44] ANNUAL REGISTER, 1818. 



the report recently received from 

 a third secret committee, could 

 never be laid aside in the con- 

 sideration of this measure. Al- 

 though the bill of Indemnity was 

 not their necessary consequence, 

 its merits could not be fairly 

 understood without a constant 

 reference to them. It was an 

 important jiart of them, that the 

 authority of the last committee 

 directly sanctioned the belief, that 

 although a traitorous conspiracy 

 no longer existed, yet that the 

 disposition out of which it had 

 before grown, remained unaltered 

 and unabated, as far as could be 

 judged from the conduct and 

 declarations of those who had 

 already been the principal objects 

 of suspicion. 



The hon. and learned gentle- 

 man had asked, why, if the law 

 had not been exceeded by minis- 

 ters, was a bill of Indenlnity 

 called for? To this he would 

 answer, that ministers were not 

 anxious to have the bill passed 

 on their own account, as they 

 could easily justify themselves 

 for what they had done ; but they 

 were desirous that the sources 

 from which they had obtained in- 

 formation, should not at present 

 be disclosed. Besides, it was 

 found, that though there no longer 

 existed a necessity for the sus- 

 pension of the Habeas Corpus 

 act, yet such was the state of the 

 country, that the utmost vigilance 

 was necessary, as there still 

 existed in the minds of many 

 persons a disposition to disturb 

 the public peace. This being the 

 case, it would be highly improper 

 to point out those persons whose 

 information enabled government 

 to check in time those evils 



which thrcatcnetl to over-run tJie 

 country. 



The hon. and learned gentle- 

 man had dwelt with particular 

 emphasis on the enormity of au- 

 thorizing, by virtue of this bill, 

 the proceedings of those magis- 

 trates who had searched the 

 houses of individuals for papers, 

 under the authority of lord Sid- 

 mouth's circular letter on the 

 subject of libels. Surely he had 

 not read the recital of this bill, 

 when he ascribed such an inter- 

 pretation or meaning to it, and 

 dwelt with so much pathos and 

 effect upon the evil of such a con- 

 struction. He had, however, 

 presumed that such was the nature 

 of the bill, for he maintained that 

 it could not possibly apply to the 

 appreliension or seizing of papers 

 of any except persons suspected 

 of treasonable practices. If in 

 such cases magistrates had over- 

 stepped the strict legal limits of 

 their authority in search of evi- 

 dence so material to the discovery 

 of the treason, would the House 

 not say that their meritorious 

 exertions did not entitle them to 

 legal protection ? (Here Sir S. 

 Romilly said, across the table, 

 that in such cases the magistrates 

 would have acted according to 

 law). 



The Solicitor General in conti- 

 nuation remarked, that all then 

 which could be alleged against 

 the bill was, that it was unneces- 

 sar}'. He then touched upon the 

 case of Swindells, Oliver, and 

 some other dangerous offenders ; 

 and in answer to the question, 

 whether those persons who had 

 suliered by imprisonment on sus- 

 picion of treason were to be denied 

 all redices, be made the following 



reply : 



§ 



