Изображения страниц
PDF
EPUB

place in its affairs-for the security of the kingdom's peace, and for the salvation and support of the Constitution.

[merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small]

In the debate on the order of the day being read for going into a Committee on the Indemnity Bill,

MR. CANNING-SIR,-Were I to adhere to the doctrine which I advanced on a former night, that it is unnecessary for Ministers to take part in a discussion in which, without any arguments of theirs, the balance turned decidedly in their favour, I might well abstain from troubling the House or myself on the present occasion: but as the question under consideration in some degree personally involves the members of Administration, it may be proper, to obviate the inference which might be drawn from our silence, that we shrink from a debate in which the propriety of our conduct is implicated.

It has been truly stated by an honourable gentleman (Mr. Lamb), that an Indemnity Bill does

1

not necessarily and inevitably grow out of a bill for the suspension of the Habeas Corpus: but it grows out of the same circumstances of the country which occasioned the Suspension Bill itself. There may, for instance, be persons, who, exerting themselves strenuously and faithfully for the public safety, have, before the suspension, perhaps overstepped the strict limits of the law. Are not they to be protected and indemnified? There are others who having, after the suspension, acted conformably to that law, would nevertheless be unable to make their defence, or to offer their justification without a disclosure of evidence that might be attended not only with inconvenience, but with positive danger. These two objects the bill before the House has in view; it is true, therefore, that a case might be imagined, that cases have occurred, in which, without a previous supension of the Habeas Corpus, a Bill of Indemnity might be a measure of justice; and that in this sense the Indemnity Bill is not the necessary consequence of the suspension of the Habeas Corpus. Of all men living, however, the honourable and learned gentleman who spoke last (Mr. Brougham), is the last person who ought to avail himself of this distinction, if it were more material and substantive than it is; for that honourable and learned gentleman, when defeated last year in two efforts to prevent the suspension, consoled himself with the prospect of the opposition that he should make to

[ocr errors]

the Bill of Indemnity: in his mind, therefore, such a bill is intimately, if not inseparably connected with the suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act. The correct statement, however, undoubtedly is, that the necessity for a Bill of Indemnity, grows out of the state of the country, in which necessity the Suspension Act originated. This state of the country rendered it necessary for those who acted under the Government, if they meant to do their duty, to outstrip the limits of the law. The same state of things induced the House to make a temporary sacrifice of that portion of our liberties, which consisted in a right to trial after committal. To indemnify for acts beyond the law, in the first case, and to dispense with the necessity of justifying acts in themselves legal, but not legally proveable except by evidence that cannot be disclosed, in the second case, is the purpose of the Indemnity Bill; which, as far as the second case is concerned, and so far only, is a consequence of the suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act.

3

It has been most justly remarked by one honourable gentleman, that the fair issue before the House is not merely whether this bill shall be passed; whether the suggestions of the House of Lords shall be attended to by adopting this Bill of Indemity; but whether the House shall retort upon the Lords, instead of indemnity, impeachment. If an abuse of the powers confided to

The

Ministers is established, no man can dispute that a fair case is made out for impeachment. uniform cry on the other side is, "give us an inquiry; let us prove our case; let us call witnesses to the bar to establish the abuse and the necessity of an impeachment," forgetting that this is completely begging the question. This objection, if taken at all, ought to have been taken last year, when the bill for the authorizing the Crown to detain persons without bringing them to trial, was first brought before the House: it now comes too late. The bill now before Parliament, is to prevent inquiry as tending to dangerous disclosures; and those who on this ground oppose it, argue in a vicious circle. "Let us have inquiry, let us complete the trial of those who were by Parliament directed to be detained without trial, and then we will shew you that the powers given to you have been abused." The House, however, has too much good sense to be thus misled, and will not now undo what last year it so deliberately determined.

Without either accepting or declining the challenge to argue this measure on the ground of precedent, I may admit that precedents, precise and accurate in all particulars, it is neither easy nor necessary to find. The infinite variety of modifications, of which human concerns are susceptible, forbid the expectation of so strict a coincidence of circumstances. But as to one main point, as to

[ocr errors]

the real meaning and intent of a suspension of the Habeas Corpus, as to the fact that the very essence of that measure is not proof of guilt by process of law, but detention without trial, one precedent, being that of the first Suspension Act after the revolution, is conclusive. The other side of the House (however intensely Whig) will no doubt allow the first year of William III. to be good times. In that session a message was presented to the House of Commons by Mr. Hampden (a name which, if possible, would render the proceeding more whiggish) to this effect, "That His Majesty being credibly informed that there are several persons in and about this town, that keep private meetings and cabals to conspire against the Government, and for the assistance of the late King James, His Majesty has caused some of those persons to be apprehended and secured, upon suspicion of high treason; and that he thinks he may see cause to do so by others, within a little time; but that His Majesty is between two great difficulties in this case; for that if he should set those persons at liberty that are apprehended, he would be wanting to his own safety, and the safety of his Government and people; on the other hand, if he should detain them, he is unwilling to do any thing but what shall be fully warranted by law. His Majesty therefore thought fit to ask the advice of this House therein."

The immediate result of this application was a

« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »