Sitting of 3 March 1818

POOR LAWS.
Mr. Lushington having presented the returns of the sums of money levied throughout England and Wales for the maintenance of the poor,
Mr. Davits Gilbertsaid, he had been induced about three years ago to bring in a bill for the purpose of obtaining the information now laid before the House, in the hopes of drawing the public attention to the most important subject which ever perhaps came before parliament. Unless some limit could be set to the rapid progress of the poor-rates, the ruin of the country was inevitable. Since the period in question, he was happy to say, that a committee had been appointed to inquire into the subject; and this committee had excited more attention throughout the country, and more hopes of good was expected from it than from any thing which had come before the House for many years past. He hoped the committee
†
736
would not confine themselves to mere: matters of regulation, but that they would grapple with the main question itself. However numerous and useful the regulations the committee might suggest, this would not satisfy the country: by attacking the system itself they would eventually do infinitely more good. But as an opportunity would soon be afforded for entering into this subject, he should not take up the time of the House longer at present, but merely move, that the papers now laid before the House be printed.
Sir Charles Moncksaid, the country would not be satisfied unless government came forward and took under its charge some radical measure for the relief of the country from the intolerable evil of the poor laws.
Mr. Calcraftwas at a loss to know what gentlemen meant by some radical measure. If they meant that government ought to come forward and propose the abolition of the poor-rates, he, for one, would enter his protest against such a doctrine. No such measure ought to be proposed cither by the government or by any other body of men in that House. The poor-rates were an evil no doubt; and that evil was still greatly increased by the manner in which the poor laws were administered. But this great evil arose chiefly out of our enormous taxation; and if the hon. gentleman, who moved the printing of the papers would but lend his aid to diminish the amount of taxation—to check the extravagance of government,—he would contribute more effectually, perhaps, than he possibly could do in any other way to the reduction of the poor-rates. No majority of parliament could say that the poor-rates ought not to be continued beyond a given time. The mal-administration of the poor laws, which no man could more regret than he did, was no argument against a legal provision for the poor. But, he would ask, had not the poor-rates been gradually diminishing? From having seen the poor-rates so high, and from seeing them fall, he was convinced they would again have them low. Gentlemen would have their corn bill—they wanted to have a high price for corn, labour low, and moderate poor rates. But these three things they could not possibly have at the same time. If corn was high, labour could not be low, without there being heavy poor-rates. The labourers and their families must eat. Low labour was,

737
no doubt, a great advantage in agriculture and manufactures; but it ought never to be so low as not to afford subsistence for the labourer and his family, in a style suitable to his condition in life-Whether his wages were 10 s., 15 s., or 20 s. a week, he cared not, if it procured for him that degree of comfort to which he was entitled. If they wished to check the evils arising out of the system of the poor laws, no man would go farther than he was willing to go; but if it was intended to go against the principle of the act of Elizabeth, he, for one, should protest against such an innovation.
Sir C. Monckwished it to be understood that it was against the abuse of the poor-laws that he had spoken, and not against any part of the act of Elizabeth which provided support for the aged and infirm.
Mr. Frankland Lewisdeprecated all discussion on this subject, at the present moment, as premature. The subject was one of the very highest importance, being neither more nor less than the happiness or misery of a vast mass of the population. The committee had nothing so much at heart as to carry through the investigation of this matter in the most dispassionate manner, and to avoid coming to a hasty determination upon it. Perhaps, indeed, they would be blamed for their dilatory manner of proceeding; but it was better that they should err on the side of caution than on the side of precipitation. The hon. gentleman had asked, if by setting themselves against the system of the poor laws, it was meant suddenly to withdraw from the people relief from the poor rates? But it was utterly impossible that any man in his senses could entertain such a wish as to get rid of the poor-rates altogether. This was what was meant when it was said, that government and the House ought to set themselves against the system of the poor laws: the poor-rates, if they were allowed to go on in- creasing as they had done, would gradually absorb all the rents and produce of the country. When he said, therefore, that they ought to set themselves against the system, he said he hoped that they would take such steps as would prevent this ruin even to the paupers themselves. He should not, however, enter into the subject at present; but in the mean time he had no hesitation in saying, that the people of this country would have been incomparably happier, from the highest to the lowest, if the statute of Elizabeth had
738
never been enacted. When he said this, he did not mean to give an opinion that relief to the poor ought to be discontinued. With respect to what an hon. gentleman had said as to the country gentlemen wanting to have high prices for their corn, and low rates for labour, he wished to assure that hon. gentleman, that there was nothing they were less anxious to see than high prices for corn and low prices for labour. If there was any thing they were more anxious to do than another, it was to effect such a connexion between the price of food and the price of labour, as would enable the lower classes to maintain themselves without any assistance from the poor-rates. The committee had had but too many instances before them of the detestable system of paying the wages of labour out of the poor-rates. They had had instances before them of farmers paying sixpence a day to their labourers, and paying them ten shillings and upwards out of the poor-rates; thus taking from others nearly the whole of the wages of such labourers. A most mischievous trade existed in this country of manufacturing goods for exportation, at a lower rate than that at which they could be made for. This was done by charging part of the wages of the manufacturer on the land, which was reaping no benefit from a trade of which it paid the cost. He would not have said a word of taxes, had it not been a second time urged, that the increase of the poor-rates arose out of the increase of taxation. Nothing in his opinion was less satisfactorily made out than the position, that the amount of the taxation influenced the number of paupers, or the amount of the sums distributed to them. He denied that this position had ever been satisfactorily proved [Hear, hear!]. He had heard persons maintain that the country was so impoverished by taxation, that it was unable to pay for labour. But the effect of taxation was only to take from the pockets of one class of people, to give to another money already existing. It merely altered the channels of expenditure—it did not destroy the expenditure. That which was taken from the producer and went into the hands of government, was laid out in the employment of soldiers and sailors, of persons who manufactured gun-powder, or muskets, or other warlike stores. Taxation merely changed the form and shape of society. If they traced the money raised in taxes, through the

739
different channels through which it circulated, they would find government as large an employer of labourers as individuals would have been, if the sums paid by them in taxes had never been withdrawn from them. To take, for instance, the twenty-seven millions annually paid into the hands of stockholders: there could be no doubt that this interest of stock employed as much labour as if it had not been withdrawn from the agricultural and other classes. They all witnessed the distress felt throughout the country by the want of demand in many branches of industry, from government ceasing to be a purchaser. He said then, it ought not to be taken for granted that taxation was the cause of the great increase of the poor-rates. He did not mean to say, there would have been so great an increase in the poor-rates altogether, if the present accumulation of taxes had not existed; but that the mere consideration of the accumulation of taxes was by no means the principal cause of the increase of the poor-rates. Taxation rather changed the description of labourers and the description of employers, than the amount of employment.
Mr. Broughamsaid, that the hon. gentleman who had just sat down had deprecated all premature discussion of a subject of such importance as the poor laws, and had promised to avoid imitating in that respect the example of those who had preceded him. In like manner he should begin by deprecating all premature discussion of this question, and promising to avoid entering himself into such a discussion. But there would be this difference between himself and the hon. gentleman, that he would keep his promise; whereas immediately after the deprecation of the hon. gentleman, it had seemed good to him to enter into a most delicate and difficult topic which had not any connexion with this important question. And having thus discussed the subject of the poor laws at considerable length, as if he had not sufficiently redeemed his pledge to the House, the hon. gentleman had then entered into another subject almost as important as the poor laws, namely that of taxation. The discovery which the hon. gentleman had made on this occasion, was not indeed so self evident as that which he lately made that the country banks issued paper. The last discovery, however, though not so self evident, was certainly highly curi-
§
740
ous; namely, that taxation had no effect whatever in increasing the number of paupers, or the sums necessary to be distributed among them; that is—it was of no consequence whether 1,000 l. was laid out in the employment of productive labour, or whether this 1,000 l. should be withdrawn from productive labour, and given to a sinecure lord of the Admiralty, who did no work whatever. He had taken this instance, which might serve as a specimen of the doctrines of the hon. gentleman on this subject. But he would keep to his promise, and not enter into any discussion of this subject. He begged, however, to protest in the first instance—for this was the first time he had heard this doctrine maintained in that House—against all and every part of it: and he would undertake to show, when the time came for entering into such a discussion,—that there never was a proposition maintained, more fallacious or more dangerous to the country.
Mr. F. Lewisexplained. He had never said that taxation had no effect in increasing the poor rates. What he had said was, that the number of paupers was not occasioned by taxation alone.
Mr. Curwenwas convinced that taxation clearly entered into the condition of the labouring poorer classes, and believed they did not pay less than 25 per cent to the government in the shape of taxes.
The papers were ordered to be printed, and referred to the committee on the poor laws.

POLICE REPORT—PETITION OF SURREY MAGISTRATES.
Mr. Sumnerpresented a petition from James Trotter, John Whitmore, and Thomas Reid, esquires, magistrates for the county of Surrey, complaining that they had been unjustly attacked, as having misconducted themselves in their duty as licensing magistrates of public houses. The depositions of Robert Whitburn a witness examined on the police committee, had formed the ground-work of that unwarrantable and calumnious attack. The petitioners prayed they might be afforded an opportunity of refuting the calumny,
Mr. Bennetsaid, that no part of the report was directed against the gentlemen alluded to. Though he thought it would be extremely difficult for them to explain every part of the transactions stated in the evidence in a satisfactory manner. He should certainly feel it his duty to

741
move for the revival of the committee, to allow them an opportunity of justifying themselves.
Lord Lascellesinstanced a case where the reason for withholding a licence was rnistated in the evidence taken by the police committee.
Mr. Bennetsaid, that in such a large body of evidence, notwithstanding the utmost pains, it was impossible that much that was incorrect should not find admittance.
Mr. D. Sumner bore testimony to the character of the magistrates whose petition he had presented. Mr. Serjeant Onslow and Mr. Thornton expressed themselves also in strong terms to the same effect.
The petition was ordered to be printed.

PETITIONS OF J. BUCKLEY MELLOR AND SAMUEL PILLING, COMPLAINING OF IMPRISONMENT FOR THE SALE OF POLITICAL BOOKS.
Mr. Bennetsaid, he held in his hands a petition to which he wished to draw the attention of the House. It was from a person who had not been imprisoned under the Suspension of the Habeas Corpus act. The act of which the petitioner complained was one of those measures, which the noble lord, the secretary of state for the home department as head of the high police of the country, had chosen to inflict on the country. The House would recollect the Circular Letter of the noble lord to the lords lieutenant of counties, directing magistrates to hold persons to bail charged with selling libellous publications. Whatever might be the intention of the noble lord as to the degree of mildness or severity with which persons so arrested should be treated, the petitioner had been treated with a degree of cruelty hitherto unknown in the practice of this country. The petition was from Jonathan Buckley Mellor, by trade a small bookseller, in the town of Warrington. The offence for which the petitioner was arrested, was the selling the well known Political Litany for which Mr. Hone was tried; but though the copies bought for the purpose of prosecution were obtained long previously, he was not taken up till after the quarter sessions in April, when he was dragged to a common gaol, and confined several days in irons. The petitioner was conveyed, loaded with irons, to the house of correction at Preston, where he was confined six weeks. He was altogether confined fifteen weeks in differ-
742
ent prisons, before he was removed, at 12 o'clock at night, in an open cart, in irons to the sessions at Ormskirk. He remained there two days and two nights in irons, in a dirty room, without even straw to lie on. The case was removed by the person who conducted the prosecution, by Certiorari to the court of King's-bench. The prisoner was re-conveyed to Preston in a cart, along with convicts sentenced to transportation. He remained there four weeks in prison, when he was discharged on his recognizance. During this time his wife and children were reduced to the most abject poverty, and obliged to apply for parochial aid. He trusted, however indifferent the House had hitherto shown themselves to the grievances of the people, that they would, on an occasion of this kind, show that they would not allow them to be made the victims of most wanton, and unjustifiable cruelty.
The Petition was read. It purported to be the petition of Jonathan Buckley Mellor, of Warrington, in the county of Lancaster, and set forth:
"That the Petitioner has for some time undertaken the sale of books, with a view to enable him to support himself and family in a more comfortable way than his wages as a servant would allow of; that, amongst the books and pamphlets which he received from his agent in the way of business, was a quantity of copies of a work styled "The Political Litany;" that, upon the publication of lord Sidmouth's circular, Mr. Thomas Lyon, jun., in February 1817, sent one Mary Scholeheld to purchase two copies of the Litany from the petitioner, for the purpose as it subsequently appeared, of having the petitioner arrested for the sale of this work; that Mr. Thomas Lyon jun. notwithstanding his pretended alarm for the interests of religion, instituted no proceedings until the quarter sessions in April had ended; his motive for this delay was solely to gratify his malice by subjecting his victim to a longer period of imprisonment; as soon as the sessions were over, he deputed Paul Caldwell, the constable, to arrest the petitioner; when taken into custody, the petitioner demanded to see the warrant upon which he was apprehended; the constable produced a pair of hand-cuffs, and with them securing the hands of the petitioner, replied they were his warrant; the constable took the petitioner to a public-house, and delivered him in charge to Mr. Thomas Lyon jun. who

743
was there waiting to know the success of his measures; the constable then returned to the petitioner's house, which he searched, and carried away from thence about seventy books and pamphlets in a sack, amongst which were Rollin's Antient History, Wynne's General History of America, Law's Serious Call to a Devout and Holy Life, the Evangelical magazine for two years, some numbers of the Liverpool Mercury, a few of Cobbett's Registers, and other miscellaneous publications; Law's Serious Call, with some Other books thus forcibly carried off have never been returned; not one parody was found in the House, the one sold to Scholefield was the last sold by the petitioner, for, on learning that the Political Litany was considered by his majesty's ministers to be blasphemous, he declined to sell any more, although strongly urged to do so by persons who, he has reason to believe, were emissaries of Mr. Thomas Lyon jun.; soon afterwards, the petitioner destroyed every copy which remained; the petitioner was confined all night in the Bridewell, a dirty loathsome dungeon; he was then taken before the magistrates, Richard Gwyllym and Isaac Blackburne esqrs. and by them ordered to be confined in the workhouse, where he continued all night chained by the leg to a 60 pound weight, without either bed or straw; the next day he was again examined before the same magistrates, who offered to liberate him on his procuring two sureties, in the penalty of 50 l. each, and himself in 100 l.; the petitioner, not being provided with sureties, was again removed to his former situation for two nights more, with a similar appendage to his leg, and again without bed or straw; he was then conveyed in irons to the house of correction at Preston; here he was, for six weeks, denied pen, ink, and paper; he was confined at Preston fifteen weeks, from whence he was conveyed in irons, at twelve o'clock on a very wet night, in an open cart, to the quarter sessions then holding at Ormskirk; there he was confined two days and nights, all the time in irons, in a dirty room crowded with prisoners, without any convenience to ease themselves from the burthens of nature except an open leaky tub in a corner, and without even straw to lie upon; on being brought into court, Mr. Peter Nicholson, the attorney for the prosecution, said he had a writ of certiorari to remove the business to the King's-bench; the petitioner was then conveyed back to
744
Preston, handcuffed and ironed, along with convicts sentenced to transportation; about four weeks, more he was, in consequence of a letter from Mr. Nicholson to the governor of the house of correction, discharged on his own recognizance to appear at the court of King's-bench, incompliance with which, not having received any notice to the contrary, he went to London at a considerable expense of time and money, and having appeared in court, he was ordered to appear at Lancaster at the March assizes 1818; the petitioner, unconscious of having infringed upon any existing law, has by these cruel and illegal proceedings been imprisoned upwards of nineteen weeks, been conveyed like a criminal seventy miles from Preston, he had to return home, to travel to and from London at great expense, whilst his wife and family have been dependent on the scanty aids of parochial relief and the contributions of the benevolent, and he has lost a situation which before his arrest contributed materially to his support; the petitioner humbly prays that the House will take into their consideration the statement now submitted, and that they will adopt measures best calculated to secure the liberty of the subject, and to prevent a recurrence of the arbitrary, unjustifiable, and severe sufferings endured by the petitioner, from the magistracy, or any their inferior officers and agents."
Mr. Bennet also presented a petition from Samuel Pilling, of Warrington, setting forth:
"That on the 23rd of April 1817, Paul Caldwell, the deputy constable of Warrington, along with other persons, entered the petitioner's dwelling-house, and told him they were were come to search for Cobbett's Books, and though the petitioner did not in the least resist the search of his drawers and boxes, but offered to find them the key of one box which was locked, the deputy constable ordered him away with one of the persons who accompanied; this person took the petitioner to the work-house, adjoining to which is the prison of the town, a damp unwholesome place; the petitioner was not thrust into this hole, but was permitted to sit on a wooden sofa by the kitchen fire, with a chain locked round his leg, to which was fastened a 60lbs. weight; in this situation the petitioner was kept till the following day, and he was then taken before Richard Gwyllym and Isaac Blackburne, esqs., two magistrates for the county

745
of Lancaster, before whom he was charged with selling to one John Scholefield, on the 8th of February, 1817, a seditious and blasphemous pamphlet called "The Political Litany; John Scholefield not being present, the petitioner was ordered back to the workhouse, where he was chained to the 60lbs. weight as before, and was taken the next day before the aforesaid magistrates, where John Scholefild's wife deposed, that she bought the Political Litany from the petitioner on the 8th of February 1817; John Scholefield deposed that he received the said pamphlet from his wife, and delivered it to Thomas Lyon jun.; Thomas Lyon jun. deposed that he received the pamphlet so purchased from John Scholefield; on these depositions the petitioner was committed to the House of correction at Preston, by the warrant of the aforesaid magistrates, there to lie till delivered by due course of law; that on the 26th of April the petitioner was taken like a felon with chains round his legs, fastened to the bottom of a caravan, and conveyed to the house of correction at Preston, and was there put into confinement a long with felons and kept to hard labour, till the quarter sessions held at Ormskirk on the 4th of August; to that place, a distance of. 18 miles, the petitioner was removed during the night in an open cart, exposed to incessant rain, with chains on his legs, locked to persons charged with felonious acts; when the petitioner arrived at Ormskirk he was put into a room, and was kept there three days, locked to felons, and had nothing to lie on but the room floor, though he was at that time in a bad state of health, and he was there informed, that a writ of Certiorari was come from the court of King's-bench, and that he was to be tried at Lancaster, the spring assizes; the petitioner was removed from Ormskirk to the house of correction at Preston, in the same manner he had been conveyed thither, where he was kept five weeks longer in prison, during which time, being unwell with a stoppage of urine, and not being able to go to his daily work, he was severely treated by one of the turnkeys named Anderson, who threw him down, kicked him, and otherwise very much abused him, giving him two black eyes, because forsooth he was unable to work through illness; after being detained a prisoner at Preston for nineteen weeks, the petitioner was liberated on his own recognizance to ap-
746
pear at the court of King's-bench, to be held at Westminster on the 6th of November, 1817; there he appeared and pleaded not guilty to the charges brought against him, upon which he was bound over to make his appearance at the next assizes, to be held at Lancaster, where he will have to appear, a distance of about fifty two miles; that the petitioner, on his return from Preston, found that Paul Caldwell, the deputy constable on the day of his apprehension, had seized the greatest part of his books and papers, many of them not of a political nature, carrying them off in a large basket belonging to the petitioner; and although the petitioner has applied to Isaac Blackburne, esquire, one of the aforesaid magistrates, who promised to speak to Mr. Peter Nicholson, the solicitor who managed the prosecution against the petitioner, to deiver them up, and although the petitioner has repeatedly applied to the said Mr. Nicholson, and to Paul Caldwell, the deputy constable, they have not been returned to him; and the petitioner humbly conceives the first seizure of his books to be illegal, as well as the present detention of them; that the petitioner suffered very much from anxiety of mind, on account of a wife and two helpless children, who were left in a great measure destitute by his imprisonment; and he humbly prays the House will take into their serious consideration the cruel, unjust, and illegal treatment which he has received, and that they will adopt such measures as they in their wisdom may judge the best calculated to secure the liberty of the subject, and prevent a recurrence of the same cruel, unjust, and arbitrary treatment, which has been received by the petitioner from the magistrates and their subordinate agents, in consequence of lord Sidmouth's Circular."
The petitions were ordered to lie on the table, and to be printed.
Mr. Bennetwished to know whether it was the intention of the attorney-general to bring these men to trial, after the three acquittals of Mr. Hone, the principal publisher of the parodies; or whether he did not feel it his duty to discharge the recognisances under which they were bound to appear at the next assizes?
The Attorney Generalapprehended there was a mistake in the supposition that the recognizances bound these men to appear at the next assizes. The recognizances, he believed, bound them to

747
await the judgment of the court of King's-bench. Unless they had notice of trial, they would not be bound to appear.
Mr. Bennetsaid, the learned gentleman had not answered the question, whether he did not feel it his duty to discharge the recognizances? He certainly had no right to demand this answer.
The Attorney Generalreplied, that he had no hesitation in saying, that because a person had been acquitted for the publication of certain libels, he did not feel it therefore his duty to discharge the recognizance of persons under prosecution for publishing transcripts of those same libels, whether he should proceed in the prosecution of these men would be determined by a variety of other considerations; but he did not feel it his duty to forego the prosecution of what appeared to him to be a libel, because a person had been acquitted for publishing a similar libel in another place. He knew it had happened, that in one place a person had been acquitted of a libel on the publication of a paper, which had at another time and place been declared to be a libel by another jury, to the satisfaction of those who heard the trial. It was not for him to say on what grounds the jury acquitted Mr. Hone. He wished to cast no reflection on that verdict: it was fit the defendant should have the full benefit of it. But he would take leave to say, that it did not satisfy him, that ever after these publications should be allowed to circulate with impunity. There were many circumstances which might have weighed on the mind of the jury in the case of Mr. Hone. Mr. Hone had proved that after a certain time, when he found those publications were disapproved of by many persons, he ceased to sell them. He thought it extremely likely that, considering this, and considering how in former times, similar publications had passed without reprehension, they might have acquitted Mr. Hone though they thought his publications mischievous. But did it follow that men vending this publication, which if not a libel was literally poison, through the country, should be suffered to proceed—to circulate it at the corner of every street? Did it follow that the law officers were to let this pass without animadversion? Since Mr. Hone had ceased to publish, other persons had republished them, nearly at the same place where they were first vended. They professed that they had a right to do so, and
748
desired that the subject should be brought before a court of justice; and so valuable did they conceive these publications to be, that they talked of bringing actions for the copyright. Whether in these individual cases he should think it his duty to prosecute, would depend upon other considerations than the acquittal of Mr. Hone. They had been indicted at the Ormskirk quarter sessions, and he had thought fit to remove the cause to the court of King's-bench, because, while the case of Mr. Hone was depending before a superior court, he did not think it fit to bring on a similar case before an inferior court.
Mr. Lytteltonsaid, he was glad he had an opportunity of expressing his opinion on these detestable libels, for so, notwithstanding the acquittal of Hone and verdicts of the juries, he should call them. He did not think those verdicts however conscientiously given, could or ought to alter the opinion of any man in the country. He should have been glad to have had an earlier opportunity of expressing his feelings on the subject; but he thought it his duty, however unimportant his individual opinion, to contribute his mite to do away the mischief which the verdict, however well meant, had indirectly occasioned. The petitions before the House, however, stated matters which were very fit for inquiry. It was not for him to give an opinion whether these persons should be prosecuted, but he thought it likely that a verdict might be obtained against these publications, when there was nothing in the individual case in favour of the person prosecuted. But it was doubtful to him, whether farther prosecutions might not aggravate the evils of these publications. It was fit for the House to consider what cause had led to these acquittals—whether the minds of the juries had not been indisposed towards any state prosecutions, by the unconstitutional law which had been passed, and by the manner in which other state prosecutions had been conducted. This he threw out for the consideration of the House, and he hoped they would bear it in mind when the bill of indemnity demanded by ministers should be brought forward [Hear, hear!].
Mr. Broughamwas pleased that an opportunity was offered to him of expressing his opinion on what formed a principal subject of the petitions they had lately heard. He agreed with his hon. friend in regarding with feelings of unqualified dis-

