----

[PRICE 10D.

161]

SUMMARY OF POLITICS. PROCEEDINGS IN PARLIAMENT (continued from page 127).-I. Indemnity Bill. -II. Irish Insurrection Bill-III. Military Plan-On the 13th of July, upon a motion, in the House of Lords, to read a second time the bill for indemnifying the ministers for having given certain orders relative to the trade with America, without the existence of a law for so doing (the law having expired in consequence of the dissolution), a long debate ensued, in which much more was said about the dissolution and the Irish Catholics, than about the bill of indemnity. The bill of indemnity was, in fact, a matter of little importance, seeing how frequently such bills are passed. There is even an annual indemnity bill to free from penalties all those who have violated those Test Laws, against the repeal of which we hear such impudent and unprincipled clamours by the dirty Dean and others. A bill of indemnity was one of the very first acts of the late ministry; and, that was a bill, too, to excuse them from punishment, not for having given an insignificant order about the manner of carrying on a branch of trade; but, for having advised the king to admit a large number of foreign troops into the heart of our country. Those gentlemen, then, saw no objection to bills of indemnity. It was they, too, who were foremost in proposing the bill of indemnity for Pitt, who had lent, without interest, and in direct violation of the law, forty thousand pounds of the public money to two members of the House of Commons. What, then, can they have to say against bills of indemnity? Why nothing, only this present bill grew out of the dissolution of parliament, and that dissolution took from them their majority.

Of

this long debate I shall notice, particularly, only two speeches; those of Lord Hawkesbury, and Baron Erskine of Clackmanam, whose son (lately studying the law) is our minister in America, and whose late servant has a reversionary sinecure place secured to him.Lord Hawkesbury said, that "the

['62

"real authors of the necessity of the dissolu"tion were the very persons, who had since so repeatedly and so acrimoniously inveighed against it; for when his majesty, "in the legitimate exercise of his preroga "tive, thought proper to make the late change in his councils, the noble lords opposite him made an appeal to parlia ment, and brought the question to issue "between themselves and their sovereign. "What, then, was left to his majesty, but "to appeal to the sense of his people, while "the events which made that appeal neces

sary were still fresh in their recollection? "How else was his royal prerogative to be supported. This is the fair, obvious, simple ground upon which the late dissolu"tion rests, and the result has amply proved "how well his majesty understood the dispo "sition of his people in making that appeal. "For never was their sense more clear, dis

tinctly, and nnequivocally expressed. No means were left untried by the opposers "of government, to procure the fullest pos"sible, attendance of their adherents in par"liament, at the beginning of the present "session; yet the sentiment of the nation in favour of the prerogative, was pronounced "in the fullest house that ever sat in deliberation, by the largest and most decided majority. Among their lordships, it met with the same loyal and triumphant support. Here, then, was the necessity and "the propriety of the dissolution proved at once in the most marked and forcible manner. He earnestly wished to let the "question rest here, but it was impossible "to pass over in silence the latter part of "the noble baron's (Lord Grenville's)

66

speech to which the former part only "served as a stalking horse. The deep regret he felt at some of the sentiments and expressions that fell from the noble batron, he was at a loss how to express; but "he was sure they must have niade nearly "the same impression upon most of their lordships. He was ready to believe that "the same feeling and sentiment pervaded F

66

effect they were calculated to produce? "But where was the practical good that "could result from them? Was it not well "known how different were the opinions "entertained respecting the chief topic up

66 on

which the noble baron had so widely, "and in his mind, so unnecessarily expa

tiated? Neither could he be ignorant how "very generally the opinion of the country "had been expressed upon that subject. "Where then was the utility of the recom"mendation which the noble baron had so

anxiously urged? Was there in past ex"perience, was there in any prospect be"fore us, the slightest ground for consider

ing us a divided people? Even in defence

of the Catholics, and in mere justice to "that respectable body of men, he would "ask the noble baron, when were their ex"ertions wanted, if the threat of danger re

quired them to put them forth? Whatever "the difference of opinion they may have "entertained upon the other points, were "they ever backward, when the appearance "of a foreign enemy called for the zeal and

66

activity of their services? Whatever the deprivations under which they suffer, have they not always considered them as prosperity and luxury when compared with "the promises and the boons by which the

enemy would endeavour to seduce them? "Then the representations made by the no

ble baron are unfair, of any description of "men who have uniformly manifested such "a spirit of loyalty and patriotism. It was "unfair surely to describe their conduct and "principles in a light that would justify

him in calling them a divided people. Respecting our internal policy, there "might perhaps be difference of opinion: with regard to the threats and attempts of a foreign enemy, we should always prove an united people, those who possessed least, vying with those who possessed "most. The moment called for universal "unity of action, and under such circum"stances as the present, he hoped to see all

