GENERAL HISTORY. 



[31 



could do. The first of these was, 

 that all former acts of indemnity 

 in this country had acknowledged 

 or implied that certain illegal 

 acts had been committed^ on the 

 ground of which the indenmity 

 was granted; but the present bill, 

 according to the assertions of 

 those who supported it, and its 

 own preamble, came before their 

 lordships with the allegation that 

 no illegal act had been done. 

 The report which had been made 

 by their lordships' committee 

 stated, that the persons taken 

 into custody had been arrested 

 on oath. According to all the 

 assertions and allegations there 

 had been no illegality ; and if 

 there was none, there could be 

 no need of indemnity. But it 

 was said, that if ministers should 

 be called upon to justify them- 

 selves in courts of law, they 

 would be obliged to produce 

 evidence, which it would be im- 

 proper to disclose. He could 

 not say that it might not be pos- 

 sible that a bill on this subject 

 was requisite; but the object of 

 such a bill could not be hidem- 

 nity. 



There was another point which 

 also appeared to him worthy of 

 their lordships' consideration. 

 It had been asked, how their 

 lordships could suppose that the 

 Habeas Corpus could be sus- 

 pended, without this bill becoming 

 necessary? He must confess, 

 that he had not seen this natural 

 consequence ; but if it really 

 existed, ought it not to be their 

 lordships business to make out 

 that connexion in the committee? 

 The bill, as it stood, contained 

 no reference to the Suspension 

 act from which it was said to 



spring. The preamble declared 

 that a traitorous conspiracy had 

 existed, tliat numerous persons 

 had tumultuously assembled, &c. 

 and stated acts to have been done, 

 which, under the supposition of 

 all the proceedings being legal, 

 were proper to be resorted to. 



Another difficulty arose in 

 considering the bill, which, instead 

 of being founded on precedent, 

 differed in one material respect 

 not only from all the old bills of 

 indemnity^ in this country, but 

 from that of 1801, inasmuch as 

 it granted indemnity not only for 

 arresting and detaining prisoners, 

 but for discharging them. Have 

 prisoners then been illegally dis- 

 charged ?• It would become their 

 lordships well to consider what 

 might be the effect of the intro- 

 duction of this word into the 

 bill, not merely with respect to 

 the protection of ministers, but 

 to the future security of the 

 persons to whom it applied. 



The Lord Chancellor remarked, 

 that with respect to what had 

 been said to this bill being founded 

 on precedent in all its provisions, 

 he certainly had never so argued 

 it. He had, on the contrary, 

 observed, that when the Habeas 

 Corpus was suspended in the 

 reign of king William, it was 

 distinctly acknowledged in the 

 bill of indemnity that illegal acts 

 had been committed ; but it was 

 at the same time declared, that 

 these acts were so necessary for 

 the safety of the country, and 

 the preservation of the constitu- 

 tion, that it was fit no persons 

 should be put to the expense of 

 defending themselves in suits 

 which might be brought against 

 them. The principle of the act 



of 