749
approbation the very repugnant, and, if he might so say, in every point of view, the very disgusting publications that had been issued; and he agreed with him in not making any remark in disparagement of the verdict of those juries. Indeed, had he been upon the juries himself, under all the circumstances of the case—considering the impunity of former libels of the same nature, and the general conduct of the prosecution, he should have felt it his duty to return the same verdict. The juries were justified in their conduct. They might, and no doubt did, wholly disagree with the tenour of the libels; but they considered that they were political prosecutions, and if they had had ten times as much blasphemy in them—if it were possible that ten times as much blasphemy could have been crammed into such a space—if they had been on the side of government they would not have been called on to give a verdict of blasphemy against them. They acted as British jurymen; they thought that by acting as they did they served the cause of religion, better than if they had given verdicts for those who served it only when it suited the side to which they belonged. They saw that the intention was to make religion a cloke for political purposes. He spoke not lightly when he spoke of things of the same nature from another quarter. There were publications which appeared more disgusting and more disgraceful even than these; parodies not merely of the liturgy, but of large portions of scripture; parodies produced with other views than the objects of the prosecutions. He alluded to those which had been published when the noble lord and the bulk of his present colleagues entered upon their offices. At that time parodies were in the course of publication, not by a few obscure individuals, or by a few dozen copies at a time, but circulated in great numbers under the special protection of those very persons who had carried on the recent prosecutions. Had they prosecuted those parodies? No. Because they were against their own political adversaries, and to serve their own political ends. He would say, that nothing could do so much harm to religion as to make it a handle for political convenience; and that he was the worst enemy of religion who made a show of dealing out justice for its protection, but who, in reality, acted on political grounds, and to nerve political interests. But it seemed a
750
man might blaspheme—he might send forth as much irreligion as he thought proper—as long as he meddled not with the conduct of government—he might abuse the ministers of religion with Impunity, so long as he refrained from speaking ill of the ministers of the king—he might say or publish what he chose, so long as he was of the right stamp—lie might take what liberties he pleased with the affairs of the church, so long as he left temporal subjects unprofaned. He had a most complete dislike of such publications themselves; but religion, he thought for its own sake, ought never to furnish means for the expression of political displeasure.
Lord Castlereaghthought the doctrine of the hon. and learned gentleman who had just spoken open to much animadversion, particularly as it came from a professional gentleman. There never could be a doctrine maintained more fatal to the laws, and to the fair and impartial administration of justice, or its purity and tranquillity, than that a jury, on their oaths, bound to decide on the particular case before them, should be allowed to travel out of the record, and erect themselves into a sort of political tribunal to adjudge, by comparison, different matters and different persons. This was contrary to the spirit and principle of jurisprudence, and he trusted the House and the country would never tolerate, that their judicial tribunals should be elected into places for political disquisitions. It was in vain to defend these offensive publications, on the ground that other parodies had been previously suffered to pass with impunity. He was at the same time ready to admit, that whenever the scriptures were so parodied, the act was highly reprehensible, no matter in what way the parody was intended to be applied. Offences of this kind, however, were open to different views. He knew not to what parodies the hon. and learned gentleman alluded, but there was a great difference between the effect of publications circulated at a cheap rate, and couched in language calculated to diffuse poison throughout the country, and those which were circulated at a dearer rate in a higher circle of society, and, in fact, intended but for literary classes. His object, however, was not to defend by comparison such publications; he merely rose to protest against the doctrine so broadly laid down by the hon. and learned gentleman, that a jury, solemnly trying a

751
particular fact, should be allowed to travel out of the record, and neutralize that fact, because other parties had previously acted with impunity. In this manner the jury might be said more to try the attorney-general for his prosecution, than the defendant who was really committed to their inquiry.
Mr. Broughamsaid, that the doctrine which the noble lord had been reprobating was no doctrine of his. What he had said was this, that the jury were so placed that they were called on to single out one man for conviction on a particular offence, which had been committed with impunity, nay, with encouragement, by others for a course of years. To make such a distinction to suit political views, would have been any thing but that even-handed justice which they were sworn to administer.
Lord Castlereaghappealed to the House, whether the hon. and learned gentleman had not re-laid down the doctrine he had complained of.
Mr. Wilberforcewas very glad indeed to find that the hon. member for Worcestershire, and the hon. and learned member for Winchelsea, had so decidedly expressed their opinions against these parodies. He was himself entirely ignorant of the libel of which the hon. and learned gentleman had spoken. It ought, in his opinion, to be considered, whether or not, without prosecuting, the libel would be likely to have a great degree of circulation, or would do a great degree of mischief. He remembered a case of prosecution, in which a noble lord (L. Erskine) had been particularly engaged. In that case, the question of prosecution and not prosecution was fully considered. It was, he believed, on the second part of Paine's Age of Reason; and that time he recollected it was found, that the circulation was such amongst all orders and classes of society, that it could not be brought into more notice or greater publicity. Before the prosecution of the present productions, he had thought, and he thought so in common with a great part of the nation, that such productions which were so industriously circulated, called for reprehension. He wished to have caused them to have been prosecuted in such a manner as would have avoided the imputation of political feelings. He did not think, however, that those who were charged with the defence of the national religion, if that religion was to be pro-
752
tected by law, could retire to their closets with the consciousness of having done their duty, while such publications remained unchecked. The possibility that political motives might be imputed to them, should not deter them; and the hon. and learned attorney-general, with whom he had not the honour of a personal acquaintance, was the least likely to be deterred by such an apprehension. The real question was, whether such publications had not a tendency to desecrate those things which a man ought to conceal in his bosom, and venerate in secret. And if such was the conclusion, it might be recollected that it was the office of the law, it was part and parcel of the law of the land, that religion should be defended. Sir Matthew Hale, a great and excellent lawyer, had established that principle, and he was very glad to see that it was still maintained. He could not but feel grateful to his honourable friends that they had expressed such sentiments on the subject as he had heard from them, and he could not but express it as his opinion that the officers of the Crown would not have done their duty if they had not exercised the authority of the law against the wicked and blasphemous publications that had been mentioned.
Lord Cochranehoped the ministers, if they wished, as it had been expressed, to retire to their closets with a good conscience, would not confine their care of religion and morality to the prosecution of parodies, but would turn their attention to those who had incited innocent men to commit acts which would draw on them punishment. The true motive for the acquittal of Mr. Hone was, that he had been tried for offences against religion, when his real offence was political. He should shortly have to present a petition, which, when read, would, he hoped, induce the House to inquire into a subject which they had hitherto avoided.

PARLIAMENTARY REFORM.
Sir S. Romillysaid, he had 46 petitions to present from the city of Bristol, signed by 20 persons, each praying for a reform in parliament, viz. annual elections and universal suffrage. The persons who signed these petitions, and others of the same nature, laboured under a great mistake. They imagined that there was a law which prevented petitions from being presented by the people to their representatives signed by more than twenty names. This

753
was an error; there was no such law; and it would surprise those who had seen petitions presented heretofore signed by hundreds and thousands. There was an act of parliament, indeed, passed soon after the Restoration, which declared it an offence "to solicit and go about to procure" petitions to be signed by more than 20 persons; but the House of Commons would never venture to pass a law to prevent the people from presenting Petitions, however numerously signed. Indeed, such a law, combined with the rejection of printed petitions, would make it hardly possible that the sense of the people should be taken. The gentlemen who had signed the petitions he held in his hand, had done him the honour to entrust him with the petitions, on the supposition that he would fairly present them, for he had formerly fully declared that though he considered some reform to be absolutely necessary, his sentiments were not in unison with the plan of reform here proposed.
The petitions were laid on the table, and the first was ordered to be printed. It sat forth, "That defective representation being the nation's bane, the petitioners pray, that all male subjects (infants, insanes, and criminals excepted) might equally share in annually electing representatives to serve in parliament."
Lord Cochranesaid, he had several hundred petitions to present to the House on the subject of parliamentary reform, a few of which he would now bring up. He had four from St. Margaret's, Westminster, 99 from Leeds, five from Bristol, several from Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Ashton-under-Line, and a number of other places.
The petitions were then presented by the noble lord. They were signed by twenty persons each, and were couched in the same terms as those presented by sir S. Romilly. They were ordered to lie on the table.

PETITION OF ROBERT THOM, COMPLAINING OF THE OPERATION OF THE HABEAS CORPUS SUSPENSION ACT.
Lord Cochranepresented a petition from Robert Thorn, a weaver of Glasgow, who had been taken up under the Habeas Corpus Suspension Act. The noble lord maintained that the statements embodied in the petition deserved the most serious inquiry, as, if they were true, acts of more flagrant injustice had not been committed under any go-
754
vernment in Europe. A simple denial of the facts ought not to satisfy the House. The case ought to be fully investigated, that if the gaoler had been guilty of the oppression imputed to him, public indignation might fall on the right head.
The Petition was then read; setting forth,
"That the Petitioner, on the 22d of February 1817, was most unexpectedly arrested by certain sheriffs officers, and committed instantaneously to prison, without the exhibition of any warrant to that effect or any preceding examination; for a period of five days did the petitioner remain cooped up in a close cell, without being allowed any aliment, exposed to all the horrors of famine, and the most imminent danger of perishing from the extreme inclemency of the season, reduced, as he was, to solicit some relief to his sufferings by an attempt at repose on the rusty bars of the iron bedstead, without bed-clothes or covering of any description; when at length lie procured a few coals the vent was so foul that, amidst the smoke which then prevailed in the cell both night and day, the health of the petitioner was seriously affected, and at intervals his existence endangered, and even posterior to his liberation the petitioner was for upwards of two months utterly incapable of pursuing his usual occupation, and in consequence his family of a wife and four children reduced to a state of absolute mendicity; for upwards of eight days the petitioner was interdicted from any communication with his kindred, nor was the attendance of the gaol surgeon permitted; his constitution of course suffered severely, and subjected him to the disease called the bleeding piles, which apparently will adhere to him through life; the sole sources of support which were furnished the petitioner on the fifth day of his imprisonment was the insignificant sum of eight pence per day, from which after the indispensable deductions for fuel and other necessaries, there remained only one shilling and five pence weekly to support existence; that the petitioner's humble situation precluded the possibility of his being in any respect accessary to the treasonable practices erroneously laid to his charge; there was not only no species of evidence adduced against the petitioner by his wanton oppressors in vindication of their proceedings, but he was eventually released on the 15th of April

755
last, in consequence of bail being found, but this recognizance has never been acted on, or the petitioner called to appear in court: from these circumstances, so replete with calamity and distress to the petitioner, he perceives himself involved in ruin, and from his debilitated state of body rendered incompetent to provide for the sustenance of his family, who depend solely on his exertions to preserve them from the keen sufferings of chilling penury, or the degrading resource of precarious mendacity; on that philanthropy and generosity of character which even the most inveterate foes of England have been compelled to venerate as the brightest attraction of a British senate, the petitioner reposes with confidence an appeal against the undisguised persecution to which he has been exposed; and as his case presents no tale of simulated distress, he awaits, with deference and submission, that corresponding redress and indemnity which the House may adjudge it in their wisdom expedient to award; and praying the House to undertake the consideration of the preceding statement, and afford such redress as may be deemed commensurate to the distress which the petitioner has so long undergone."
Mr. Finlayhoped the House would not rely on the truth of the statements made in this petition. It stated that the petitioner had been taken up under the Suspension act: but the fact was, that in Scotland none were detained under the operation of that act. With respect to the alleged harsh treatment, he had made inquiry, and satisfied himself that the complaint was groundless. Two or three, who had been confined under similar charges, had expressed themselves perfectly satisfied, and had even expressed their thanks for the attention paid to their wants. For his part, he wished inquiry being made into the circumstances of the case, because he knew the result would show the exaggerated nature of some statements made in this petition, and the utter falsehoods of others.
Lord Cochrane said, he had two other petitions, from W. Irvin and J. Buchanan, who had been arrested at the same time, one of whom referred to J. P. Grant, esq. a member of the House, as the person who had saved his life, and who could bear witness to his sufferings. They were then read, and ordered to lie on the table.

