36] ANNUAL REGISTER, 1818. 



third reading of the indemnity 

 bill occurred on March 5th. 



Lord Auckland said, that not- 

 withstanding the amendments 

 which this bill had received in its 

 passage through the House, he 

 was of opinion that it ought not 

 to pass, at least in its present 

 shape. His intention was not to 

 oppose the bill altogether, but to 

 move its recommitment, with a 

 view to its being divided into two 

 bills. Only one ground of defence 

 had been moved for the measure 

 when brought forward ; namely, 

 that ministers or magistrates who, 

 under the suspension of the 

 Habeas Corpus act, might have 

 arrested persons improperly ac- 

 cused of treasonable designs, 

 should be protected from the 

 consequences of such arrest, and 

 the persons should of course be 

 discharged. But how far did the 

 indemnity extend? It was not 

 merely to the secretary of state, 

 and to magistrates, but to every 

 petty officer of police, to every 

 creature who, to use the language 

 ofa former report, had instigated 

 the treason he was employed to 

 detect. Wliat was this but to 

 shield the infamy of wretches by 

 preventing the possibility of their 

 being confronted with those they 

 had accused. To this alone did 

 the plea, that the names of those 

 giving information which ought to 

 be concealed tend. Upon what 

 ground so sweeping a bill ;of 

 indemnity was proposed, it was 

 difficult to understand. After 

 several explanations, the argument 

 seemed to resolve itself into this : 

 that if ministers had acted vmder 

 the suspension of the Habeas 

 Corpus so as to render an indem- 

 nitynecessary — theu an indemnity 



was necessary. It was to the Teal 

 circumstances of the case their 

 lordships had to look, in consider- 

 ing whether ministers had esta- 

 blished any ground for passing 

 this bill. Now what were the 

 circumstances ? A committee of 

 secresy had been appointed under 

 the pretence of inquiring into the 

 state of the country and the 

 conduct of ministers, but in fact, 

 with the sole view of stifling all 

 effectual inquiry. It was most 

 unjust that this protection should 

 be given to conceal evidence. 

 The sanction offered to secret 

 information was deeply to be 

 deplored ; and he almost equally 

 regretted that their lordships had 

 in the committee given their 

 sanction to the preamble of this 

 bill, which was so inconsistent 

 with all the grounds on which it 

 was pretended to be introduced, 

 and the purposes to which it was 

 proposed that it should be applied. 

 For all the reasons which he had 

 stated, he should move, that the 

 bill be recommitted. 



Lord King thought it necessary 

 to say a few words on the motion 

 made by his noble friend for re- 

 committing the bill. In the shape 

 in which the measure came before 

 their lordships it obviously ex- 

 tended the protection too fiir, 

 and much farther than the grounds 

 of the bill warranted. It not 

 only indemnified the magistrate 

 who had acted in good faith under 

 the Suspension act, but also the 

 spy who had provoked disorders 

 which afforded the pretext of that 

 law. With respect to the report 

 of the committee which preceded 

 the bill, it was notorious that the 

 evidence on which that report 

 was founded was altogether ex 



j)arte ; 