"

party spirit and animosity turn into zeal "for the common defence."- -Yes, my Lord Hawkesbury, and this hope of yours has been uniformly expressed by all those who have, by no matter what means, got

hold of the powers and emoluments of the country; and, I take it, the true interpretation of such hope is this; that, now that we are snugly fixed, now that the sun rises to our profit, now when it is the day of our harvest, let no cloud arise, let all go fairly and smoothly on, for all opposition, is so much against our gains. "Let us bury all

party animosities," say the NS. Yes, say the OUTS, with all our hearts; but, then, we must be INS first; for it is quite unreasonable to suppose, that we shall cease to oppose you, while you detain from us that which for the good of the country) we ought to enjoy. Only let them in, my lord, and they will cry for unanimity, and for the suppression of all party spirit as vehemently as your lordship now does; but, until they are in, they will certainly continue to act just as your lordship and your worthy colleagues acted while you were out. I am exceedingly glad to hear, from such authority, that there" is not the slightest grounds "for considering us as a divided people," and especially, that the Irish Catholics are never wanting in exertions, when the "threat of danger requires them to put "them forth." I say, I am exceedingly glad of this; because, I was afraid that this was not the case, when I saw introduced into parliament the sun-set and sun-rise bill for Ireland, and when I heard it positively asserted, that such a bill was necessary. My fears upon this score were by no means lessened by an article, which appeared in the Courier newspaper of the 22d of July, and which article 1 here insert. "One of the "Dublin papers of the 17th, which arrived

"

yesterday, has inserted the following arti"cle, copied from the Limerick Chronicle: -With feelings the most painful we "lately heard of some irregularities com"mitted in the town of Tipperary, and "with astonishment we found, that al

though we obtained information of the "facts through a friend, it was with the "injunction not to disclose the circumstan

" ult. the Rev. Wm. Massy, jun. in the ex"ecution of his duty as a magistrate, was severely wounded by a stone thrown by some person unknown; the following night his house was attacked, and several panes of glass broken: there are, however, rewards offered to the amount of nearly one thousand guineas, which form a fund for the purpose of bringing the delinquents to justice, and it is hoped that proper examples will be made of such dis"turbers of the public peace. But what "was to be expected, when a tree of liberty

or some other standard, was permitted to "be erected and to continue in that town, "with emblems thereon, under pretence of "some frivolous excuse, for several days, "and that this token was a rallying point "for the intemperate or disaffected It has "been stated to us, that at the distance of "five or six miles from hence, the farce of erecting, if it may now be called, a May-` bush, was intended to take place a few days "since.- -We are sorry to state that an affray has occurred in Ballinrobe, county Mayo, between the Longford militia and "a regiment of cavalry, quartered in that town. Some lives (five, as far as our authority goes) have been lost in this unfortunate business. Some ridiculous religions difference is understood to have been the origin of this affair."-This article did increase my apprehensions; but, perceiving that Lord Hawkesbury spoke of the future as well as of the past, and knowing that he must possess the best possible infor mation upon the subject, my fears, of course, became hushed; and, I have no doubt, that Napoleon will, from his lordship's speech, derive a thorough conviction, that all his attempts to seduce the Irish, who, as his lordship says, are almost boiling over with loyalty, must prove abortive. This speech of Lord Hawkesbury must, in this way, do great good; for, as Napoleon well knows, that, numerous as his armies are, he can expect no success against a people, who, to a man, are united heart and hand against him, he will not, of course. think of attacking any part of the kingdom," the united kingdom,' after having read that speech. Upon the subject of the appeal, made" to the sense of "the people," and of the roof of the present ministers having that sense on their side, which proof Lord Hawkesbury discovers so clearly in the late "triumphant ma"jorities in both Houses of Parliament;" upon this subject we will leave his lordship to be answered by Baron Erskine of Clackmanam. This noble Baron, who was, but a few months Lord Chancellor, and who has

66

now a pension, for life, of £4,000 a year, said, that "no man could question the right "of the king to dismiss his servants, or to "dissolve the parliament. These were un" doubted prerogatives, but they were granted for very distinct purposes. If his majesty saw reason to question the con"duct of his servants, he might dismiss them; or, if he saw reason to doubt the parliament, he might dissolve it, and take "the sense of their constituents as to their "conduct. But the law never intended "that both of these prerogatives should be "exercised at one and the same time, and "with reference to each other. It was ne