COPY-RIGHT BILL.
Sir Egerton Brydgessaid, he would not detain the House long in moving for leave to bring in a bill to amend the Copy-right Act, of the 54th of the king, c. 156, as he understood no objection would be made to the course he was about to pursue. He would, therefore, only detain the House while he said that the grievances under this act appeared so great and so severe, not only as affecting authors and publishers, but the best interests of literature, itself, that he saw no remedy but its repeal, and he could anticipate no fair objection to it. He concluded by moving, "That leave be given to bring in a bill to amend the act of the 54th of his present Majesty, intituled,' An Act to amend the several Acts for the Encouragemen of Learning, by securing the Copies and Copy-right of printed Books to the Authors of such Books, or their Assigns."'
Lord A. Hamiltonhoped that his silence on the present occasion would not be construed into any assent to the proposed measure; on the contrary, his sentiments in opposition to it remained as strong as ever.
Mr. Peelbegged also to make a similar reservation of his opposition until the proper stage of discussion, the second reading.
Lord Palmerstonsaid, he had to put in the same claim for his opposition in. due time to the measure.
Mr. Forbessaid, he would also, in a future stage, oppose the bill.
Leave was given to bring in the bill;

ARMY ESTIMATES.
On the order of the day for bringing up the report of the Committee of Supply, to which the Army Estimates were referred, being read,
Mr. Lytteltontook occasion to call the attention of the House to a subject which he had, in the course of the last session, felt it his duty to bring into discussion,* and against which he thought the secretary at war had adduced very inadequate grounds of objection—he meant with regard to the affidavit which an half-pay officer was compelled to make, to entitle him to receive his half-pay, namely, that he had no other emolument from, or employment under the Crown. This he could not help considering as a restriction, equally inconsistent with liberality and justice. To the half-pay he thought all
*See Vol. 36, p. 523,

757
officers entitled as a matter of right, in remuneration for their services; and, considering the inadequacy of that remuneration for the maintenance of a gentleman, he deemed it peculiarly ungenerous that an officer should be deprived of it, unless he swore that he had no civil employment whatever under the Crown, from which he could derive any additional means of subsistence. These were the grounds upon which he had felt himself called upon to resist this restriction in the course of the last session; and if he remembered correctly the objections of the secretary at war to the removal of that restriction, they were extremely imperfect. The noble lord, if he recollected rightly, had observed, that this regulation was necessary, in order to keep up the military character, and to prevent officers from engaging in civil pursuits, which might unfit or indispose them for the resumption of military habits; so that, according to the noble lord, the return of a soldier to the habits of a citizen, or the engagement of an officer in any civil office, was so likely to degrade his mind, or to estrange him from the feelings of the military profession, that in the event of a new war, it would be difficult to bring him back to the military character. Without dwelling upon the principle of an opinion so novel, and as lie apprehended so unconstitutional, he should only say, that it was unfounded in practice, and that it formed no valid ground for excluding half-pay officers from any employment which the government might think proper to confer upon them; for after all, it would depend upon the government to decide whether any such officer should be appointed to a civil office; and he apprehended, that unless it were thought that the possession of a civil office was calculated totally to corrupt a soldier's mind, there could be no good ground of objection to the making of such appointments. He could not, indeed, imagine any principle of justice or expediency that should wholly disqualify half-pay officers from the acceptance of such appointments. Therefore he objected to this affidavit, and the extraordinary restriction to which it referred. The removal of such a restriction would, indeed, in his judgment, be rather a measure of wisdom; because the more a military man was allowed to partake of the bounty of his country, the more he was likely to feel an interest in its fate, and the more he must be disposed to contend for its
758
security. It was, besides, to be considered, that many, very many, of these officers were quite unable to support themselves upon the small pittance of their half-pay. He appealed, therefore, to the liberality of the House, and to that of the government itself, in favour of a body of gallant men who had served their country amidst so much danger, and with so little profit; and he appealed with the more confidence of success, because the removal of the restriction to which he objected would be attended with no additional expense to the country, while the government would still have the discretion of appointing any military man to a civil office. But it was quite unjust that the discretion of the government to make such an appointment should be fettered by the restriction to which he referred.—There was another point to which he also felt it his duty to call the attention of the House. He understood that a circular was issued, or about to be issued, from the War-office, stating, that no widow of any officer who had died since December last, should be entitled to the pension of an officer's widow, if it appeared that, from any source whatever, she derived an annuity equal to double the amount of such pension. This arrangement he thought peculiarly unjust, because it might happen, that the annuity, which was thus to deprive a widow of her pension, might be the effect of an insurance upon her husband's life, which insurance was paid for, perhaps, by a material sacrifice of the means of subsistence by both husband and wife. Would that House then consent, upon the ground of such an annuity, to exclud'e an officer's widow from her pension? Yet the circular alluded to would have that effect. The whole charge for widow's pension's amounted, he observed, only to 90,000 l., and possibly the result of the circular referred to might possibly produce a saving of 20,000 l. But would the House, for such an object, acquiesce in an act of obvious injustice? He was among the warmest advocates for retrenchment and economy; but such retrenchment as that which he had mentioned was not the kind of economy for which he looked, or which the country desired. On the contrary, he believed that the people unanimously wished that the widows of their gallant defenders should be liberally provided for. Ministers could not therefore calculate upon gratifying any class of the community by the

759
arrangement to which he objected; on the contrary, such an arrangement was likely to give rise to invidious comparisons between the treatment of those poor widows, and the extraordinary gratuities afforded to others who happened to be nearer the source of favour—to the commissary-in-chief for instance [Hear, hear!]. He felt that it was the duty, and lie hoped it was the inclination of the House, to interpose its authority upon such an occasion, in order to prevent a profusion of character under the pretence of some economy—to guard against a sacrifice of justice with a view to produce an insignificant saving.
Lord Palmerstonobserved, that as the affidavit alluded to was provided for by a section in the Appropriation act, the case did not apply on the present occasion. He denied the justice of the hon. gentleman's statement, that the half-pay belonged to an officer as a matter of right, as that half-pay was in fact granted merely for the subsistence of officers during the cessation of their services, and as a retaining fee for their future services, when it should become necessary to call upon them for the defence of the country. But if officers were allowed to accept civil apointments, it was felt, and justly felt, that it would be difficult to recall them to military duties when occasion should require it. There was indeed reason to believe that if officers were so appointed, they might be come so much engaged in civil pursuits as to be disqualified for, or indisposed to, the resumption of military habits. On those grounds, then, the affidavit objected! to by the hon. gentleman was deemed necessary; but this affidavit was, in fact; nothing more than persons connected with other departments of the public service were called upon to make; for those who enjoyed superannuation or retired pensions, were obliged to make the same affidavit, namely, that they had no other emolument under the Crown. It was also to be recollected, that the requisition of this affidavit was not an innovation, but the old established system. Then as to the circular letter alluded to by the hon. gentleman, the regulation to which it referred did not originate with government, but was recommended by the finance committee, which was of opinion, that the same rule which prevailed in the other departments of the public service should be applied to the army.
Mr. Lytteltonasked, in what part of
760
the reports of the finance committee the recommendation alluded to by the noble lord was to be found, for he had not seen any such recommendation? As to the noble lord's reference to other services, he thought it only an aggravation of the principle to which he objected, that it should be extended to the army; and as to the alleged antiquity of the practice, with respect to half-pay officers, he could not admit that that antiquity afforded any defence for such practice.
The Report of the Committee was brought up. Upon the first Resolution being put,
Sir W. Burroughsrose, and urged with additional force the objections which he pressed last night against the amount of the proposed establishment. Compared with the peace establishment of 1792, this amount was peculiarly objectionable, unless it was shown that there was something in the internal condition of the foreign relations of the country which called for a greater force at present than in the year 1792. But what was the fact? Why, that while we were at present in a state of profound tranquillity, at peace with all the world, and without the slightest apprehension, as ministers themselves assured parliament, of any breach with foreign powers, we were in 1792 in very different circumstances; for at that period the French Revolution was in its vigour, while its poison was spreading throughout the world. That poison was perhaps no where more widely diffused than in this country, through the medium of the Jacobin Clubs. Insurrections had, indeed, actually taken place, and Ireland was on the eve of rebellion. France was also in a state of extraordinary strength, and obviously preparing to make war upon this country. But what was the contrast at present? The Revolution extinguished—Great Britain and Ireland in a state of tranquillity—and France not only indisposed and unable to make war upon us, but depending for the preservation of its peace upon an army of 22,000 Englishmen, under the command of the celebrated Wellington. Was not this contrast, then, an additional reason for a reduced establishment at home, in this the third year of peace, and without the remotest probability of the disturbance of that peace especially by any foreign power? Now, the whole of our force in Great Britain, in 1792, was only 15,000, and in Ireland only 12,000. Thus the total force for

761
Great Britain was only 27,000, in 1702, while for the present year it amounted to no less than 57,270:—thus creating an excess of 29,526, or forming more than double our peace establishment in 1792. But, in addition to this excess, we had at present a yeomanry force of 23,809 for Great Britain, and 41,000 for Ireland. Thus we had in the aggregate an excess of force, at present, beyond that of 1792, amounting to no less than 94,335 men. What, he would ask, could be the reason for such an enormous excess? But it had been said, that as 1792 was the last year of rather a long peace, the comparison with our present circumstances was not so admissible. He would take, then, the next year, 1793, which was the first year of the war, in which we were engaged with France, and how stood the account? In 1793 the force voted for Great Britain was only 17,000 men, and that for Ireland was 16,000, which, with the volunteers in both countries, formed a total of about 70,526 men. This force, then, compared with the proposition for the present year, would leave an excess of 11,121. Such being the excess between a year of actual war, and the third year of universal peace both internal and external, he could not imagine how the noble lord and his colleagues could account for the difference. It might be said that the militia of Great Britain and Ireland were called out in 1793, and their total amount exceeded 53,000 men. Thus the total amount of force at that period might be estimated at about 123,000 men; but even this number compared with the regular army and the yeomanry of both countries for the present year, would leave an excess of no less than 23,307. Such was the difference between the extent of our military establishment in this the third year of peace, beyond that of the first year of the most extraordinary war in which the country had ever been engaged. But what was the difference between our force in the present and the last year? Why, only 1959 men. Yet the difference between the circumstances of the country in those years was extremely critical, according to the authority of ministers themselves; for at the beginning of the last year, those ministers alleged the state of the country to be so very alarming from the existence of plots, conspiracies, and insurrectionary movements, that they thought it necessary to call for the suspension of the Habeas Corpus act. The history of that year
762
was, however, pregnant with evidence to show, that a large military force was not necessary to preserve the peace of the country. For even the so much talked of rebellion at Derby was suppressed by one magistrate, one officer, and eighteen dragoons. Yet this was the only insurrection in the country in the course of that year, to quell which any recourse was had to the aid of the regular army; for the rebellion at Huddersfield was put down by the yeomanry. It appeared, indeed, that on that occasion, one yeoman was fired at when he was seen alone, but the corps to which this yeoman belonged had scarcely presented itself when the whole of the Huddersfield insurgents or rioters immediately fled. But what was the case with respect to the insurrection in London? Why, that the lord mayor, seconded by one alderman, took possession of the baggage and standard of the insurgents before any military force had appeared—nay, the Royal Exchange, of which the insurgents, it seemed, took possession, was surrendered to these two municipal officers, unsupported by any military force whatever. The hon. baronet farther illustrated the contrast between the circumstances of the country at present, and at those periods to which he had referred, expressing his astonishment at the system of military expenditure which ministers appeared disposed to pursue, and his desire to know how it was proposed to maintain such an expenditure, especially in the present melancholy condition and prospects of our financial resources, which resources those ministers held out no hope of relieving by any probable reduction of that expenditure, or by any attention to the essential principles of public economy. The hon. baronet concluded by moving to leave out, "113,640" men, and inserting "103,640 men."
Mr. Curwenexpressed his astonishment that the hon. gentlemen opposite did not consider it their duty to make any reply to the convincing arguments that had been so eloquently advanced by his hon. and learned friend. If on a question of such constitutional and financial importance, that was to be the mode of discussion adopted by the House, it was high time for a reform of parliament.
Lord Palmerstonobserved, that if what had passed that night in the House was calculated to show the necessity of a reform in parliament, he presumed it was from the very scanty attendance which

