38] ANNUAL REGISTER, 1818. 



debate, used the following argu- 

 ment : Another objection had 

 been made by the noble lords 

 opposite, to the practice of a bill 

 of indemnity following a suspen- 

 sion of the Habeas Corpus. Their 

 objection was this — " that a sus- 

 pension was first proposed, and in 

 order to smooth the way for it, it 

 was held out that persons in the 

 execution of extraordinary powers 

 were to be restrained from exer- 

 cising them in an improper manner 

 by the responsibility they were 

 subject to ; but this was all 

 nugatory, if a bill of Indemnity 

 was to follow every suspension.'' 

 To whom, then, were the persons 

 entrusted with such powers res- 

 ponsible? To parliament, that 

 gave them the power, and would 

 not have given it unless it had 

 been necessary, but which would 

 certainly protect those to whom a 

 proof of that necessity had been 

 entrusted. Their lordships knew 

 thatthey had given their sanction 

 to such measures over and over 

 again, but tlieir doing so had 

 never injured the prosperity or 

 liberties of the country. The 

 practice of passing bills of indem- 

 nity showed the necessity there 

 was for so doing, and that neces- 

 sity showed the responsibility of 

 those for whom they were passed. 



As he did not perceive any 

 argument against the 1)111 in all 

 thatlvad been urged, he could not 

 possibly accede to the motion 

 made by the noble lord. 



Several lords appeared both 

 for and against the motion of the 

 former speaker, ])ut with little 

 addition to the weight of argument. 

 The amendment was then put, 

 and was negatived without a 

 division. The carl of Carnarvon 



then moved, that the bill be read 

 a third time on that day three 

 months ; upon which a division 

 took place, presenting Contents 

 12 ; Proxies 15 ;— 27 : Not Con- 

 tents 4.5 ; Proxies 48 — 93 : Majo- 

 rity 66. The bill was then read a 

 third time and passed. 



A Protest was entered on the 

 Journals, signed by ten lords. 



In the House of Commons, the 

 Attorney General, on March 9th, 

 moved the order of the day for 

 the first reading of the Indemnity 

 bill. He began with giving a 

 view of the origin and progress of 

 bills for the suspension of the 

 Habeas Corpus act, and the bills 

 for an Indemnity which were 

 their successors ; and his principal 

 purpose was, to show that all the 

 late acts, down to that at present 

 under consideration, were fully 

 justifiable. Having gone through 

 the well known stories of the riots 

 at Manchester, the trials at Derby, 

 and the attempts at Nottingham, 

 he submitted, that from every 

 consideration of necessity, pro- 

 priety, and justice, the House was 

 bound to pass the bill proposed, 

 and in consequence moved, that 

 the bill be now read a first time. 



Mr. Lnmbion said, that it was 

 not then his intention to enter 

 into any discussion respecting the 

 principles or details of the measure 

 before the House, as other oppor- 

 tunities would offer for that dis- 

 cussion. But he would apply 

 himself to the broad principle 

 which had been little adverted to 

 by the hon. and learned gentle- 

 man who spoke last, namely the 

 conduct of those ministers who 

 had brought forward this measure 

 of Indemnity. Tlie hon. gentle- 

 man then began a severe attack 



upon 