66

66

66

ver in the contemplation of the constitu"tion of this country, that parliament should "be dissolved simply to accommodate a "change in administration. This would be "to consider parliament not as a centroul on the conduct of government, but as an appendage to it, to be dissolved and changed to suit the different aspects which "it might assume. The unjustifiable measures which in the mean time might be adopted, would, in such a view of the case, be objects of little consideration to "those by whom they were recommended. "Having, by the influence of the crown, got "a parliament to their mind, they had only "to begin their career by an Act of Indem

of boroughs at the disposal of the very persons who advised this dissolution; and "that there are others, the property of, or influenced by, a number of individua's, "who, again, are under the influence of the crown? So that success is, in such an ap peal, next to certain. But still farther, "when they saw the seal of indemnity really prepared for those who advised the

measure, must they not be of opinion that "the period was most dangerous."--This is dangerous, is it? Really dangerous? And yet, my Lord Erskine, I do not recollect, that you said any thing; no, not even one single word, against these same boroughs, while you were in office. Then your lordship (for any thing that I heard to the con trary) had no objection to these boroughs; and, indeed, it seemed as if they were con sidered to be very good things. These boroughs, my lord, were all in existence in 1905, when you and your colleagues made aft

appeal "to the sense of the people." So that, if there were a number of seats at "the disposal of those who advised the dis"solution" of 1807, there must have been a number of seats at the disposal of you and your colleagues, when you advised the dissoIntion of 1806. There is no getting out of this. Every word said against your opponents, upon this score, cuts both ways; and only serves to convey conviction into the minds of the people; and, that that convic tion may, before it be too late, produce an effect salutary to the country, is my earnest hope.- -II. IRISH INSURRECTION BIL. This bill, this fearful bill, passed through a committee of the House of Commons, on the 24th of last month. The reader was before apprized, that it enables the Lord Lieutenant, upon receiving a memorial from the magistrates of a county, stating that disturbances exist therein, to proclaim that county in a disturbed state; whereupon the bill compels every man, woman and child in that county, to remain within their houses from sun-set at night until sun rise in the morning, though it is notorious, that between. before sun-rise and after sun-set affords some of the best hours for husbandry labour. Good God! What a life to lead! But, the being shut up in this way is a trifle. The magistrates, that is to say, persons selected by the government, have, after the issuing of such proclamation, a right, either by themselves or their officers, to make forcible entry, at any time in the night, into any house, to see if its inhabitants are at home, and to take up and imprison all those who may be caught out of their houses. To this nobody in the House of Cominons seems to have objected; but, it was proposed so to qualify the clause as to compel the house-searchers to give ten minutes to the people within to prepare for the visit. It was stated, that women ought to have a few minutes to rise and dress themselves. But, ten minutes was thought to be too much, and the words "reasonable time," a charmingly indefinite phrase, was introduced in the stead thereof.

verned, and of which we have the impu dence to boast, is, in a great degree, abrogated by statutes, by those statutes, which William the Third's system of funding and taxing introduced. In other matters, however, we have, as yet, a jury to appeal to against magistrates and other persons in authority, who, under pretence of executing the law, may commit acts of injustice against us; but, how the Irish will now be situated in this respect, the following clause of the bill in question will enable the reader to judge. It is the 5th clause from the end of the bill." Provided always, and be it "further enacted, That when a verdict shall "be given for the plaintiff in any action to "be brought against any justice of the

66

peace, peace officer, or other person, for "taking or imprisoning, or detaining any person, or for seizing arms, or entering "houses under colour of any authority

given by this act, and it shall appear to "THE JUDGE OR JUDGES before "whom the same shall be tried, that there "was a PROBABLE CAUSE for doing the "act complained of in such action, and the

judge or court shall certify the same on "record, then and in that case the plaintiff "shall not be entitled to more than sixpence damages, nor to any costs of suit: provi"ded also, that where a verdict shall be given for the plaintiff in any such action "as aforesaid, and the judge or court before "whom the cause shall be tried, shall certi

fy on the record that the injury for which "such action is brought was wilfully and "maliciously committed, the plaintiff shalk "be entitled to treble costs of suit."Thus, as the reader will perceive, though a man, injured by the magistrates, or their underlings, should obtain a verdict from the jury, the judge may set that verdict aside, and the injured person, by way of redress, may have to pay his own costs! It is really difficult to see how a jury can be, in such a case, of any use at all -There was a debate upon this clause, of which I shall give an account.- -Mr. Brand moved for the whole clause to be expunged, as being

