justifiable, except in cases ofthe great est and most imminent hazard to the state. Nothing but a paramount necessity, that set all ordinary rules at defiance, and threatened dangers to social order, that could neither be met nor averted by acting on common prin. ciples, or exercising all the means which human foresight and vigilance could suggest, would justify a resort to such revolting, hazardous, and abominable agency. The fear of trial and expoaure was the only check upon such persons, without which, there was no limit to their audacity, no means of meeting and confounding their representations. He was glad to hear, that the bill of indemnity would still leave recourse to a court of justice for the redress of individual grievances, and he hoped an express clause to that effect would be inserted; but he distrusted such pledges, when he recollected the effects of other bills of indemnity, particularly that of 1801. He did not conceive, that the reference of the petitions to the committee could be called a trial of those persons; it was not to decide on their guilt or innocence, but on the manner in which government had treated them. It had been said, that his predictions had not been fulfilled; he was not in the habit of uttering political predictions, yet he would now venture one, which was, that ministers, in consequence of this partial inquiry, would apply for and obtain a bill of indemnity, to secure them against the breaches of the law of which they had been guilty. He would heartily rejoice, however, if this prophecy should happen to be falsified.

Notwithstanding the eagerness with which they had debated the question,the opposition members did not attempt to divide the House, but allowed the motion to be negatived without a division.

Meantime the secret committees

were proceeding in their inquiries; tha of the Lords delivered their report the 23d, that of the Commons on th 27th. The former, as the most co pious and detailed, is inserted in th Appendix. They stated that a pla of a general rising which, accordin to the preceding report, had been firs formed and then postponed to the 9t or 10th June, had been frustrated b the activity of the magistrates, and e the different persons intrusted wit the authority of government; that i had yet partially displayed itself in th affair at Derby, the particulars o which are briefly noticed; that thi had been intended to be supported b movements at Nottingham, and in th course of the night 100 men had ap peared drawn up in line, armed with pikes and poles, in Nottingham forest waiting the arrival of the Derby insur gents. At the same time, a grea rising in Yorkshire was contemplated and disorders somewhat similar, thoug on a smaller scale, took place at Hud dersfield. Forty-four of the Derby insurgents were apprehended; twenty three were either convicted or pleade guilty; eleven absconded; the remain ing twelve were not tried. True bill had also been found against a numbe of those concerned in the disturbanc at Huddersfield; but though ther could be no doubt of the treasonabl proceedings of which that place wa the theatre, yet there was not foun sufficient evidence for the convictio of any individuals. The committed were satisfied that the extraordinar powers vested in his Majesty's govern ment had been temperately and jud ciously used; that no commitments ha taken place, unless such as were wa ranted by circumstances and support ed by information upon oath; an that the period of detention had bee guided by the same sound discretion They were convinced that there still e

man ought to presume to contradict him, who gave his vote to shut it out; and how and why the House had been deceived, the evidence would have shown also. He protested against the mode in which the committee had been nominated. The ballot might indeed be justifiable in cases of difficult investigations, involving no questions of public liberty, but it was shamefully abused, when the ministers, who thus named the committee, were themselves to be indemnified, and the whole evidence to be of their own producing, although the report to be made was at once to deprive multitudes of oppressed and ruined sufferers, of all redress under the laws against the falsest and most infamous of mankind. No precedent could sanctify such injustice. He did not mean to say, that the committee was entirely composed of ministers, but if he were himself upon trial, he should think himself quite safe to have such a proportion of his jury selected by himself, or from among the number of his steadiest friends. What would the no. ble Lords have said to the same striking of a jury, had it been adopted under the special commission at Derby, where the prisoners were tried and executed? The proceedings of ministers defeated their own object. By putting down these disturbances according to the ordinary course of law, they would have given dignity, popularity, and strength, to the administration of justice, and would have taken away from the disaffected all their popularity. All the friends of order and good government would have been against them-all the enemies to the most temperate reformation would have been no less so; and even the wildest reformers, the claimants of universal suffrage, would have held them in detestation, because they knew, by dear-bought experience, that nothing had so notoriously and so effectually

put down even the possible chance of reforms, or changes of any possible description, as when they had been rashly clamoured for by libellers, or sought for amidst the tumults of ignorant and desperate men; but instead of taking the advantage of this obvious separation of interest and feeling between the great body of the people admitted to be untainted, and those accused or suspected, ministers had blended them altogether by a universal, useless, and mischievous eclipse of public liberty. He was far from wishing to question the decisions of juries. He only wished to remark the popu lar feeling, which considered the accused as martyrs and patriots, rather than culprits, in the hour of trial. The report itself declared, that the great body of the people had remained untainted, even during the periods of the greatest internal difficulty and distress. Good God! exclaimed Lord E., what more could any government expect or wish for in any nation upon earth? How very different was the state of public feeling during the early periods of the French Revolution! The fact was also proved by the universal loyalty of the nation on a late lamentable event.

If his voice could reach to the remotest part of the island, he might appeal to its whole population, who, as if they had been all the children of the same parents, were shedding the tears of affection and sorrow on the unhappy loss of the presumptive heirs of the British Crown. In the face of all this evidence, was it not the height of absurdity to consider, that the ordinary laws were not sufficient to protect the government against a delirious rabble of unarmed men, coming up with a petition in their hands to lay at the Prince Regent's feet? What will other nations think of our boasted laws, so famous for many ages, if we ourselves shall acknowledge that they are not even sufficient against a

mob? and that, according to the proposition of the noble Duke who made the original motion, a bill of this kind must follow whenever the Habeas Corpus Act shall be suspended? A measure of this kind, sanctioning all abuses in administering the severe provisions of the Suspension Act, and, by one sweeping provision, protecting every kind of wrong, appeared to him so far from being a remedy for disaffection, that it was laying the very foundations of future rebellion and revolution. He thought it his duty to say distinctly and boldly, that no people would long submit to be governed by a legislature, that trampled upon every principle of the constitution. Parliament ought to beware of going beyond the endurance of a free and enlightened people.