763
the opposite benches testified on the discussion of so important a subject. If reproach was applicable any where, it was to those whom some persons considered as the great defenders of the public purse, and who, it appeared, had no time to employ in an investigation of the army estimates. He should think himself fully justified were he to abstain from making any reply to the so often repeated arguments of the hon. baronet. He meant him no personal disrespect, but he could see in his observations no one point, which had not been already stated and discussed. The speech of the hon. baronet was entirely made up of thread-bare references to the establishments of 1792, and it really appeared to him that an allusion to the period of the Saxon heptarchy would be as applicable to the present circumstances of the country. To retrace a comparative view of this nature, would be an idle waste of the time of the House. He considered it sufficient to recall to their attention generally the prodigious changes which the events of war and the operation of various causes had introduced into the internal situation of the country. Let them look at the increase of our population, and the consequent increase of turbulent spirits. [Hear, hear, and a laugh from the opposition.] He could recognise no one point by which any identity could be established between the circumstances of the two periods. The additional charge upon the revenue was created by the increased pay and allowances, and he had not understood that any hon. member was prepared to recommend a reduction in those branches of expenditure.
Mr. Calcraftregretted as much as the noble lord the thin attendance which was given on all sides on a question of so much public interest as the Army Estimates. The reproach applied generally, and he should be sorry were a division to exhibit their scanty numbers to the observation of the country. He must contend that no satisfactory answer had been made to the objections to the amount of the estimates for the service of England and Ireland, and he had no hesitation in declaring his belief that the reduction of 10,000 men was practicable. When measuring the extent of an establishment, how could they proceed without adopting some basis, and what better one could they select than the peace establishment of 1792—unfortunately the last year of general peace
764
winch could be adverted to? But to this the noble lord replied in a declamatory way, that the year 1792 was not the year 1818, and that, therefore there could be no similarity or point of comparison between the two periods. This was extraordinary logic for the representative of the University of Cambridge. The only cause assigned for not making larger reductions was the present system of reliefs; but against this, it was but fair to set the operation of the recruiting service. With regard to the increase of pay and allowances, the charge thus created was only an additional reason for scrutinizing the establishment, which could not be separated from the consideration of our finances. He observed, too, that the security we derived from the army of occupation in France was never adverted to, and yet he apprehended that this force would gradually return, and that it could not be disbanded immediately upon its return. The situation of Ireland was now one of complete tranquillity; but in 1792 a large body of united Irishmen were in correspondence with the French government. He had himself proposed reductions in a former year, which had not been assented to. In one instance, he had recommended a diminution of 3,000 men on a foreign station, and he was described as an ignorant prejudiced person, who entirely misconceived the matter, although, a short time after, his counsel was adopted, and the reduction actually took place. What he had then urged, applied only to the service of the year; and he trusted, therefore, that similar recommendations of retrenchment, although opposed in the House, would be attended to out of it. He was not one of those who felt any despondency with respect to the financial resources of the country, but he put it to the noble lord (Castlereagh), whether he and his cabinet conclave of fourteen were not bound to press down the expenditure to the lowest point that was consistent with public security. When the House considered the great number of battalions of infantry, and of regiments of dragoons, and dragoon guards, of which the establishment consisted, it would be seen that the reduction proposed by his hon. friend when applied equally to the whole force, would occasion but a small diminution of numbers in any particular corps. It should be recollected, that our present system of finance was, as it were, living from day to day; that the chancellor of the exchequer, the great

765
stock-jobber for the country, was, in the ordinary course of gambling, taking advantage of every little variation in the interest of the paper which he was enabled to throw into the market. That paper, consisting of unfunded exchequer-bills, amounted to fifty six millions; and although he did not wish to speak harshly of the transactions of the stock exchange, they formed but an inglorious pursuit for the government of a great country. All the success, however, of which the right hon. gentleman could boast in his dealings, was the reduction of three millions upon eight hundred millions of debt, a boast which he apprehended would but little mitigate the pain that a right hon. gentleman who sat beside him (Mr. Huskisson) must feel, after the solemn appeals which he had once made to him on the urgent necessity of bringing the expenditure within the income.
Mr. Peelaccused the hon. gentleman of misrepresenting what he had last night said respecting the state of Ireland. For although he had stated it to be a source of satisfaction to the House that the internal state of Ireland was much improved, yet he had given it as his decided opinion that no force of a less amount than that proposed was compatible with the safety of Ireland. This was his opinion: the opinion of others might be different. But certainly he was more confirmed in his opinion when he considered that the only two members who differed from it were the hon. gentleman who spoke last, and the hon. baronet—the former had no personal knowledge, and the latter had not set his foot in the country since his return from India. It would be agreed on all hands that nothing could be more injurious or unsafe than a sudden reduction in the military force on Ireland; and he was sure that the House would be of opinion that a reduction beyond that made in the present estimate was consistent with the internal security of that country.
Sir John Newportfelt himself bound to express his sense of the obligations which were due to the right hon. gentleman for the course of policy which he had pursued with respect to Ireland, in substituting the civil for the military authority in the preservation of the peace of that country. The reduction of the military force in that country should be gradual and progressive, for it could not be doubted that any sudden abandonment of the policy hitherto acted upon would be productive of very
766
bad consequences. He thought that with respect to the colonies, they should be made to contribute at least in some degree to the support of the force maintained for their protection.
Mr. Marryatobserved, with reference to the colonics, that they were not in a situation of contributing to the maintenance of the troops, with the exception of Jamaica. He did not think that a smaller force could be voted for their protection and safety.
Mr. Broughamsaid, it became the Commons of England—as many, at least, as were then assembled there—to insist, that the number of troops to be maintained, especially in this country, should not exceed what it was in 1792. In a year of profound peace, and when all danger of internal commotion was allowed to have ceased, it was for ministers, and not for those who sat on his side of the House, to show why the force should be increased beyond what it was at that period. The people of England had a right to be governed at the smallest possible expense; and if he showed that the state of the country did not require any extraordinary measures, the onus was on ministers, to establish, step by step, the necessity of maintaining every battalion, and every troop of the line, which they now proposed to the House. The noble secretary at war had said, that there was a great increase of population, and, of consequence, a great increase of turbulent spirits in the country; but did he mean to say, that because the population was increased to the amount of five or six hundred thousand, that the army must be kept up to the present numbers? In that case, allowing his position to be true, instead of an increase in the army of ten per cent., it would be increased to at least one hundred per cent. What was there in the state of the country so different from what it was in 1792, as to justify the necessity of augmenting the army in this degree? Was the year 1792 more particularly tranquil than the other years which had succeeded it? He would maintain, that if ever there was a period in which the constitution of this country was exposed to danger, it was in the year 1792. France was then threatening to sow discord and sedition in the country, and great apprehensions were entertained for our external and internal welfare. But the terrors which the French revolution had excited were now passed. That revolution, indeed, had long fallen into

767
disrepute among the nations of Europe, and the danger which it was said to have inspired was now on the other side. The danger which now existed was not a danger to be apprehended from the people—it was a danger that arose out of the doctrine of legitimate governments, to be maintained and supported by military force—it was a danger that the governments would go too far in trampling on the rights and liberties of their subjects. And yet this was the time in which the ministers of the Crown thought proper to desire so considerable an increase of the standing army, compared with what it was in the year 1792. It was admitted, that Ireland was the most disturbed part of our dominions, and that England was the most tranquil; but, in framing the estimates, this view of the empire was entirely overlooked, and the increase of the army in England was much greater than the augmentation which ministers had made for the sister country. If they wished to remove the discontent which unfortunately existed in that part of the empire; if they were desirous of governing Ireland, not by the sword, but by the laws; they would turn their attention to those subjects which formed the principal grounds of murmur. The noble lord and his colleagues would readily understand that he alluded to the Catholic claims; which, if granted, would have the effect of restoring tranquillity in every part of the kingdom. It was scarcely necessary, at that time of day, to observe, that standing armies were utterly inconsistent with the spirit of our free constitution; but he would venture to say, that it was one of the most calamitous signs of the times, that, in every country, armies were kept up for the purpose of spoliation, and of exciting terror in the minds of the people. If any change in the affairs of the world had rendered it necessary for England to deviate from her ancient policy with respect to a standing army, that change took place previous to 1792; and, therefore, he again placed his foot on that year, as the standard which ought to govern our proceedings, and he called on the noble lord to show what there was in the state of Europe which could warrant him to propose the present enormous establishment. He was persuaded that it was quite preposterous and unnecessary; and he lamented that so little attention had been paid to the discussion of the estimates this year. He would freely admit, and he
768
regretted to be forced to observe, that the little attention which had been devoted to them, did as little credit to those who sat on his side of the House as to those who sat on the other; but he hoped it might arise from some accidental circumstance. Having stated thus much, he should merely add that he felt it his duty to oppose so large a standing army, and most heartily approved of the amendment.
Lord Castlereaghcould not allow the question to go to a division without saying a few words. It was not from not feeling the great importance of the question that he had not sooner offered himself to the attention of the House, but because he had heard nothing urged in the course of the debate which was an argument against the proposed establishment; and he referred to the thinness of the House on the present occasion as evincing a feeling, that after the previous discussions, the opinions of members were settled as to the necessity of the amount of force proposed. The hon. and learned gentleman wished to take the year 1792 as the standard, according to which the estimates of the present year should be regulated. Now, with respect to the establishment of 1792, he begged the House to recollect that Mr. Pitt, in that year, when he proposed the estimates, stated, that he had framed them on the prospect of a long period of profound peace. In this it unhappily proved that Mr. Pitt was mistaken, for the war broke out the very next year; and the consequence of the lowness of the establishment, in the year 1792 was, that this country suffered very much from an extreme degree of military feebleness during the first years of the war. The hon. and learned baronet thought that we could do at present with a force of 10,000 men less than that in the estimates, but then he forgot to state the particular quarter in which the reduction was to be made. Was it seriously said, that any reduction could be made in the 26,000 men to be kept up for the home service? In which part of the home establishment would the hon. and learned baronet make his reduction? Not less than 11,000 men were required for the service of the metropolis and the dockyards; and could 16,000 be thought sufficient for that of all England? He assured the House that ministers intended to make every possible reduction which would not be inconsistent with the interests and safety of the country.
Mr. Bankesthought that the present vote was larger than the necessity of the case required. Last year, from the agitated state of the country, he had not thought any reduction could safely be made in the force proposed for England; but now that order and tranquillity once more prevailed, he was of a different opinion. As to the army in Ireland, he wished it to be reduced gradually.
The question being put, that "113,610 men" stand part of the question, the House divided: Ayes, 51; Noes, 21.

List of the Minority.

Althorp, visc.

Lyttelton, hon. W.

Brougham, Henry

Monck, sir C.

Bankes, Henry

Newport, sir John

Babington, Thomas

Ord, Wm.

Curwen, J. C.

Sharp, Richard

Duncannon, visc.

Smyth, J. H.

Douglas, hon. F. S.

Smith, W.

Fazakerley, Nic.

Symonds, T. P.

Gordon, Robert

Warre, J. A.

Grenfell, Pascoe

TELLERS.

Hurst, Robert

Burroughs, sir W.

Lemon, sir W.

Calcraft, J.

