governors and governed; and quoted a passage in Tacitus, in the reign of Tiberius-that age of Roman corruption.

Was it consonant with the English law that the accused should not meet his accuser, and thus prove his innocence? -He then mentioned the powers given by the suspension of habeas-corpus, which had been grossly abused; and mentioned two cases, the one of an ingenious fo reigner taken up only for not giv↳ ing up some particular papers and plans the other of lord Cloncur ry, who had been twice in custody, and the second time closely confined with the utmost rigour. Though suffering under the most painful indisposition, he was never permitted to be in a room alone; not allowed to arrange his affairs, though the death of his father had left him greatly embarrassed.. Was not this conduct inhuman? How could he consistently agree to a bill destroying all national justice? Were it once passed, all justice would be unsettled; and the confidence in the laws would be destroyed, which had enabled the people to resist dangerous principles. If once agreed to, it would be decisive, and support every enormity and oppression. He would not term the presont ministers t s.tyrannical; they had not the energy of tyrants, but they followed their measures in the present instance, which might serve the worst purposes. Once admit this principle, and law and justice would be per

petually

petually misconstrued. Of all the arrangements of Providence, the most beautiful was, that no one could be happy in schemes destructive to his neighbour. He cautioned their lordships against a bill to silence the unfortunate, and indemnify oppressive acts. The Irish report mentioned the robbery of a mail-coach as a proof of rebellion; but these robbers were no other than militia. He thought, that, if it was possible to lessen the attachment of the people to the constitution it was by this measure. It was not a partial sacrifice of liberty to secure the rest, but a fatal change in the constitution. There were no proofs of a general dissatisfaction. He adverted to the war, and saw no prospect of peace, but rather an extention of hostilities ruinous to the country's finances. In such expenses was it wise or politic to bring forward such unconstitutional bills? At all events, the object would be fully answered by limiting it to a year, or till the end of the war, and then their lordships might review their own proceedings.

The earl of Westmoreland said this bill was sanctioned by precedents (which he quoted), and requisite from sound policy. To show that the first indemnity bill since the revolution was similar to this, he read the preamble to the act of William III. (1694), where it was deemed wise to indemnify acts of illegal severity to prevent invasion and rebellion. Jacobinism had given occasion to the bill, and if rejected the worst would follow. It would not protect cruelty or oppression, but only secure against vexatious suits. It would not screen ministers from impeachment; but they were not accountable for the conduct of those who had sanctioned severities used un

sons.

der the act upon treasonable perNone but the secretary of state (who signed warrants and commitinents) could be called to account. Noble lords who opposed the bill seemed not to comprehend its object. They were only called to answer for the principles of the bill. Had those who thought it needless forgotten the events of the last ten years, and the affair of O'Connor? The country would be always grateful to those who had preserved them from such dangers. The British constitution suited the powers of government to the occasion, and granted extraordinary powers when requisite; but in times of peace recalled them-as happened in Ancient Rome. Spies and informers had been severely censured, yet but for them many of those he then saw around him would have lost their lives by the schemes of the conspirators. Was it better to arrest a few persons, or suffer the whole nation to be deluged with blood? Great lamentations had been lavished on those who were imprisoned, but none on those whose lives had been sacrificed for their loyalty, the lords O'Neal, Montjoy, Dr. Hamilton, &c. the protestants murdered at the bridge of Wexford, &c. Let their lordships recollect their feelings when the country was threatened by assassins from France and Ireland, by invasion and rebellion, a mutiny in the fleet, and a fear of the army. This bill then was due to those who had warded off these dangers.

The duke of Bedford was still at a loss for the specific grounds of the measure after all that had been said. The arguments of the learned chancellor applied more to the suspension of the habeas-corpus than to an indemnity for those exercising the powers given under such su

spension

spension. He admitted, that since the French revolution there had been great cause for aların: but the question was, if it were consistent with the constitution to grant an indemnity for the use of special powers given them for eight years? By this bill noble lords were called on to deprive Englishmen of a great constitutional privilege for everto stigmatise those who had never been tried, and ruin their credit in every future part of their lives. He wished them to attend to the distinction between their conduct who were obliged to adopt immediate measures for national security, and those who had exercised powers given them by parliament for eight years. In one case, the emergency was such that the innocent might be confounded with the guilty, and an indemnity not fairly refused; but in the other, matters were wholly different, and no claim of indemnity existed. His grace, after animadverting on the committee's report, and urging all the former objections, said he was unsatisfied with the conclusions drawn from it. He dwelt on that part of the report, that those formerly imprisoned were now active in rebellion, while it was well known that scarce any were in custody. Then how was there any just charge against them? And if so, part of the report. (and that important) was falsified. However, he wished not to oppose a limited duration of the bill; but, as perpetual, he felt it his duty to oppose it most decidedly. He referred to the earl of Westmoreland's observations on the compassion felt on his side the house for those suspected of treason, while insensible to their fate who had fallen for their country. He repelled the charge; arguing, that the noble lord must know nothing of their character, if he thought such senti

ments theirs. They had indeed. resisted the bad system and consequences of the late administration, and endeavoured by all means to arrest them in a ruinous carcer; but he disclained unequivocally all such sentiments as had been imputed to them. He and his friends felt as much for those who had fallen in the war as those noble lords who talked so much of their feelings-deploring that fatal contest whence so many ills had flowed.

