GENERAL HISTORY. 



[39 



upon the ministers, especially 

 upon lord Sidmouth, which con- 

 cluded with an amendment that 

 the bill be read a first time that 

 day six months. 



Several gentlemen on both 

 sides took part in the subsequent 

 debate, which, however, made 

 little addition to the fund of argu- 

 ment. The question being at 

 length put, " That the bill be now 

 read a first time,'' there appeared 

 Ayes, 190 ; Noes, Si : Majority, 

 126. 



The Attorney General having 

 moved that the bill be read a 

 second time to-morrow, Mr. 

 Brougham indignantly exclaimed, 

 that surely ministers would not so 

 far lay aside all regard to appear- 

 ances as to force on the second 

 reading of this important bill to- 

 morrow. After some farther ob- 

 servations from the hon. member, 

 Lord Castlereagh rose andadverted 

 to his attack on the ministers, 

 because they had not spoken on 

 the question. His lordship was 

 supported by Mr. Canning, who 

 was replied to by Sir J. Newport. 

 At length Sir S. Romilly, who 

 had risen to move an amendment, 

 withdrew it, on the understanding, 

 that if the second reading of the 

 bill could not come on to-morrow 

 before a late hour, it should be 

 postponed. 



On March 10th the Attorney 

 General moved the order of the 

 day for the second reading of the 

 Indemnity bill. Several members 

 on each side spoke on the subject, 

 when the House divided, the 

 Ayes being 89 ; and the Noes, 24<. 

 The second reading accordingly 

 took place. 



The Attorney General moved, 

 on March lUh, the order of the 



day for going into a Committee 

 on the Indemnity bill, when a 

 speech, the summary of which 

 will be given in the following ex- 

 tract, was delivered on the occa- 

 sion by Sir Samuel Romilly. 



He said, that as the objectiohs 

 which he had to the bill were 

 rather those to its principles, he 

 ought properly to have stated 

 them on the second reading, and 

 it was his intention so to have 

 done. It was through deference 

 to the opinion of others, and not 

 from his own judgment, that he 

 had deferred his object to the 

 present stage of the bill. Whether 

 considered by itself, or as a pre- 

 cedent to be acted upon in future 

 times, it appeared to him a most 

 objectionable and dangerous mea- 

 sure. It was improperly called a 

 bill of Indemnity : the object of 

 indemnity was only to protect 

 individuals from pubhc prosecu- 

 tions, mthout interfering with the 

 rights of private men ; but this 

 object was to annihilate such 

 rights. Its true description was 

 a bill to take away all legal reme- 

 dies from those who had suffered 

 from an illegal and arbitrary 

 exercise of authority, and to 

 punish those who presumed to 

 have recourse to such remedies 

 by subjecting them to the pay- 

 ment of double costs. 



There were only three objects 

 which the bill had in view : first, 

 to protect the ministers in the 

 acts of authority they had exer- 

 cised : secondly, to indemnify 

 magistrates for the acts they had 

 done for suppressing insurrections, 

 or guarding against imminent 

 danger to the state : and thirdly 

 to protect private individuals who 

 have given information to govern- 

 ment, 



