THE first Parliamentary preliminaries being adjusted, Ministers lost no time in redeeming their pledge, by proposing the immediate repeal of the act for suspending the Habeas Corpus. This measure originated in the House of Lords, where, on the 28th January, Lord Sidmouth presented the Bill, at the same time moving, that the standing order relative to the progress of public bills should be suspended, that there might be no delay to its passing. Before the second reading, however, Lord Holland rose and stated, that though he certainly did not mean to oppose or obstruct the motion, he yet conceived that it ought to be attended with an inquiry into the grounds on which the measure had been adopted, and the erroneous and imperfect evidence which, as he conceived, had been offered by his Majesty's ministers. They had been either actually the tools of wicked and designing men, or had been led away by the desire of obtaining undue power to themselves. Believing, as he did,

that the whole of their Lordships' proceedings in passing the act for suspending the Habeas Corpus had rested upon garbled and unfair evidence, he must state that he could not be satisfied with the mere repeal of that act, and that he thought an inquiry into the grounds on which it had been passed ought to be instituted. No proceeding could have been more dangerous to the true interests of the country, than that to which their Lordships had given their sanction on evidence so totally imperfect. The right which had been suspended, he wished to remind them, was not one which had been granted by any act of Parliament whatever. The personal liberty of the people was no concession. It was a right antecedent to any statute, and equal to the right of their Lordships to vote in that house, or to the right of the King to sit on the throne. The mere repeal of such an act was not sufficient, without some proof, which would demonstrate to posterity that they considered them.

selves pledged to guard against such unjust encroachments. During the time of the Popish plot, of the Ryehouse plot, or of any other plot, it had not been thought necessary to deprive the subject of personal liberty. Nothing which had passed in Derby or in Scotland appeared to him to afford the least justification of the measure; nor, if the country was in better circumstances now than last year, could this be considered as at all arising out of the suspension. It was no longer asserted that blasphemous productions were in circulation; but if they had been put down, was it by the threefold prosecution of Mr Hone? He wished not to justify that species of publication, but he did not believe there was a man in the country so weak as to believe, that these parodies would ever have been questioned had they been directed against the opponents of government. This had been the case with regard to parodies of a much more indecent nature, made upon the words of Scripture itself. He trusted, if a committee were appointed, it would be one that would make an effective inquiry, and not take upon trust the garbled and imperfect statement of ministers.

Lord Sidmouth expressed surprise at the course taken by the noble lord. In justification of the act of last Session, be referred to the report of the committee, which, he assured the House, had been furnished with the most ample means of judging. He conceived the benefit to be great which had been derived from the suspension act. There never was a greater contrast exhibited by the country than that which the comparison of its present state with that of last year afforded; and he would now maintain, and if the occasion should arrive, would prove, that the act of last Session had mainly contributed to this result. The effects it had had in many parts of the

country did not rest on assertion; they were already proved. The magistrates and persons best informed in the county of Leicester, stated, on their own knowledge, that the passing of the Suspension Act had produced tranquillity in manufacturing districts where the greatest alarm for the peace of the country had previously existed. In another place, where there had been a more formidable manifestation of treason, the good effects of the measure had been still more apparent-he meant that insurrection, in consequence of which a bill of indictment had been found against the offenders who were tried at Derby. On that occasion, ten of the persons accused fled; four were sentenced to suffer death; and in all, thirty-one confessed themselves guilty of treason, some of whom were transported, and the remainder pardoned. These men, besides making a confession of their guilt, gave certain information, that an insurrection of a much more formidable nature than that in which they had been engaged was in contemplation, and would infallibly have taken place had not the Habeas Corpus Act been suspended. Although many of the disturbers of the public peace were in a mean situation, and without any adequate resources to accomplish their objects, yet they might have had the power of giving rise to serious commotions. In fact, however, many of them were far from being men of contemptible talents, but possessed powers which enabled them to exercise an extensive influence over the lower orders. In regard to Mr Hone, ministers had been repeatedly reproached, both in and out of doors, for taking no legal measures to repress the tide of irreligious publications. This prosecution had not been prompted by any hypocritical motives, but appeared peculiarly called for by the circumstances of the times. Repeated opportunities would occur of discuss

ing this subject, and he would now announce the intention of the Prince Regent to lay before their Lordships papers touching the internal state of the country, which would be disposed of in the manner their Lordships might decide.