The Lord Chancellor observed, that it was allowed on all hands, that there were cases which called for the suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act, and others which called for an Act of Indemnity. The suspension appeared to him, in the present case, clearly to have been necessary, and the indemnity to follow it as a natural consequence. It was now a century and a half since the Habeas Corpus Act was passed, in the reign of Charles the Second. It formed the great bulwark of our liberties, and the pride of our constitution. But that very act would have caused the greatest danger to the constitution, if Parliament could not control Parliament-if what was then enacted could not, on certain emergen. cies, be suspended. His noble friend had read that part of the report, which represented the great body of the people to have been sound, and triumphantly asked, if that did not prove the suspension to have been unnecessary? But he would ask his noble and learned friend, whether the great body of the people were not sound in the reign of William the Third? Yet the sus

pension of the Habeas Corpus passed three times during that reign, and they were respectively followed by three Acts of Indemnity. These acts did not go to prevent inquiry into individual cases, but to justify and cover violations of law, which the times rendered necessary. Acts of Indemnity were passed, not only in the reign of King William, but also in 1715 and 1746, and nearly in the same terms as the present bill. The next instance was in 1794, when the exclamation was, "O, how can you suspend the palladium of our liberties, on account of the London Corresponding Society, and a few meetings at Sheffield ?". Parliament did not, however, think so lightly of the matter. The legislature felt, that a great portion of the lower orders of the people had imbibed most dangerous opinions. They perceived, that the people supposed they could do better without Kings, Lords, or House of Commons; and they rightly concluded, that such an opinion was more dangerous to the existence of the state, than the temporary suspension of any law. That act expired in 1795, and till 1798, no new suspension took place. In 1801, an indemnity bill was brought in; but, during all the intermediate period, from the expiration of the act to the introduction of the bill, not a single person thought of bringing an action, or com mencing a suit. The moment, however, the indemnity bill was proposed in 1801, then all those who were previously silent-who had made no complaint whatever-came forward with statements of their grievances. There was nothing which could induce them to adjourn the proceeding for a fortnight, unless it were of such a nature as would authorize its rejection altogether. To call on their Lordships to stop, at this moment, in order that, at the end of a fortnight, persons might come forward to fasten on indi

viduals with contemplated complaints, was a proposition too unreasonable to be acceded to. The suspension had been agreed to upon the report of a committee, which had been spoken of in highly objectionable terms, but the composition and formation of which had been chiefly according to former precedent. He venerated the constitution of the country, and he did not like to risk the loss of the benefits it conferred; but he was well assured, that had not this measure been adopted, the loss of that constitution would have been risked, under which domestic happiness and public prosperity flourished to a degree unknown elsewhere. Those who were acquainted with the real nature of the danger which threatened the country, doubted much, if decisive steps had not been taken, whether they would have been now expressing their opinions in that House. He entertained the highest respect for many of those noble Lords who were opposed to him in opinion, and particularly for the noble Marquis who made the motion; but that man, he thought, must have a stout heart, who did not feel alarm at the disturbance produced by the Spafields rioters. To the suspension he thought the tranquillity of the country was more owing than to any thing else. That measure was not intended for any problematical effect; it was called for, and justified by the state of the country. It was mild, merciful, preventive of much disturbance and misery, instead of being the occasion of misery. The principle of the bill was, that no redress ought to be given for unjust imprisonment, under the sus pension. If he, although innocent, had been taken up and confined on suspicion of treason, he should give way to the public safety; he should patiently bear the hardships of his fate for the good of his country. It was also necessary, that ministers should

not be obliged to disclose the evidence on which they had acted. A noble Earl had said, that the depositions might be given without the names; but all who belonged to a legal profession must know, that the tenor of the depositions would be sufficient to shew by whom they were given. He must then repeat the proposition, that the necessity of the suspension, and the safety of the country, precluded those who complained of suffering under that suspension. This proposition he felt himself bound to state, although he felt great grief that such a proposition must fall from his lips. The practice of suspending the Habeas Corpus, could not be given up without consequences that would strike at the root of our great and free country. Great and free it never would have been, if Parliament had not had the sense and the power to suspend its liberties.

The other speakers were, on the ministerial side, the Duke of Montrose and Lord Sidmouth. On the opposite, the Marquis of Lansdowne, Lord Holland, Earl Grosvenor, and the Earl of Carnarvon. The second reading was carried by a majority of 100 to 33. In the committee, the Earl of Lauderdale moved as an amend. ment, that the indemnity should begin to operate at the 4th of March last, when the bill was passed, instead of the 1st of January, as now proposed; but Lord Liverpool observed, that in the disturbed state of the country, and while the bill was passing through Parliament, it might have been necessary for Magistrates to anticipate its provisions. He acceded, however, to change the period to the 26th of January, or when Parliament met. Lord Holland mentioned an amendment re. lative to the mode of discharging prisoners, but did not push it. The Marquis of Lansdowne moved for the omis sion of those words in the bill, which went to extend indemnity to magi