66

But, the most strongly characteristic part of this bill is the clause suspending the Common Law, as to redress against the magistrates and others, in cases where they may, under colour of this act," be guilty of unlawful violences against the people. the law, thank God, stands, in this country, as yet, every magistrate and other peace officer is liable to be punished for going beyond the law, under pretence of executing the law, except in cases where the revenue is concerned, and there the Common Law, that law by which our forefathers were go

imposed on the magistrates, which they "would be unwilling to perform, and "which, in fact, it would be dangerous for "them to perform with the zeal and fidelity required, unless they were protected

46

"from the effects of unintentional errors "into which, from appearances, they might "be led; when, in short, it was considered "that the very jurors in such actions of da

"

mages might be persons against whom it " had been necessary for them to exercise "the enactments of this act, and whose "minds might, on that account, be in"flamed against them; when all these "things were considered, it was the opinion "of those best acquainted with the state of Ireland, that the act must be imperfectly executed, unless the magistrates were se "cured by a clause like the present."This is a pretty good confirmation of my Lord Hawkesbury's assertions, respecting "the unanimity that prevails in Ireland, " and the well known readiness of the Irish "to join heart and hand, as one man, against "the enemies of the constitution !"-Arthur Pigot, the late Attorney General, in answer to Mr Perceval said, that he was "decidedly of opinion, that the provision

Sir

now objected to, would be a disgrace to "the statute book. Were they, by this "most extraordinary bill, to give extraordi

nary powers to magistrates, and then, af"ter they had exceeded even the powers

86

given them, to protect them from the ver"dict of a jury. If the right hon. gent, was afraid that the persons aggrieved might obtain a verdict while the country was in a state of irritation, why limit the "time for seeking redress to six months? If again he was afraid of the inflammable state of the jurors' minds, and that they might even have been parties in the sup posed transgression, the remedy was plain "and easy-to change the venue to a more "distant county, where no dissatisfaction or "irritation of feelings had prevailed. It "had been said, that a similar act had been "intended to be proposed by the late minis(6 try. He would only say for one, that he "had never been consulted on, nor heard "of such an intention, nor had he ever seen "the present bill till yesterday. If the state "of Ireland was such as the right hon. gent.

represented, and that a jury could not be "had there whose mind were not in an inflammatory state, why not take away the "trial by jury entirely, at least suspend it, "till the feelings of the people were re"stored to a greater degree of calmness and composure? It was a mockery to continue "the trial by jury, and yet to deprive an injured person of the effect of a verdict af"ter it had been given in his favour. It was said, that the judges of Ireland were fair, impartial and upright. He should be sorry to doubt it. He believed, that they

"in common with judges of this part of the

kingdom, with whom he was more inti "mately acquainted, possessed every ho"nourable and upright feeling and quality. "But this was a power not to be intrusted to any man. It was such a power as the. "law had refused to any judge, or any set "of judges whatever.' -This answer 'was complete in all its parts. It left no excuse for the clause.--Now, then, let us hear the defence of it by the present Attorney General, Sir Vicary Gills, who "con"tended, that the enactment now objected "to was not so novel as the hon. and learn"ed baronet had supposed. He confessed "that plaintiffs in the situation alluded to were to be deprived of the benefit of the common law; but was not this already "the case in all revenue questions? Where an officer of the revenue was sued, nothing "but the dry damage sustained by the in jured party was awarded against him, "Where it was a question of intention in

revenue cases, and no intention could be "shewn, the plaintiff could not recover; "and it had been determined, in the case "of Sutton and Johnston, that the question " of "probable cause" was a question for "the judge. There the defendant would "have an acquittal, and of course his costs "from the plaintiff'; here the plaintiff was

to have a nominal verdict, even although "the judge was of opinion that the proba "ble cause was with the defendant. "duties which magistrates would have to

perform in the present state of Ire"land, were of a most invidious naand he thought that this was "not too great an indemnity to allow "them in the discharge of such duties.”— A Mr. Boyle supported the clause, upon the ground, that the same had been enacted before in Ireland, and, indeed, that a similar provision now made part of the statutes of that country; and, he asked Sir Arthur Pigot why he had not, when in place, come forward and proposed to do it away. This was a close question. Aye, this is the rub. All these things the Whigs forgot while in place. Mr. Erskine, become Baron Erskine of Clackmanam, forgot, quite forgot those bills, against which he had so strongly protested, and so solemnly vowed to endeavour to cause to be repealed. Nay, he gave his vote for making us pay the debts of the man, by whom they had been framed. This is never to be forgotten.—Mr. Whitbread said, that he had indeed heard "something like an attempt at a legal de "fence of the measure, by shewing that "such practices also prevailed in reveau