30] ANNUAL REGISTER, T818. 



their consideration. Tlie com- 

 mittee had, by the oi'der of the 

 House, examined these papers 

 inquisitorially, and had come to 

 an opinion which was now on 

 their lordships table. In pursu- 

 ance of that opinion, his noble 

 friend considered himself bound 

 to introduce the bill he had 

 presented. Wliether the bill was 

 warranted by the report was the 

 question to be argued on the 

 second reading. Their ilordships 

 were not bound to regulate their 

 proceedings on a measure of 

 which they could know nothing, 

 except through the medium of 

 the votes of the House of Com- 

 mons. 



Lord Holland expected that 

 the noble duke would have stated 

 more at leno'th what was the 

 nature of the bill he had presented. 

 He would not, however, occupy 

 their lordships time with any 

 observations of tliat kind, but 

 rose merely to answer an objection 

 made to his noble friend by the 

 secretary of state, which appeared 

 to him to have been in some 

 measure misunderstood. His 

 lordship finally moved, that instead 

 of tlie word " now'' for the first 

 reading, the words " this day 

 se'nnight" be inserted. 



The question, that the word 

 " now" stand part of the original 

 question was put, and carried in 

 the affirmative. The bill was then 

 read a first time, and ordered to 

 be printed. 



On the 2Tth of February, the 

 order of the day standing for the 

 second reading of the Indemnity 

 bill, the Duke of Montrose began 

 by saying, thrt it appeared to 

 him necessary, as a justification 

 of the measure, to refer to the 



circumstances which had causeit 

 it to be brought forward. Tliis, 

 in fact, was nothing but a short 

 recapitulation of all the arguments 

 made use of by the most strenuous 

 defenders of the suspension of 

 the Habeas Corpus act, and may 

 therefore be laid aside. His • 

 grace concluded his speech by \ 

 moving that the bill be now read 

 a second time. . 



A considerable number of 1 

 speakers on each side succeeded 

 to the duke ; but the tenor of 

 each approached so nearly to 

 their former discussions on the 

 same subject, that it would be a 

 waste of room to enter into parti- 

 culars. With respect to the 

 Indemnity bill, the lord Chancellor 

 sufficiently dehvered his reasons 

 for supporting it, by saying " that 

 the Indemnity bill arose necessa- 

 rily from the Suspension act ; and 

 the Suspension act went to the 

 preservation of our laws and 

 constitution.'' This appeared to 

 be the general opinion of their 

 lordships, at least as far as voting 

 could declare it. 



The question being at length 

 put, that the word " now" stand 

 as a part of it, the House divided : 

 Contents, 56; Proxies, 44 — 100: 

 NonContents,15;Proxies,18 — 33: 

 Majority, 67. 



The bill was then read a second 

 time. 



The order of the day for going 

 into a committee on the Indem- 

 nity bill, being read on March 

 3rd, Lord Holland rose for the 

 purpose of asking two or three 

 questions, the answers to which 

 might perhaps enable their lord- 

 ships to proceed Avith more pre- 

 cision and dispatch when in a 

 committee, than they otherwise 



could 



