GENERAL HISTORY. 



[13 



rence of papers to a oomtnittee 

 but with a view to some legisla- 

 tive measure. The noble lord, 

 however, had stated, that no such 

 measure was in contemplation. 

 What then was the object of this 

 committee ? On the first day of 

 the session, immediately after the 

 lords commissioners, representing 

 the crown, had stated that tran- 

 quillity was restored, and that 

 nothing more was wanting to 

 maintain it than the vigilance of 

 the magistrates, it was declared 

 by the ministers, that they meant 

 to remove the suspension of the 

 Habeas Corpus act. No danger, 

 therefore, could be apprehended 

 by the ministers. And what then 

 was the purpose of this commit- 

 tee ? Why, solely to procure a 

 report in defence of ministers, 

 with the recommendation of an 

 act of indemnity, which it was 

 felt must necessarily be preceded 

 by at least the appearance of in- 

 quiry into the present state of 

 public opinion. It now appeared 

 that ministers sought the shield 

 of an act of indemnity ; and when 

 the administration of the trust 

 w^as considered, the House was 

 informed that a bill of that nature 

 always followed a suspension of 

 the constitution. He hoped the 

 House would see the necessity of 

 an ample investigation, and not 

 suffer themselves to be deluded. 

 The House, he trusted, would 

 recollect, that though, according 

 to the admission of the govern- 

 ment, tranquillity was restored in 

 September last, and though, act- 

 ing upon the confidence of that 

 tranquillity, they had restored 

 persons to their liberty who had 

 been six months in confinement, 

 still they neglected to call par- 



Hament together, and it was not 

 until January that they thought 

 proper to adopt that measure. 



The transactions of last session 

 were of such importance as called 

 loudly for inquiry. He could not 

 believe that the House would 

 discharge its duty, or satisfy the 

 expectations of the country, if it 

 did not, by the fullest disclosure 

 of all these transactions, make 

 some atonement for the danger- 

 ous precedent which they had 

 been induced in the last session 

 to establish. Even the mass of 

 individual suffering that was ex- 

 perienced under this act was far 

 outweighed by the incalculable 

 disadvantages entailed upon the 

 general system of our govern- 

 ment. What would have been 

 the case if ministers had a prece- 

 dent in the subject he was consi- 

 dering. The parliament might 

 look forward to some future mi- 

 nister, anxious to increase the 

 power of the crown, long after the 

 grave had closed upon the pre- 

 sent generation. They might 

 suppose some future sovereign of 

 the House of Brunswick, but 

 feeling in his breast the principles 

 of a Stuart, willing to avail him- 

 self of such a minister, and pre- 

 ferring rather to imitate the 

 despots of Europe, than to reign 

 in the hearts of a free people. It 

 had been truly said by an ho- 

 nourable baronet on a former oc- 

 casion, that the Habeas Corpus 

 act might as well have no exist- 

 ence, as be liable to such inter- 

 ruptions. For when was the act 

 of any use ? Was it not in times 

 when his majesty's government 

 was complained of; in times of 

 disaffection to ministers, which 

 they wtre always willing to re- 

 present 



