116 ANNUAL 



REGISTER, 1805. 



After some further discussion tlie 

 bill was passed, and Mr. Whitbread 

 ordered to carry the same to the 

 lords for their coRcurrcnce. 



On July the 8th Mr.Wickham ad- 

 dressed the house on the subject of 

 the petition of Mr. Todd Jones. 

 He stated, that had he known of the 

 honourable gentleman's intention of 

 bringing the same before the house, 

 he would have fully vindicated his 

 own conduct, and that of the Irish 

 government, with regard to the 

 charge which the petition stated. 

 With respect to the three particular 

 points in the petition, he should ob- 

 serve, that he had been treated with 

 every possible consistent mildness ; 

 but the Irish government had found 

 that, consistently with the opinion of 

 the law-officers of Ireland, and the 

 ministers here, they would have in- 

 curred a deep responsibility, had 

 they complied with the demand of 

 the petitioner for unconditional 

 freedom. And for the third point, 

 he assured the house that nothing 

 could be farther from the disposi- 

 tion of the Irish government than 

 the wanton oppression of any pri- 

 soner. The honourable gentleman 

 concluded by observing, that the 

 result, he had no doubt, would com- 

 pletely justify the conduct of the 

 Irish government. 



The Speaker closed this business, 

 by observing, that no member 

 could be allowed to speak further on 

 this subject, there being no motion 

 before the house. 



On July the 9th, in ihe bouse of 

 lords, on the order for the commit- 

 ment of Trotter's Indemnity Bill, 



The Lord Chancellor said he con- 

 sidered this as a bill of much im- 

 portance. He adverted to the pre- 

 amble of the bill, and the three 

 propositions it containcdj of which 



they had no information, viz. an 

 impeachment, before they knew 

 what it was — certain acts done, 

 which acts they knew nothing of; 

 and the proposed indemnity. He 

 highly disapproved of indemnifica- 

 tions, in the way proposed. He 

 should not object to the bill's going 

 to a committee, but advised acting 

 upon the e'stablished principles of 

 the law. 



Lord Holland, at considerable 

 length, contended, that the case be- 

 fore them admitted of no such con- 

 structions. A true and correct tes- 

 timony was the object aimed at, and 

 their lordships should not be over 

 scrupulous; he, tliereforc, hoped 

 no alteration would be made in the 

 bill, tending to defeat an object, 

 equally evident and laudable. 



Lord llawkesbury professed him- 

 scU' friendly to the bill, which was 

 a fair one, and borne out by the 

 practice of parliament, a«d at the 

 same time recommended as little de- 

 . lay as possible. 



Lord Sidmouth agreed in a great 

 deal of what fell from the noble 

 lord, and hoped no impediment 

 would be thrown in the way of sub- 

 stantial justice, or the innocence of 

 the accused. 



After a few further observations, 

 the bill was ordered for a third read- 

 ing. On the same day, in the house 

 of commons, Mr. Whitbread moved 

 for " leave to bring in a bill to con- 

 " tinue the powers of the committee 

 " during the recess." 



The chancellor of the exchequer 

 said, that the objections to the bill 

 were, in his opinion, insurmounta- 

 ble. The motion, if agreed to, 

 would amount to a direct inroad 

 upon the constitution. 



A short conversation now took 

 place upon Lord Melville's case, 



after 



