34] ANNUAL REGISTER, 1818. 



arguments that rested upon this 

 necessity of secrecy be applicable 

 to the case of persons taken in 

 tumultuous and disorderly meet- 

 ings ? ^Vliy should a magistrate 

 be prevented from proving his 

 own justification in this case? 



The lord Chancellor and the 

 earl of Liverpool defended this 

 clause, while lord Holland and 

 the earl of Carnarvon attacked it. 

 In conclusion, the amendment 

 was negatived. 



Lo7-d Erskine said, 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. It was never heard 

 of in England that anj^ magistrate 

 or other person whatsoever, could 

 act with malice to the injury of 

 another, without a most severe 

 and exemplary visitation. He 

 wished, therefore, after the clause 

 expressing free acquittal and 

 indemnification in favoar of every 

 person who shall have done, or 

 commanded to be done, an act 

 against any person or persons 

 committed or imprisoned &c., 

 the following proviso should be 

 introduced : — « Provided always, 

 that nothing herein contained 

 shall extend, or be construed to 

 extend, to any act, matter, or 

 thing, done to any person what- 

 ever, if committed maliciously, 

 or without reasonable or probable 

 cause.'' As the bill stood at 

 present, putting aside every case 

 where necessary secresy of in- 

 formation could have any possi- 

 ble application, no magistrate or 

 other person coald be impleaded 

 or questioned, though he had 

 acted with tlie most palpable 



maUce in the presence of a thou- 

 sand witnesses ready to come 

 forward to prove it. This error, 

 so affronting to common sense, 

 was all he desired to rectify. 



The Lord Chancellor said, that 

 the answer he had to make to his 

 noble and learned friend was very 

 short — it was simply this, that 

 the clause proposed by him would 

 nullify the bill. After dwelling 

 for some time upon this idea, he 

 added, that for which their lord- 

 ships should feel the deepest 

 interest Mas the public safety. 

 The public safety ought to be 

 secured with as little injury to- 

 wards individuals as possible ; 

 but without being afraid of adopt- 

 ing even harsh measures towards 

 individuals, if such measures were 

 rendered necessary for the pre- 

 servation of the state and the 

 constitution. 



After some observations by 

 the earl of Rosslyn, who warmly 

 defended lord Erskine, the pro- 

 posed amendment was negatived. 



The Marguis of Lansdoiune 

 next proposed, 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 pro- 

 visions of the act, he said, did 

 not extend to Ireland, and that 

 country should therefore be ex- 

 cepted from those of the indemnity 

 bill. 



Lord Sidmouth stated 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- 



The Earl of Lherpool would 

 have no objection to an amend- 

 ment, on the third reading, that 



■hould 



i 



