their original plan, were to have arrived at an early hour on the morning of the 10th, and expected to be joined by such a party. This party was seen about twelve at night; they were drawn up in line, two deep, and a part of them were armed with pikes or poles. They remained assembled on the race ground until past two o'clock in the morning, about which time they dispersed. Some appearances of disturbance in the town of Nottingham early in the night of the 9th, induced the magistrates to send for a military force from the barracks; and order being quickly restored, the military returned to their barracks, and were not again called out, until the morning of the 10th, when they were required to assist in dispersing the Derbyshire insurgents, who were then on their march. Connected with these disturbances in Derbyshire and Nottinghamshire, a disposition to similar conduct was manifested in a part of the West Riding of Yorkshire. On the 6th of June a meeting of delegates was assembled at a place called Thornhill Lees, near Huddersfield; and at this meeting it was understood, that the time to be fixed for a general rising would be announced. The persons assembled at that meeting were surprised by the magistrates, assisted by a military force, and some were taken into custody. This arrest deranged the plans of the disaffected; and the greater part of the districts in that part of Yorkshire, in which a general rising had been proposed, remained quiet. But in the neighbourhood of Hudders. field, in the night of the 8th of June, a considerable body assembled, some with fire arms, and others with scythes fixed on poles, and proceeded to various outrages, plundering houses for arms, and firing on the head constable of Huddersfield, and upon a person of the Yeomanry cavalry, who went out of the town to learn their objects. Indictments were preferred both for the felonies and the burglaries at the assizes at York in the month of July. The facts of the outrages there committed appears to have been established by the finding of the bills by the grand jury; but sufficient evidence was not produced on the trial to bring the crimes home to any individuals. From the evidence given at the trials at Derby, it appeared that the Derbyshire insurgents had expected a considerable reinforcement from this part of Yorkshire, believing that a general rising would take place at the time to be fixed for that purpose; and it appears likewise, that in Yorkshire, as well as in all the other districts where these designs were carrying on, great reliance has uniformly been placed upon the hope of powerful support and cooperation from London, however erroneous such an expectation. may have been, with respect to the extent to which it was supposed to have existed. The committee have the satisfaction of delivering it as their decided opinion, that not only in the country in general, but in those districts where the designs of the disaffected were most actively and unremittingly pursued, the great body of the people have remained remained untainted, even during The arrests and trials which have taken place, and the developement of the designs of the leaders of the disaffected, together with the continued activity and vigilance of the magistrates and of the government, must have had the salutary effect of checking the progress of disaffection, where it existed; and the improved state of the country, and the increased employment now afforded to the labouring classes, have contributed to render those who were most open to seduction, less disposed to embrace the desperate measures which the pressure of distress might have led them to hazard. Some of the persons engaged in these projects, particularly in London, are still active, and appear determined to persevere, though with decreasing numbers and resources. It appears, therefore, to the committee, that the continued vigilance of ment, and of the magistrates in governthe several districts which have been most disturbed, will be necessary. Having thus taken a view of the state of the country in the disturbed districts, from the period described in the report made to the House towards the close of the last session of parliament, the committee have proceeded to examine such of the papers referred to them, as relate to the arrests of several persons under warrants issued by one of his majesty's principal secretaries of state, and the detention of several of the persons so arrested under the authority of two acts passed in the last session of parliament, and detain such persons as his to empower his majesty to secure majesty shall suspect are conspiring against his person and government. whom bills of indictment were With respect to those against found by different grand juries, and those who have been brought to trial or have fled from justice, the committee conceive that it is unnecessary for them to make any particular statement. Warrants were issued by the secretary of state against ten persons, who have not been taken. Forty-four persons appear to have been arrested under warrants of the secretary of state, on suspicion been brought to trial: of these, of high treason, who have not nation, without any subsequent seven were discharged on examiwarrant of detention. Against thirty-seven, warrants of detention, on suspicion of high treason, were issued by the secretary of committed, was soon after restate: but one, who was finally leased: another was charged on account of illness; soon disgrounds upon which those warand a third died in prison. The rants severally examined by the comwere issued, have been mittee; on that examination it has appeared to the committee, that all these arrests and detentions have been fully justified by which they have taken place; the various circumstances under and in no case does any warrant of detention appear to have been issued, except in consequence of information upon oath. It appears to the committee, that that all the persons who were so arrested and detained, and who were not