After this conversation, all the different processes through which the bill was to pass were hurried over in the course of this single day, and it was sent down to the Commons.

On the following day, the 29th, the bill was introduced into the Lower House. It was received nearly in the same manner, the only distinctive feature of the debate being a motion made by Lord Folkestone on the subject of the recognizances, into which a number of persons apprehended under the act, had been made to enter previous to their liberation. Something was due to those persons, and the bill ought, therefore, to be more than a repeal. As far as he was able to learn, and he had taken every opportunity of examining into the subject, it appeared to him that all those persons taken up under the Suspension Act, who had been discharged on their recognizances, were unfairly dealt with. There was no law authorising magistrates to demand such recognizances from them, These men had, he apprehended, been very ill used, and might be exposed to further ill usage without any remedy, if provision was not made in the bill now before the House. There existed no proper legal authority for binding these persons on their recognizance to appear on a certain day. A recogni. zance could not be demanded from a man, without an accusation against him, on the oath of some individual whom he might have an opportunity of confronting. He did conceive, that by merely repealing the Suspension Act, they would not be going far enough, and that a clause ought to be intro duced for the purpose of vacating the recognizances which had been so ille.

gally demanded. He had drawn up a clause to meet the difficulty, which he should propose in the proper stage.

The Attorney-General insisted that this question was one which ought rather to come before a court of justice. There were often cases in which, though there might not exist grounds sufficient to bring a man to trial, it might be important to have him bound to appear on a certain day. In this case, to take only his own recognizance, without demanding bail, was an indulgence rather than an injury. He conceived, that magistrates, in such circumstances, had a right to exact recognizances; and this right had been exercised in all former similar periods, But the fact was, that no objection would have been made to the release of these men, and the discharge of their recognizances long since, but for their determination to prefer in court objections to the right which had been thus exercised. "In a conversation I myself had with some of them, they stated, that they had objections on points of law to urge when brought up; and I, as well as others of his Majesty's servants, thought it best to let their recognizances stand over, that they might avail themselves of the opportunity to discuss the point. Whether I have acted rightly or not in this respect, I will leave to the result; but I have the satisfaction to reflect, that it cannot be said I have precluded these persons from making use of the advantages they imagined they possessed."

A long and desultory conversation followed. Mr Brougham observed, the persons detained under the Suspension Act were bound on their recognizance to appear in court on a certain day, that is to say, the bill would still be in force against them. Various things might be demanded from men confined under such circumstances, as the condi tion on which they could obtain their

liberation-they might be compelled to pay L.100-they might be asked to go down on their knees and beg the minister's pardon-or they might be asked to give recognizances to appear on a certain day in court, and from time to time afterwards ministers had chosen to demand a recognizance; and, with few exceptions, it was deemed advisable to accede to their demand. Could any man, however, say, that they had the power to demand such recognizances, and to detain those individuals who refused to grant them, without the Suspension Act? Why then these recognizances necessarily flowed from the Suspension Act, and ought to be vacated by the repeal. The Solicitor-General, however, replied: "The power created by this act was the power of preventing the accused being brought to trial in the usual course of proceeding. If this act had never passed, it would have been as competent to the parties to dispute the legality of the recognizances, as if it were to continue until the time of trying the question. We are now discussing what does not concern the merits of the Suspension Act, nor flow out of its enactment." At length, the Attorney-General stated, that his declining to discharge the recognizances had arisen solely from his desire to afford to the parties the wished for opportunity of having their objections legally argued. Since this was made a matter of complaint, he had no sort of objection to discharge them all forthwith. Upon this understanding Lord Folkstone withdrew his objection to the clause, when the bill was read a third time, and passed.