INDEMNITY BILL.
The order of the day being read for going into a committee en this bill,
Lord Hollandrose, but not, he said, with the intention of resisting the motion. There were, however, two or three questions which he thought it right previously to ask, the answer to which might perhaps enable their lordships to proceed with more precision and dispatch when in the committee than they could otherwise do. His present purpose was not to discuss either the principle or the details of the bill; but as their lordships were about to go into the committee, it was important to know what was the object which they had there to carry into execution; for, after all the discussion which the subject had un dergone, there were still some points with respect to which the intention of those who had introduced the bill was very obscure. On one or two of the grounds on which they rested the measure, they seemed to be at variance with themselves. It had been said, that precedent was followed in the present case; but if it had been the object of the framers of the bill to establish it on precedent, the result of their labour was not consistent with their intention. All former acts of indemnity in this country had acknowledged or implied that certain illegal acts had been committed, and on the ground of that illegality the indemnity was granted; but the present bill, according to the assertions of those who supported it, the report of the committee, and its own preamble, came before their lordships with the allegation that no illegal act had been done. The report which had been made by their lordships committee stated, that the persons who had been taken into custody had been arrested on oath. According to all the assertions and allegations, there had been he illegality; and if there was
714
no illegality, there could be no need of indemnity. But it was said, that if ministers should be called upon to justify themselves in courts of law, they would be obliged to produce evidence which it would be improper to disclose., He could not say, that it might not be possible that a bill on this subject was requisite; but then the object of such a bill could not be indemnity. It was, then, proper that their lordships should know, before they went into the committee, to which of these objects their attention was to be directed, or whether it was to be expected of them that they should accomplish both objects. What were they to be called upon to do? Surely the same clauses and words would not answer for the different objects he had pointed out. If all the proceedings had been legal, what danger could there be in disclosing the evidence on which the arrests had been made?—There was another point which also appeared to him worthy of their lordships' consideration, namely, how far this bill flowed as a consequence from the suspension act of last session. It had been asked, how their lordships could suppose that the Habeas Corpus should be suspended without this bill becoming necessary? He must confess that he had not seen this natural consequence; but if it really existed, ought it not to be their lordships business to make out that connexion in the committee? The bill, as it stood, contained no reference to the suspension act from which it was said to spring. The preamble declared that a traitorous conspiracy had existed, and that numerous persons had tumultuously assembled, &c. and stated acts to have been done, which, under the supposition of all the proceedings being legal were proper to be resorted to. The bill, however, did not declare that these act. had been done in consequence of the suspension of the Habeas Corpus. This bill, therefore, applied generally to all arrests, and was, in that respect, more extensive in its application than the measures which were said to have given it origin.—Another difficulty here arose in considering this bill, which, instead of being founded on precedent, differed in one material respect, not only from all the old bills of indemnity in this country, but from that of 1801, which had been so often alluded to, inasmuch as it granted indemnity, not only for arresting and detaining persons, but for discharging. Have prisoners, then,

715
been illegally discharged? It would become their lordships well to consider what might be the effect of the introduction of this word into the bill, not merely with respect to the protection of ministers, but to the future security of the persons to whom it applied. If ministers, or the magistrates who, under them, carried the Habeas Corpus suspension into execution, had acted legally in discharging prisoners, they would stand in no need of indemnity. They could have no fear of producing evidence to show that they had acted according to law in setting the persons they had arrested at liberty. It was necessary, however, to call their lordships attention particularly to this circumstance, as it appeared that there were cases in which the discharge of prisoners by the magistrates might be illegal. In stating this, he wished to refer their lordships to a case which occurred in Hilary term, 1788, before Mr. Justice Ashhurst, Mr. Justice Buller, and Mr. Justice Grose. The case was intituled, Morgan v. Hughes. The plaintiff having been accused of felony, and discharged, brought his action for malicious imprisonment against the justice of the peace. The declaration of the plantiff stated that he had been "discharged." Upon this a special demurrer was entered, setting forth that it did not appear by the declaration, that the plaintiff had been tried and acquitted, or discharged by due course of law, and that it did not therefore appear that the commitment was without cause. The declaration, in fact, must state, that the prosecution is at an end; for a person aggrieved cannot bring an action, without showing that he has been discharged according to due course of law, cither by a grand jury throwing out the bill of indictment preferred against him, by acquittal on trial, or by a noli prosequi. Their lordships would therefore perceive, that the extension of the bill to cases of discharge was of itself an indemnity to ministers. That this was the unavoidable consequence of the introduction of that word into the bill, was evident from the judgment given in the case to which he had alluded. Mr. Justice Buller on that occasion said, "The grounds of a malicious prosecution are, 1st, that it was done maliciously; 2dly, without probable cause. The want of probable cause is the gist of the action; for it should have showed on the face of the record, that the prosecution was at an end. Saying that the plaintiff was
716
'discharged' is not sufficient: it is not equal to the word 'acquitted,' which has a definite meaning. where the word acquitted is used, it must be understood in the legal sense, namely, by a jury on the trial. But there are various ways by which a man may he discharged from his imprisonment, without putting an end to the suit. If, indeed, it had been alleged, that he was discharged by the grand jury's not finding the bill, that would have shown a legal end to the prosecution." The other judges were of the same opinion. After what he had stated, and, in particular, after having recited this decision of the court of King's-bench, he thought it right that their lordships should be informed on the following points:—1st. Whether a person discharged by authority of the secretary of state, without any bill of indictment against him having been thrown out by a grand jury, or acquittal on trial, or on a noli prosequi, can be held to be discharged according to law. 2nd. Would a discharge by the secretary of state prevent the person from being again arrested on the same charge? 3rd. Could a person discharged by the secretary of state insert in his declaration, on bringing an action, that there was an end of the suit against him? These were important questions, and he thought them worthy of their lordships' consideration on grounds totally independent of the bill before them.
The Lord Chancellorwished, in the first place, to observe, that he did not consider himself so great an adept in the criminal law as to be always prepared to give their lordships a satisfactory opinion upon every difficulty that might be started. In the present case, he must also confess, that he could not recollect the terms of the question which the noble lord had put with sufficient precision, to enable him to give it a full answer, were he in other respects capable of so doing. With regard to what had been said as to this bill being founded on precedent in all its provisions, he certainly had never so argued it. He had on the contrary observed, that when the Habeas corpus was suspended in the reign of king William, it was distinctly acknowledged in the bill of indemnity, that illegal acts had been committed; but it was at the same time declared, that these acts were so necessary for the safety of the country, and the preservation of the constitution, that it was fit no persons should be put to the expense of defending themselves in

717
suits which might be brought for their commission. The principle of the act of 1801, though different, was a just principle also. It was this—that the names of persons who had given information should not be disclosed. Whether that principle was to be, bonâ fide, in any particular instance maintained, depended on those to whom the constitution had given the right of deciding on such questions. What their lordships decision on this point ought to be, it would be for them to consider in the committee; but if that principle was one which ought to be acted upon, there was another which possessed a claim not less urgent on their lordships' attention—he meant the protection of the magistrates who had executed the laws. In a case in which there had been a probability of a general rising against the government, it was obvious that great numbers of persons would be arrested. To leave the individuals who had caused these arrests to contend with the multitude of actions which might be brought against them, would be to allow them to be overwhelmed and crushed with an incalculable expense. As to the chief point in the noble lord's question, he should consider it most contemptible conduct in him were he to withhold from their lordships any information on a legal point which he could give. He would therefore state his opinion, for which such allowances should be made as his practice confined to courts of equity required. Though he thought the word "discharged" highly proper and necessary, he was not aware that it had been inserted in the bill until the noble lord had referred to it. It certainly appeared to him a point of great importance, and in stating what at the present moment occurred to his mind on the subject, he could only say, that he did not think a man discharged in the way described by the noble lord would be discharged according to law. But this formed precisely a case in which the magistrate ought to be protected. If, when a rising against the government was apprehended, a magistrate arrested on information a number of persons suspected to be engaged in such a treasonable design, was he to be punished for discharging those persons when the danger was over, and when he conceived that he had no longer any right to detain them? Surely, no clearer case for granting indemnity could be suggested. He knew what he should have done on such an occasion. He would have pur-
718
sued the very same course that had been adopted. When persons taken into custody were delivered on recognizances, it had been usual to bind them to answer, from time to time, in the King's-bench. If that was illegal it had been illegal ever since the law of the country had been administered. He had himself had the honour of filling the offices of attorney and solicitor-general—he should say, perhaps unfortunately for himself, for no situation was so pleasant as that of a private barrister, and none so full of anxiety as that of solicitor or attorney-general; but he was always in the practice of going from term to term and respiting recognizances; and no persons had ever sat in the courts of justice who understood the laws better than those who presided during the time he alluded to. He could give no better answer than he had done to the question of the noble lord; but he owed it to the kindness of the House, and to the indulgence he always experienced, to give on all occasions the best answer in his power. If it were explained to him, and he were satisfied he was wrong in what he had stated, he should be ready to give any farther information in his power.
The House then went into the committee.
The Lord Chancellorproposed, that the House should consider the preamble first, instead of postponing it as usual, because it was closely connected with the enacting part of the bill.
The Earl of Lauderdaleobserved, that if the House was to set aside all precedents, and rely on the argument of the learned lord, he must say that argument had no great weight with him. The meaning of a preamble was to explain the object of a bill; but how could it assume to do this before it was decided of what clauses the bill should consist? Here the learned lord, contrary to all usage and meaning, called on the House to consider the title and preamble of the bill, before the various clauses had been decided on.
Lord Redesdalecontended, that it would materially serve the convenience of the House to proceed first to the consideration of the preamble, because the preamble was intimately connected with the enacting clauses, and would, in fact, be necessary as a point of reference to explain many of the objects to which those clauses were directed.
The Earl of Carnarvonadmitted that there was a close connexion, grammatical

719
as well as substantial, between the preamble and the enacting clauses, but the question was, whether in proceeding to pass an objectionable bill of this description it would be more proper, as well as more convenient, to go to the enactments in the first instance, and afterwards to suit the preamble to them, or to fix the preamble first and then proceed to the enactments, shackled and embarrassed by that previous step. This was a point of great constitutional importance. For his own part, he could see no objection to the ordinary mode of postponing the preamble, and he hoped they would not be called upon surreptitiously to recognise principles in that which when they came to the enactments themselves, many noble lords might be disposed to question and to resist.
The Lord Chancellorsaid, that in many acts the preamble was a mere form, reciting the object of the enactments that were to follow; but the present was so materially connected with the substance of the bill itself, as to render its postponement inconvenient. How, for instance, could they decide upon the propriety of the clause which referred to tumultuous assemblies, without looking to the preamble to see what was meant by tumultuous assemblies? Every meeting which took place in the course of the last two years was not to be concluded as necessarily of a tumultuous character. The preamble, therefore, in which the precise description was marked out, would seem to come naturally in order before those parts of the bill which would require to be referred back to it in order to be understood.
Lord Grenvillecontended, that when the House departed from what was usual, there ought to be some strong ground for doing so, particularly in questions of this nature, where interests so serious were involved. He was not aware of any advantage that would be gained in point of accuracy or precision, by omitting to postpone the preamble as usual; for when the preamble was postponed, every member bore in mind that the enacting clauses would ultimately refer to it. The reason of the practice of postponing the preamble was, that the House could not be presumed to know beforehand whether the various enactments agreed to, or introduced, would all agree with the preamble or not. When the committee had determined what agreed with the preamble, and what not, they might then be in a
720
condition to know what the preamble ought to be.
Lord Redesdalesaid, it was only for the convenience of the committee he proposed its immediate consideration. If the general feeling was in favour of its postponement, he should have no objection to the adoption of that course.
The question was then put for postponing the preamble, and agreed to. The first clause being read,
The Earl of Lauderdale The Earl of Lauderdale moved as an amendment, that the 4th of March should be substituted for the 1st of January, as the period to which the operation of the Indemnity act should extend. In stating his reasons for proposing this amendment, his lordship observed, that the noble lord who introduced the bill had described it as a species of corollary dependent on the suspension act of last year. It was true that another noble lord had attempted to explain away the expression, but not in a manner satisfactory to his mind. What he wanted now to understand was, whether the Indemnity bill was a consequence of the suspension of the Habeas Corpus; for if it was, the indemnity should extend only to the period at which the suspension had commenced, and not, as the present bill was drawn, to a period long before it. The Suspension act was passed on the 4th of March 1817, but this bill was dated from the 1st of January. If such bills were to pass with this kind of latitude, they would render the suspension of the Habeas Corpus act altogether unnecessary; for here was a bill which not only legalized all acts done under the suspension act, but many that were not countenanced by that measure.
The Earl of Liverpoolsaid, he should not now enter into the reasons why he differed from the noble lord in his application of the expressions used on a former night; but with respect to the amendment, he would ask, whether it was not probable that many acts might be done while the suspension bill was in its progress, to which it might be proper to extend the indemnity now proposed? The Habeas Corpus act could only be suspended in cases of serious and important danger. The very circumstance of its necessity, the very danger which obliged ministers to come to parliament and ask for such an extraordinary measure might render it incumbent on them to act in the interval on their own responsibility. For this reason it appeared to be but fair, that

