GENERAL HISTORY. 



[35 



objection to limit the operation 

 of the bill to the 26th of January, 

 the day before parliament met. 



The Earl of Lauderdale ac- 

 ceded to this proposal, and the 

 amendment, substituting the 26th 

 of January, was then agreed to. 



Lord Holland said, 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 indemnii1°d by parliament, it 

 was also right that the person so 

 discharged should have the ad- 

 vantage of a full discharge 

 according to law. He therefore 

 hoped that if it was thought 

 necessary ttat the word should 

 be retained for the protection of 

 magistrates, a proviso should be 

 admitted into another part of the 

 bill securing persons of a difierent 

 description. 



The Earl of Liverpool answeredj 

 that two principles were apph cable 

 to the bill : one to prevent the 

 disclosure of testimony on which 

 the magistrates had acted; the 

 other, to indemnify them for 

 certain steps which they had 

 taken when the country was in a 

 state of insurrection. Now no 

 person could say that it was not 

 the duty of the magistrates, under 

 that act, to prevent such a pur- 

 pose, and to detain individuals, 

 and afterwards to release as many 

 , as they could, without danger to 

 ! the public tranquillity. The 

 ; questiou therefore was, whether 

 under such circumstances they 

 could properly discharge such as 

 Vol. LX. 



had been arrested without farther 

 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 

 arresting 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 ex- 

 ceptionable part of the bill. 



Lord Holland agreed 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 to cover acts in themselves 

 strictly illegal. 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. 



The Lord Chancellor adhered 

 to his argument, that if magis- 

 trates discharged persons illegally, 

 they would require to be indem- 

 nified. 



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 tumultu- 

 ous 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 

 [D] arguments 