The repeal of the Suspension Act was followed up by ministers with the presentation, on the part of the Prince Regent, of secret papers, relating to the internal state of the country. Under this title Parliament was invited to take them into VOL. XI. PART I.

consideration. In fact, they were understood to be justificatory documents, destined to prove at once the necessity which had existed for the late suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act, and the propriety with which government had used the powers intrusted to them. These papers were presented to the House of Lords, by Lord Sidmouth, on the 2d February, and to the House of Commons, by Lord Castlereagh, on the 3d.

On the 5th, Lord Castlereagh moved that the papers should be referred to a secret committee. It would be premature, he cbserved, at this stage, to enter into any discussion upon the state of the country. He denied that the papers in question were intended to lay the foundation of any specific measure. He certainly admitted, that there was an intention of proposing an act of indemnity, not as destined to grow out of the report of the committee, but as necessarily arising from the former law. Much of the information on which the government had acted was necessarily such as could not be disclosed, consistently with the safety of individuals, and with good faith to them. Magistrates had often been called on to act, for the sake of the public peace, on information which they could not justify on the letter of the law. He should distinctly avow, that a bill of indemnity was necessary, after such powers had been intrusted to a government; and this claim might be strengthened by, though not founded on, the report of a committee. That committee would also shew the public what the state of the country was; for, though the prosperity of our commerce and the vigilance of the magistracy had put an end to the great mass of danger, it would be a false view of the state of the country to suppose that the danger was at an end.

Mr Tierney said, there could be no

B

objection to refer to a committee any papers presented by the crown; but it appeared to him an unheard of proceeding, to present these without any accompanying message or explanation. There came down simply a bag; called, indeed, in the votes, a bag relating to the internal state of the country; but there was nothing on the outside to shew this. "I view with a proper jealousy every thing that comes from the throne, and especially when it comes in this mysterious manner, and accompanied by a more mysterious speech from the noble Secretary of State; and I think I have reason to suspect there is something at the bottom of it which has not been owned. The truth of the matter is this:-The Ministers know, that by their proceedings in the last year, they have, for the last months, been making out a prima facie case against themselves in the mind of every man in the country; and now they want to have a case made out for them, and that under the sanction of a committee of secrecy. The noble Lord, with the candour of which he gives such frequent examples, says he should have no objection to a bill of indemnity. No one will doubt, without this candour, that he wishes for a bill of indemnity if he can get it; and to this end he proposes a committee, chosen by ballot, to sit on the papers in this bag. Why, this is one of the coarsest juggles which had been ever played off upon mankind." Mr T. insisted, that the Secretary of State had not, as he ought, merely taken up persons of influence and extensive connexion, but had gone, as it were, through the country with a drag-net, taking up whole classes of men. Alarm had been the daily bread of administration: but the country were now better informed. He solemnly declared, upon his honour, that after all the events and trials that took place during the recess and he had considered and

examined all of them with every attention in his power-yet, after the most careful and impartial examination, he would solemnly declare, without any party bias, that not one case occurred which in his mind shewed the suspension to be necessary. If one man was detained one hour beyond the time which the safety of the country required, the ministers were guilty of an abuse of power. The right honourable gentleman had to justify the ministers on another point-the employment of spies. If there was one thing more disgusting than another to every honest man in the country, it was the publicity with which the ministers had justified the acts of those infernalscoundrels, who had been employed for the purpose of procuring information. A right honourable gentleman had promised to satisfy them that no agent of government had done such acts. God grant that the right honourable genileman might succeed, for the credit of the age; but he could not whitewash spies, or detach them from everlasting infamy! This was a task beyond the reach of his splendid oratory. If ministers were satisfied that they could conclusively establish their innocence, why resort to the hackneyed mode of a committee of their own friends. No one could doubt what would be the result. This committee would first praise the ministers for their wisdom and humanity, and next propose an act to shelter them from any legal responsibility-thus asserting at once that ministers were right, and that they ought to be sheltered from the consequences of being wrong. But if ministers themselves were conscious of having been right, nay, if they were not conscious of being guilty, why proceed as they had done? They had, in fact, filed a bill of indictment against themselves, probably with a view to prevent others from preferring an indictment against them; and then