GENERAL HISTORY. 



[45 



reply : that private interest must 

 in extraordinary cases give way 

 to the public welfare ; and that it 

 were better some private injury 

 should be sustained, than that the 

 constitution should be endan- 

 gered, which would be the case, 

 if those persons were allowed to 

 act with impunity. He further 

 added, as a reply to the objec- 

 tion of his antagonist to the bill, 

 because it was not merely co-ex- 

 tensive with the Suspension, but 

 went as far back as January ; that 

 if ministers or magistrates found 

 it necessary to arrest disaffected 

 persons before the Suspension of 

 the Habeas Corpus act, they 

 were as much entitled to protec- 

 tion for having so done, as they 

 were for their acts during the 

 Suspension.' 



Such were, for the most part, 

 the observations made by the 

 Solicitor-general in relation to tlie 



keen attacks with which Sir 

 Samuel Romilly supported his 

 own cause. As we have already 

 dwelt, perhaps too largely, upon 

 the proceedings which the In- 

 demnity bill excited in the House 

 of Lords, we shall cut short all 

 the remaining argument in the 

 House of Commons, and only 

 mention the result of the whole 

 debate. 



The question being put, that 

 the Speaker do now leave the 

 chair, the House divided. Ayes, 

 238: Noes, 65. Majority, 173. 



On March 13, the Attorney 

 General having moved. That the 

 Indemnity bill be now read a 

 third time, the question was put 

 on the third reading, which was 

 carried by 82 against 23. After 

 several amendments were nega- 

 tived by the majority, the bill 

 passed without iarther discus-^ 

 sion. 



CHAPTER 



