Yet thirty-nine members only could be found to oppose the introduction of the bill.' Ministers, representing its immediate urgency, endeavoured to pass it at once through all its stages. The opposition, unable to resist its progress by numbers, endeavoured to arrest its passing for a time, in order to appeal to the judgment of the country: but all their efforts were vain. With free institutions, the people were now governed according to the principles of despotism. The will of their rulers was supreme, and not to be questioned. After eleven divisions, the bill was pressed forward as far as the report, on the same night; and the galleries being closed, the arguments urged against it were merely addressed to a determined and taciturn majority. On the following day, the bill was read a third time and sent up to the Lords, by whom, after some sharp debates, it was speedily passed.2 and measure. The strongest opponents of the measure, while deny- Grounds ing its present necessity, admitted that when danger is character imminent, the liberty of the subject must be sacrificed of the to the paramount interests of the state. Ringleaders must be seized, outrages anticipated, plots disconcerted, and the dark haunts of conspiracy filled with distrust and terror. And terrible indeed was the power now entrusted to the executive. Though termed a suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act, it was, in truth, a suspension of Magna Charta3, and of the cardinal principles of the common law. Every man had hitherto been free from imprisonment until charged with crime, by information upon oath; and entitled to a speedy trial, and the 1 Ayes, 201; Noes, 39. 2 Parl. Hist., xxxi. 497, 521, 525. 3 "Nullus liber homo capiatur ..... aut imprisonetur, nisi per legale Its con 17941800. Habeas judgment of his peers. But any subject could now be arrested on suspicion of treasonable practices, without specific charge or proof of guilt: his accusers were unknown; and in vain might he demand public accusation and trial. Spies and treacherous accomplices, however circumstantial in their narratives to secretaries of state and law officers, shrank from the witness-box; and their victims rotted in gaol. Whatever the judg ment, temper, and good faith of the executive, such a power was arbitrary, and could scarcely fail to be abused.1 Whatever the dangers by which it was justified, never did the subject so much need the protec tion of the laws, as when government and society were filled with suspicion and alarm. Notwithstanding the failure of the state prosecutions, and the discredit cast upon the evidence of a traitorous conspiracy, on which the Suspension Act had been expressly founded, ministers declined to surrender the invidious power with which they had been entrusted. Strenuous resistance was offered by the opposition to the continuance of the act: but it was renewed again and again, so long as the public apprehensions continued. From 1798 to 1800, the increased malignity and violence of English democrats, and their complicity with Irish treason, repelled further objections to this exceptional law.2 At length, at the end of 1801, the act being no Suspension longer defensible on grounds of public danger, was Corpus Act expired 1801. 1 Blackstone says: "It has happened in England during temporary suspensions of the statute, that persons apprehended upon suspicion have suffered a long imprisonment, merely because they were forgotten."-Comm., iii. (Kerr), 146. 2 In 1798 there were only seven votes against its renewal. In 1800 it was opposed by twelve in the Commons, and by three in the Lords. It was then stated that twenty-nine persons had been imprisoned, some for more than two years, without being brought to trial.-Parl. Hist., xxxiv. 1484. suffered to expire, after a continuous operation of eight years. But before its operation had ceased, a bill was introduced to indemnify all persons who since the 1st of February, 1793, had acted in the apprehension of persons suspected of high treason. A measure designed to protect the ministers and their agents from responsibility, on account of acts extending over a period of eight years, was not suffered to pass without strenuous opposition. When extraordinary powers had first been sought, it was said that ministers would be responsible for their proper exercise; and now every act of authority, every neglect or abuse, was to be buried in oblivion. It was stated in debate that some persons had suffered imprisonment for three years, and one for six, without being brought to trial3; and Lord Thurlow could "not resist the impulse to deem men innocent until tried and convicted." The measure was defended, however, on the ground that persons accused of abuses would be unable to defend themselves, without disclosing secrets dangerous to the lives of individuals, and to the state. Unless the bill were passed, those channels of information would be stopped, on which government relied for guarding the public peace.1 When all the accustomed forms of law had been departed from, the justification of the executive would indeed have been difficult: but evil times had passed, and a veil was drawn over them. If dangerous powers had been misused, they were covered by an amnesty. It were better to withhold such powers, than to scrutinise their exercise too curiously; and were were any further 1 The act 41 Geo. III. c. 26, expired six weeks after the commencement of the next session, which commenced on the 29th of Oct., in the same year. 2 Parl. Hist., xxxv. 1507-1549. Suspension of Habeas Corpus argument needed against the suspension of the law, it would be found in the reasons urged for indemnity. For several years, the ordinary law of arrest was free from further invasion. But on the first appearance of Act, 1817. popular discontents and combinations, the government resorted to the same ready expedient for strengthening the hands of the executive, at the expense of public liberty. The suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act formed part of Lord Sidmouth's repressive measures in 18171, when it was far less defensible than in 1794. At the first period, the French Revolution was still raging its consequences no man could foresee; and a deadly war had broken out with the revolutionary government of France. Here, at least, there may have been grounds for extraordinary precautions. But in 1817, France was again settled under the Bourbons: the revolution had worn itself out: Europe was again at peace; and the state was threatened with no danger but domestic discontent and turbulence. Bill of Ir demnity, 1817. Again did ministers, having received powers to apprehend and detain in custody, persons suspected of treasonable practices, and, having imprisoned many men without bringing them to trial,-seek indemnity for all concerned in the exercise of these powers, and in the suppression of tumultuous assemblies.* Magistrates had seized papers and arms, and interfered with meetings, under circumstances not warranted even by the exceptional powers entrusted to them: but having acted in good faith for the repression of tumults and sedition, they claimed protection. This bill was not passed without a spirited resistance. The executive had not been idle in the exercise of its extra 1 Supra, p. 186. 551, 643, 708, 795, &c. ;57 Geo.III. * Hans. Deb., 1st Ser., xxxv. 491, c. 55; repealed by 58 Geo. III. c. 1. ordinary powers. Ninety-six persons had been arrested on suspicion. Of these, forty-four were taken by warrant of the secretary of state: four by warrant of the privy council the remainder on the warrants of magistrates. Not one of those arrested on the warrant of the secretary of state had been brought to trial. The four arrested on the warrant of the privy council were tried and acquitted.1 Prisoners had been moved from prison to prison in chains; and after long, painful, and even solitary imprisonment, discharged on their recognisances, without trial. 2 Numerous petitions were presented, complaining of Petitions cruelties and hardships; and though falsehood and complaining of exaggeration characterised many of their statements, ill-usage. the justice of inquiry was insisted on, before a general indemnity was agreed to. "They were called upon," said Mr. Lambton, " to throw an impenetrable veil over all the acts of tyranny and oppression that had been committed under the Suspension Act. They were required to stifle the voice of just complaint, — to disregard the numerous petitions that had been presented, arraigning the conduct of ministers, detailing acts of cruelty unparalleled in the annals of the Bastile, and demanding full and open investigation."3 But on behalf of government, it appeared that in no instance had warrants of detention been issued, except on information upon oath; and the attorney-general declared that none of the prisoners had been deprived of liberty for a single hour, on the evidence of informers alone, 1 Lords' Report on the state of the country. In ten other cases the parties had escaped. Hans. Deb., 1st Ser., xxxvii. 573; Sir M. W. Ridley, March 9th, 1818; Ibid., 901. 2 Petitions of Benbow, Drummond, Bagguley, Leach, Scholes, Ogden and others-Hans. Deb., 1st 3 March 9th, 1818; Hans. Deb., Lords' Rep. on State of the Nation, Hans. Deb., 1st Ser., xxxvii. 574. |