Lord Thurlow spoke decidedly against the bill. It was contrary to the grand and fundamental principle of law, which was to support innocence against oppression. From this principle he was ready to concur in passing severe laws against conspirators; but as guilt should be distinguished from innocence, the latter should be protected from arbitrary imprisonment. Were the criminal laws here duly administered, they were enough to controul all attempts against the state; and why should a man be imprisoned for eight years, praying for trial, and be refused it? A noble earl had said, that persons suspected of treason deserved no compassion; but he himself must pity those lingering in a prison for a series of years, anxiously soliciting a trial; nor could he think them guilty till proved so. He saw no striking resemblance of this bill totheformer; they being passed "flagrante bello.". His lordship quoted a part of the preamble, from which he concluded that the bill had assumed a wrong name, and, instead of a bill of indemnity, was a bill to suppress actions and suits against informers. Two other clauses were inconsistent with each other. The first gave the defendant double costs, recoverable in the usual way. In the latter, these costs were to be recovered in

a sum

a summary way under a judge's order. This was preposterous; and he thought the drawer of the clause did it in a passion. However, he was willing to agree to it for a certain period; but a perpetual bill of indemnity was monstrous, and subversive of the liberties of English

men.

The earl of Rosslyn defended the bill from the attack of the last learned lord. He said it was the same that was to be found in the statute book, both in form and expression. If they were not the best words, they were such as had been often used before, and perfectly intelligible in our courts. He named several acts of indemnity in the reigns of Richard II. Edward VI. Charles I. William and Mary, and George I.; adding, that when extraordinary circumstances happened, such as in 1792, and thence to the present day, indemnity bills had usually passed. Without such an act, a government would be debarred from acting with vigour and effect on emergency, especially when the acts to save the country were illegal. He had been a member of the late administration, not shrinking from responsibility; if guilt was imputable to them, it was so to him. But he felt no fear for having done his duty always; and the rest of his majesty's ministers had done theirs, he could testify. If he had fallen short of meriting thanks, they were entitled to the country's gratitude, which they had saved from that ruin and anarchy overwhelming almost eve ry state in Europe. He observed, that in such perilous times it was nearly impossible for ministers to avoid falling into some error, by apprehending persons on suspicion, and erroneously detaining innocent individuals. Šuch were certainly entitled to some recompense. Mi

nisters claimed not indemnity for themselves, but such was necessary for other persons-magistrates, instruments of the police assisting in apprehending, committing, and detaining the persons apprehended, &c. Lord Rawdon was mistaken in his two cases. The first was a commitment under the alien act, and concerned not treason. The other of lord Cloncurry was attended with lenient circumstances. Upon giving his word that he would surrender when restored to health, he was suffered to go home; and his noble father, struck with the kindness of ministers, had written to him (lord Rosslyn), expressing his warmest gratitude. As to the quotation from Tacitus, relative to the reign of Tiberius, the application of the passage was misunderstood. Tacitus was not speaking of spies and imformers in the sense pretended: by delatores he meant public accusers. This office was often abused, and accusations brought maliciously and falsely against the enemies of those who patronised them, or whom they hated. Abstract and plausible argument, though pleasing to the ear, was impracticable here where penal statutes had swelled our statute books. Spies and informers were absolutely necessary, and especially in these times. His lordship, after other arguments in support of the bill, and in answer to objections, concluded with resolving to vote for it as a measure of common justice.

On the question for reading it a second time, the house dividedContents Proxies Non-contents Proxies

40 14-54 10

7-17

TH

HE other transactions of parliament were of but little importance; but a few of them we shall briefly notice. The distresses of the lower classes of housekeepers, in consequence of the scarcity of provisions and the pres sure of taxes, had extended to such an alarming excess, that humane minds became interested in procuring for them some further relief than the laws in being had provided. To the honour of the British aristocracy, lord William Russell was the first to introduce a bill to this effect; and, on the 25th of February, he rose to bring forward a motion he had promised on the preceding day. He said, that the necessity of a measure to release a certain class of persons from the poor's rates was very well known. To procure that relief was his object. Should the house agree to his motion, his wish was for the bill to be read a first time; and on the second reading its merits might be discussed; and, if nothing inconsistent with sound policy and justice should appear in it, then it might be committed, and undergo what modifications should seem necessary. The object of the bill was to invest magistrates with the power of relieving such persons from paying the rates as should appear deserving of such exception; but, in order to guard against the abuse of that discretionary power, such relief should be confined to those who paid under a

certain rent, not over 54, or thereabouts, and that they should make affidavit of their incapacity to pay the poor's rates to obtain relief. He concluded with moving to bring in the bill accordingly.

Sir Charles Bunbury seconded the motion.

Mr. Rose said he should be very sorry to object to any measure for the relief of the poor, but was afraid that the bill proposed would be attended with difficulties that overbalanced its advantages. It would inflict a great burden on the magistrates, and would hold out an invitation to the poor to come forward with their affidavits.

Mr. Jolliffe wished the bill to be printed, that the house might examine its merits.

Mr. Perceval objected to the bill as it was presented. He thought it would be better for the noble lord to attend the committee for examining the high price of provisions, and to state his plan. At all events the house should wait the events of their inquiries before they consented to the measure.

Mr. Manning, Mr. Shaw Lefevre, Mr. Buxton, colonel Elford, and Mr. Ellison, opposed the bill as an innovation upon the poor. laws, investing magistrates with a power to interfere with the overseers of the poor, who already exempted those housekeepers from poor's rates who seemed unable to pay. They feared, that if certain housekeepers were relieved from

the