721
the act should have some retrospective effect, that it should not be rendered strictly coeval with the measure, but rather with the necessity. He called upon their lordships to recollect what had passed on the first day of the session, when a dreadful outrage was committed against the sacred person of an illustrious individual. Might it not have been necessary to arrest some persons suspected on that occasion? When also they remembered the subsequent acts on which this measure of suspension was adopted by parliament, would they not admit that it might be necessary to take some steps for the apprehension of those concerned? Rut abandoning the particular case, he should make his stand upon the general principle, that government might, upon its own responsibility, under circumstances of imminent danger, take steps for the general security of the kingdom before parliament had passed the bills, which parliament would afterwards be bound in strict justice to recognize. However, as he was not aware that any acts of this nature had been done antecedent to the meeting of parliament, he should have no objection to limit the operation of the bill to the 26th of January, the day before parliament met.
The Earl of Lauderdaleacceded to this proposal, and took credit to himself in so doing, for an act of kindness to ministers, as it would be an awkward thing to oblige them to confess that they had neglected calling parliament together while such acts were going on—an inference which would be unavoidable, if he insisted on his amendment in its original shape.
The amendment, substituting the 26th of January, was then agreed to.
Lord Hollandsaid it was his intention to move that the word "discharged" should be left out of the bill, but in consequence of what had fallen from the noble and learned lord, he was induced not to press that motion. But if it was right that the magistrate who had irregularly discharged persons from confinement, should be indemnified by parliament, it was also right that the person so discharged should have the advantage of a full discharge according to law. If therefore it was deemed necessary for the protection of the magistrates, that this word should be retained, he hoped they would admit the introduction of a proviso into another part of the bill, securing the advantage he had described to persons in such a situation.
The Earl of Liverpoolreplied, that two principles were applicable to the bill; one, to prevent the disclosure of testimony on which the magistrates had acted; the other, to indemnify them for certain steps they had taken when the country was in a state of insurrection. In Derbyshire, a large body of men had assembled to proceed towards the metropolis Now, no person, whatever his opinion might he respecting the Suspension, could say that it was not the duty of the magistrates, under that act, to prevent such a purpose, and in furtherance of the act, to detain individuals, and afterwards to release as many as they could without danger to the public tranquillity. The question, therefore, was, whether under such circumstances they could properly discharge such as had been arrested, without further proceedings, though, perhaps such discharge might not be strictly legal? If any question was more clear than another, he thought it. was the propriety of the apprehension of these persons in a moment of considerable danger, and the release of them as soon as was consistent with the public safety. He thought this must appear on all sides the least exceptionable part of the bill.
Lord Hollandagreed, that this was the least exceptionable part of the bill; but the House had now heard it avowed, for the first time, that this bill was not passed for the sole purpose of preventing unpleasant disclosures of evidence, but really to cover acts in themselves strictly illegal. The noble lord had announced his opinion, that the magistrates, in these discharges, might have acted illegally; but if they did so, parliament, it was alleged, ought to bear them out. This was no answer to the question he had put respecting the situation of persons so illegally discharged. These persons could not bring any action for damages, without averring on the record, that they had been duly discharged, so that they were at present deprived of the very right of seeking for redress. If they were discharged at all, they ought to have received their discharge in a way that would give them the rights that all Englishmen ought to possess. If these rights could be secured to them by any clause, he was ready to indemnify the magistrates; but if not, he thought the magistrates ought not to be protected at the expense of those who had been aggrieved. The only way in which the latter could regain their rights, was by

723
proceeding in a court of law, to question the regularity of the proceedings in their committal; and if they were not regularly discharged, a clause must be introduced to give them the benefit of such a discharge before they could proceed at Jaw. Should such a proviso be framed, would the noble lord object to it?
The Earl of Liverpoolsuggested, that the noble lord should first prepare his amendment; they would then be more competent to give an answer.
Lord Erskinesaid, that he felt as much as any man the justice, and, indeed the necessity of protecting magistrates in the honest discharge of many difficult duties. Before the act of the list of the king, if a conviction by one or more magistrates was afterwards quashed as being contrary to law, they were subject to actions or even indictments as the case might be: but this was remedied, and properly remedied by the statute. When regard was had to the various and complicated jurisdictions of the justices out of sessions, requiring often a very deep knowledge of the law, nothing could be more tit than that they should be protected when they acted to the best of their honest judgments; but the parliament of that day knew too well its duty to extend the protection farther, and therefore, though after a conviction was quashed for error, no action of trespass could be maintained, yet the convicting magistrates were left liable to an action on the case, if they acted maliciously and without reasonable or probable cause. He should therefore propose hereafter a similar provision in the bill now before them; as, if it were to pass as it stood, the most atrocious and notorious outrages might be unpunished. He was aware that the preamble of the bill would be I objected to him, and that he should be told the protection was not intended to screen magistrates or others who had acted unjustly; but because they could not defend themselves without injury to others, even when their conduct had not only been just, but highly meritorious. To that objection he could only answer, Let such a shocking preamble be amended, which laid down a doctrine never to be found till this hour in any English statute—Good God! exclaimed lord E. to what condition were we reduced! Whilst order was overborne by violence, and the most honest informer might be at the mercy of the guilty, informations
724
for such a season might be secret, but after it was completely restored, and the law in its usual force, what principle could be stated to justify this absolute inversion of the whole spirit and practice of magistracy, informations being always publicly returned to the courts of: justice.—But the bill as it stood went much farther than even the false principle of secrecy would justify, because it protected magistrates and others, even for-the most open outrages, upon no informations whatsoever, and when a thousand witnesses might be produced to prove them, who desired no secrecy to protect them.—What could be said to cases of this description? Was it possible to make the public safety the foundation of a measure, which destroyed the safety of every individual of whom that public was composed? The best measure the legislature could at any time resort to for the public safety was, to secure the liberties and the privileges of the people; Without that they might put down insurrections, but the hostile mind would remain; and all the securities which flowed from a free constitution would be lost, The clause which he intended to propose when he had drawn it up in form, would be in harmony with the general law, and would in no shape effect indemnities, unless in cases to which no man would be hardy enough to say, that they ought to be extended, the false pretext of secrecy being the only possible cover for its universal and unprecedented extension.
The Earl of Lauderdalecalled the attention of the House to the benefit they had derived from an adherence to their regular forms. If the preamble had been agreed to in the first instance, as was proposed, it would have given a complexion to the bill totally different from what it now appeared to be on explanation. The preamble described its object, merely as intended to prevent the improper disclosure of evidence, but another object had since been avowed, which would render an alteration of the preamble necessary, in order to make it conformable with the intention and spirit of the enactments.
The Lord Chancellorrepeated the argument, that if magistrates discharged persons illegally, they would require to be indemnified. The grievance which arose out of such a measure was that of preventing persons who were innocent from bringing their action. It was the spirit of the clause that the magistrates

725
should not suffer for an act of lenity, so that any proviso introduced in behalf of the persons discharged, should be considered with reference to the magistrates as well as to those persons. If a proviso could be so formed as to accomplish the one purpose without defeating the other, he was sure there would be no objection to its immediate adoption.
The Marquis of Lansdowne The Marquis of Lansdowne moved for the omission of those words in the bill, which went to extend indemnity to magistrates for arresting persons in tumultuous assemblies. The principle of the bill was to indemnify for acts dangerous in themselves, but justifiable for reasons of state, which could not be disclosed in evidence. Could any of the arguments that rested on this necessity of secrecy, be applicable to the case of persons taken in tumultuous and disorderly meetings? Why should the magistrate be prevented from proving his own justification in this case? He would admit that the magistrates who acted last year, were entitled to protection, but he was sure they would rather defend themselves in an open and avowed manner, where it could be done with safety to the public, than escape within the pale which that act threw over them.
The Lord Chancellorcontended, that such an exemption would expose the magistrates to actions from every individual arrested in tumultuous assemblies. That in itself was a great evil. Besides, the magistrates would have a right in their defence to enter into the information they had received as to the objects of the meeting which would lead to the disclosure objected against.
The Marquis of Lansdowneobserved, that there were but few persons committed for such an offence; the cases therefore would not be so numerous as was apprehended, and the mere proof of the fact that it was a tumultuous assembly would be a sufficient justification of the magistrates, without any farther disclosure.
The Lord Chancellorsaid, that many might represent more force to have been used than was necessary to disperse the meeting, the only means of rebutting which would be to enter into a disclosure of its nature and objects.
Lord Hollandobserved, that if the argument of the learned lord were good, whenever a tumultuous assembly was dispersed, the magistrates by whom they were so dis-
726
persed must have recourse to parliament for an act of indemnity. He denied the principle, as it would go to overturn the whole law of the country.
The Lord Chancellorsaid, that the bill before their lordships was not general, but contemplated a case of an extraordinary and special nature, in which it was indispensably necessary to protect the magistrates who were connected with it.
Lord Hollandallowed, that an extraordinary and special case ought to be decided on its own merits, but maintained, that the former argument of the learned lord was applicable to the case of all magietrates who dispersed tumultuous assemblies.
The Earl of Liverpooladmitted, that in the act of 1801 there was no provision of the nature under consideration, the reason of which was, that although many persons having been taken up on suspicion of high treason and not afterwards brought to trial, parliament thought right to pass an act of indemnity to protect ministers, yet at that period there was nothing like insurrection, which demanded a measure of this nature with reference to magistrates. In the late occurrences not only had persons been apprehended under the warrant of the secretary of state, but insurrections of a formidable nature had taken place, which required the interposition of magisterial authority. Large bodies of people were taken up by order of the magistrates—in one place no less than 250—with a view to prevent the farther progress of the meetings of the 10th of March. This having been the state of the country, would parliament act fairly by the magistrates, if it did not protect them from vexatious suits? Their lordships should never forget that the preservation of the public peace depended on the voluntary efforts of these respectable gentlemen, who were generally unpaid, and who came forward independently to discharge duties of the highest importance, attended in many cases with great personal risk, and which therefore entitled them to the protection of the legislature.
The Earl of Carnarvonobserved, that the arguments of the noble earl and of the learned lord went to prove that an act of indemnity was necessary on every occasion in which the magistrates exerted themselves to preserve the peace of the country. Did the noble earl mean to say, that the magistraes last year exceeded

727
their powers, and that they therefore came to parliament for indemnity? If so, and if the necessity was manifest, that indemnity parliament would not refuse. But he denied that it was to be taken for granted that when magistrates exerted themselves in the case of tumultuous assemblies, they necessarily violated the law, and must have an act of indemnity to protect them. He supported the amendment, not because, he thought indemnity unnecessary, but because in this, as well as in other parts of the bill, their lordships were legislating in the dark.
The amendment was negatived.
Lord Erskinesaid, 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. By the 4dst of the king, though a conviction were quashed for error in fact or in law, magistrates, though protected when acting honestly, were still liable, if they acted maliciously, and without reasonable and probable cause. It never was heard of in England, that any magistrate or other person of any description whatsoever, could act with malice to the injury of another without a most severe and exemplary visitation. He wished, therefore, after the clause, "That every person by whom any such act, matter, or thing shall have been done, or commanded, ordered, directed, or advised to be done, shall be freed, acquitted, discharged, and indemnified, as well against the king's majesty, his heirs and successors, as against the person and persons so apprehended, committed, imprisoned, or detained in custody, discharged or dispersed, and all and every other person and persons whomsoever;" the following proviso should be introduced:—"Provided always, that nothing herein contained shall extend, or be construed to extend, to any act, mutter, 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 secrecy of information could have any possible application, no magistrate nor any other person could be impleaded or questioned, though he had acted with the most palpable malice in the presence of a thousand witnesses, who desired no secrecy, being ready to come forward to prove it. This error, so affronting to common sense, was all he desired, to rectify. Let honest
728
error of every kind be still protected, and let secrecy be maintained within its proper boundaries, as to time, that is, whilst the Habeas Corpus was suspended, on account of dangers from the laws being supposed to be overpowered, but not after order was completely restored, and still less, in cases where no secrecy was required by witnesses, nor could in any shape apply to the testimony they had to give. He desired once again to repeat, that the public safety which in every country must stand upon the affections of the people, could never be maintained by sanctioning private wrongs, and by the denial of justice.
The Lord Chancellorsaid, that the answer which he had to make to his noble and learned friend was very short—it was simply this, that the clause which he proposed would nullify the whole bill. If their lordships did not choose to agree to a bill of indemnity, let them say so; but if they did agree to it, let them make it effective. Were an action allowed to be brought against a magistrate on the ground of his having been-influenced by malicious motives, he could not defend himself without staling from what source he derived the information on which he had proceeded. His noble and learned friend said, that the country was now tranquil, and that no danger would result from such a disclosure. But whatever might be its effect on the peace of the country, what effect did their lordships think it was calculated to have on the peace of the individual who had furnished the information? The principle of the clause was, that admitting that illegal acts had been committed, it was fitting that the magistrates should be protected, not only against vexatious suits, but against suits which might be otherwise so numerous, that however complete the defence of a magistrate might be against them, his efforts might be paralyzed by their repetition. No such exception as that proposed by his noble and learned friend, was to be found in any preceding measure of a similar nature. His noble and learned friend, with that love of his country by which he had always been distinguished, exhorted their lordships to take care of the liberties and feelings of the people. God forbid that any man in that House should, forget that that was the principle by which all their proceedings ought to be regulated. But they should at the same time recollect, that they ought not to destroy all autho-

729
rity for the sake of individual benefit. I 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. Those felt the most for the people who were anxious to protect the great mass of the people from the machinations of the few, who sought the destruction of the whole system of government.
The Earl of Rosslyncould not consent to the sacrifice of the rights of so many persons for the sake of protecting a few magistrates from actions. It seemed admitted, that some alteration in the preamble was necessary, inasmuch as it did not state the true object of the measure, which was not merely to prevent disclosures, and to protect those who gave evidence on which magistrates had acted, but also to cover with a shield the magistrates themselves, however unwarrantable and illegal had been their proceedings. The noble and learned lord had given no sufficient answer to what had fallen from the noble mover of the proviso, who was anxious not to expose magistrates who had acted bonâ fide, but to open the courts of justice against those who had availed themselves of their authority to oppress and imprison individuals. The noble and learned lord had stated most truly, that by the indemnity acts of William 3rd, of 1715, of 1746, and those that had passed since, illegal acts which had been committed, were indemnified. It was the only justification of an indemnity bill, that when, to preserve the peace of the country, the law had been violated in particular instances, those who, from a sense of public duty, had committed the violation, should be protected against the consequences of their conduct; but in this case it had been averred that no illegal acts had been done, and that an indemnity was intended only to prevent actions, which, if proceeded in, might lead to disclosures inconsistent with the public safety. Where, therefore, malice was offered to be proved against magistrates pretending to act for the public good, no indemnity should be allowed to prevent the plaintiff from proceeding, or shut the doors of justice against him. In the first Irish indemnity act, this principle was recognized, and the
730
distinction between illegal and malicious arrest or detention was established, though the act had been afterwards altered.
The amendment was negatived.
The Marquis of Lansdowneproposed, 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 Suspension act did not extend to Ireland, and that country should therefore be excepted from those of the Indemnity bill.
Lord Sidmouthsaid, 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. A suit might be instituted in the courts of that country, at the instance of a person who was apprehended there for acts done in Great Britain, and it was necessary therefore to protect the magistrate who had executed the warrant of arrest.
The Marquis of Lansdownesaid, that a clause should be introduced to meet the special case, rather than Ireland should remain under the general provisions of the bill.
Lord Sidmouthsaid, that he had no difficulty in alluding to the case. A warrant had been issued against an individual who had fled to Ireland. He was apprehended in that country, and unless Ireland remained in the bill, the magistrate who executed the warrant would be liable to an action.
Lord Hollandwarmly objected to the introduction of Ireland into the bill. Let the particular case be named, however objectionable, rather than leave the exception general. He believed the magistrates of Ireland, like the magistrates of Great Britain, were active and, generally, exemplary in the discharge of their duty. He did not mean to speak of them with the slightest disrespect; but he too well knew the state of that country, not to feel that a general bill of indemnity for acts done by the magistrates in Ireland, would be a bill of indemnity for many acts of atrocious outrage. After the act of indemnity in Ireland, which followed the suspension of the Habeas Corpus in 1797, an action was brought in that country by a person of the name of Doyle, against an individual whose conduct he (lord Holland) had the misfortune to bring the other evening, under their lordships consideration, a sir Judkin Fitzgerald, accusing him of acting in his ma-

731
gisterial capacity with malicious motives; and, although the act of indemnity was in force, Doyle obtained a verdict, and sentence was about to be pronounced. In order to save this gentleman, if gentleman he was, another indemnity bill, with a sweeping clause, was passed by the Irish legislature. He knew not if the bill then before their lordships would 6creen such acts as that to which he had just adverted. But when it was notorious that for the last five and twenty years there had not been a year unproductive of deviations from law on the part of some of the magistrates of Ireland, their lordships ought to be cautious how, for the purpose of meeting an unknown and conjectural case, they agreed to a clause which might deprive the Irish people of their redress for such injuries. The remedy ought not to extend beyond the evil, and the indemnity ought to be confined to the particular case in question.
The Earl of Liverpooldid not think that the principle of indemnity would be construed so broadly as to include any case but the one contemplated. He should, however, have no objection to an amendment, on the third reading, that would limit the operation of the act as it regarded Ireland to the special case contemplated. The history of that case was this:—a man of the name of Benbow, whose petition had been laid on their lordships table, had fled to Ireland, with the hope of obtaining there the means of being conveyed out of the country. A warrant was issued from this country for his arrest; and he was taken up in Ireland for acts done here, and not for any acts performed there. 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. This clause, however, extended no indemnity to magistrates in Ireland, where the suspension did not operate, for any arrest they might have authorized for acts done there.
After some further conversation, the amendment leaving out Ireland, was 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 Carnarvonprotested against the payment of double costs by the plaintiffs in such actions as might have been
732
already commenced, without any anticipation of this act. He proposed that the infliction of double costs should be confined to all actions brought after the passing of the act. This would not interfere with the indemnity.
The Lord Chancellorsaid it was his intention to propose that the plaintiffs in any actions which had been commenced before the 27th of February, should not be liable to any costs.
Lord Kingwas desirous that the infliction of double costs should be entirely withdrawn from the bill. Why, in addition to the evil of a deprivation of redress were the unfortunate individuals who had been illegally treated, to be punished with the penalty of double costs? Suppose a person were apprehended on a malicious and groundless information, that he suffered a long imprisonment, and was utterly ruined in consequence. This was not an imaginary case. It was that of an individual in Ireland, who had been already alluded to, of the name of Doyle, on whom the most horrid tortures were inflicted by a sir Judkin Fitzgerald, against whom he brought an action; but, in consequence of a second act of indemnity (the first not having been found sufficiently operative), he was defeated, and cast in 750 l. costs, which proved his utter ruin. Conceiving that the words "double costs" conveyed as much injustice as two words could import, he moved to omit the word "double."
The Lord Chancellorobserved, that the next provision of the clause enacted that those who had commenced actions, but who stayed proceedings, would not be liable to any costs. The double costs were to be imposed only on those who, notwithstanding parliament had taken from them the ground of action, still proceeded.
Lord Hollandallowed that the provision just described by his noble and learned friend was commendable, but contended, that the principle of inflicting double costs in such cases was unjust in itself. In an act like that under consideration, and which was extorted from parliament only by necessity, they should be cautious not to go one title beyond that necessity.
Lord King's amendment was negatived. The lord chancellor then proposed his amendment, to exempt those from the payment of any costs, who might have commenced their actions

733
before the 27th of February.—Agreed to.
The Earl of Carnarvonproposed a new-clause, framed for the purpose of limiting the operation of the bill to those cases in which the interference of the legislature was indispensably necessary. It was stated in the preamble as the ground of the measure, that the production of evidence in defence against actions, might be dangerous to the parties who bad given the information on which the acts prosecuted had proceeded, as well as to the general safety. The object of his proposed 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 way in which he intended to effect this was, by enacting, that before the commencement of a suit, the solicitor of the party should give notice to the secretary of state, and if the secretary of state made no affidavit, such as he had described, in the course of a month, the information should be produced, and the proceedings should not be stayed; but that if the secretary of state made the affidavit within the month, then the action should be immediately stopped. Unless some proposition of this nature were adopted, the most oppressive acts would escape with impunity, even when not the slightest ground could be alleged for preventing an action.
The Earl of Liverpoolreplied, 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. Nor that alone. The act for suspending the Habeas Corpus vested in the privy council, as well as in the secretary of state, the power of granting warrants for the apprehension of suspected persons. The privy council, therefore, would also be subject to a similar discretion on the part of the secretary of state. And who was the secretary of state? His noble friend might not always be in that office. One of the noble lords opposite, in the event of any change in his majesty's councils, might till that situation, and it would then be to be submitted to that noble lord, whether actions might be brought against his noble friend? Parliament had adopted the only proper course under such circumstances, by appointing
734
committees, which had investigated all the cases of apprehension that had occurred. He was persuaded that his noble friend had, in no instance, issued his warrant for the apprehension of any individual, which instance he would not readily submit to the examination of any parliamentary tribunal, acting under the seal of confidence, in order that they might determine whether or not he had been actuated by motives of public duty alone.
The Earl of Carnarvoncontended, that unless his clause were acceded to, the evils growing out of this act of indemnity would be much greater than the benefits resulting from it. The noble earl had said, that if the secretary of state were changed, the discretion would rest with another individual. Certainly; and so it ought; for the secrets of the office would be in the possession of that other individual. It was only by the adoption of some provision, such as that which he proposed, that he could be brought to consent to the great anomaly in British jurisprudence, of shutting the courts of justice against the injured and oppressed. 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 Lauderdalesaid, he did not expect that the amendment which he was about to propose, would meet with a better fate than those which preceded it; but still he would persevere. Notwithstanding the observation of the noble and learned lord, he could not help thinking that, as the report was, in fact, the ground and origin of the bill, so the language of the latter should be in conformity with that of the former. With this view he had selected a passage from the report, which he would beg leave to substitute for the first clauses of the present preamble. The sentences which he would read were not filled with all the words of unnecessary recital which incumbered the report itself; but he pledged himself that he had not added one word of his own. Instead of the preamble as it now stood, he would propose the following:—"Whereas, on the 9th of June last, a rising took place in Derbyshire, and the insurgents were not formidable for their numbers; and whereas it was pretended that the state of Nottingham was favourable to their designs; and whereas some persons, about 100, were on that night assembled on the

735
race-course near Nottingham; and whereas some of them were armed with pikes or poles; and whereas they dispersed about two o'clock; and whereas the Derbyshire insurgents proposed to surprise the military in their barracks, and to become masters of the town of Nottingham; but, in the course of their march, some threw away their pikes, and retired before the military force appeared; and on the first show of that force the rest dispersed, their leaders attempting in vain to rally them; and whereas the committee have the satisfaction of delivering it as their decided opinion, that not only in the country in general, but in those districts where the designs of the disaffected were most actively and unremittingly pursued, the great body of the people remained untainted, even during the periods of the greatest distress, it has been deemed necessary to apprehend, commit, imprison, detain without trial, &c." [a laugh, and Hear, hear!] Their lordships would perceive, that he had used no words that were not in the report, and he therefore moved, that an amendment so constructed, and in every syllable warranted by their own secret committee, might be adopted instead of the unauthorized preamble now before them.
The amendment was put and negatived. After which the House resumed, and the report was received.