prosecuted, have been at different times discharged, as the state of the country, and the circumstances attending the several trials which had taken place, were judged to permit. The committee understand that, up to a certain period, expectations were entertained of being able to bring to trial a large proportion of the persons so arrested and detained; but that these expectations have from time to time been unavoidably relinquished. On the whole, therefore, it has appeared to the committee, that the government, in the execution of the powers vested in it, by the two acts before mentioned, has acted with due discretion and moderation; and as far as appears to the committee, the magistrates in the several disturbed districts have, by their activity and vigilance, contributed materially to the preservation of the public peace." The report was ordered to be printed. The Duke of Montrose, on February 25th, presented to their lordships a bill founded upon the Report of the Secret Committee, and intituled a "bill for indemnify ing persons who, since the 26th of January 1817, have acted in apprehending, imprisoning, or detaining in custody, persons suspected of high treason, or treasonable practices, and in the suppression of tumultuous and unlawful assemblies." It was not necessary for him to say any thing in its support in this stage. He should merely propose that the bill be now read a first time. The Earl of Lauderdale would not have troubled their lordships with any observations on the noble duke's proposition at the present moment, if he did not conceive that it involved a ques tion of considerable constitutional difficulty and importance. From the title of the bill it appeared to be for the purpose of indemnifying his majesty's ministers for every act they had done under the suspension of the Habeas Corpus. Now what was the situation in which their lordships were placed? They knew by the Journals of the other House of parliament, that papers had also been sent to that House, and referred to a committee. That committee had not yet reported; and their report might be such as to render any proceedings of the kind now proposed, very improper to be adopted by their lordships. He reminded the House that on a former occasion they had decided, in agreement with the opinion of a noble and learned lord, that they would not entertain a certain measure because it might come before them in a judicial capacity. On the same ground this bill was not fit to be entertained; for if any principle of their proceedings was more to be regarded than another, it was this-that the House ought never to give an extrajudicial opinion. The Earl of Liverpool saw no possible ground for delay in the objection stated by the noble lord. If it was good for any thing, it would be equally good against the appointment of a committee to inquire into the conduct of ministers on the papers which had been submitted to their consideration. The committee had, by the order of the House, examined these papers inquisitorially, and had come to an opinion which was now on their lordships table. In pursuance of that opinion, his noble friend considered himself bound to introduce the bill he had presented. Whether the bill was warranted by the report was the question to be argued on the second reading. Their lordships were not bound to regulate their proceedings on a measure of which they could know nothing, except through the medium of the votes of the House of Com mons. Lord Holland expected that the noble duke would have stated more at length what was the nature of the bill he had presented. He would not, however, occupy their lordships time with any observations of that kind, but rose merely to answer an objection made to his noble friend by the secretary of state, which appeared to him to have been in some measure misunderstood. His lordship finally moved, that instead of the word "now" for the first reading, the words "this day se'nnight" be inserted. The question, that the word "now" stand part of the original question was put, and carried in the affirmative. The bill was then read a first time, and ordered to be printed. On the 27th of February, the order of the day standing for the second reading of the Indemnity bill, the Duke of Montrose began by saying, that it appeared to him necessary, as a justification of the measure, to refer to the circumstances which had caused it to be brought forward. This, in fact, was nothing but a short recapitulation of all the arguments made use of by the most strenuous defenders of the suspension of the Habeas Corpus act, and may therefore be laid aside. His grace concluded his speech by moving that the bill be now read a second time. A considerable number of speakers on each side succeeded to the duke; but the tenor of each approached so nearly to their former discussions on the same subject, that it would be a waste of room to enter into particulars. With respect to the Indemnity bill, the lord Chancellor sufficiently delivered his reasons for supporting it, by saying "that the Indemnity bill arose necessarily from the Suspension act; and the Suspension act went to the preservation of our laws and constitution." This appeared to be the general opinion of their lordships, at least as far as voting could declare it. The question being at length put, that the word "now" stand as a part of it, the House divided: Contents, 56; Proxies, 44-100: NonContents,15; Proxies, 18-33: Majority, 67. The bill was then read a second time. The order of the day for going into a committee on the Indemnity bill, being read on March 3rd, Lord Holland rose for the purpose of asking two or three questions, the answers to which might perhaps enable their lordships to proceed with more precision and dispatch when in a committee, than they otherwise could could do. The first of these was, that all former acts of indemnity in this country had acknowledged or implied that certain illegal acts had been committed, on the ground of which the indemnity was granted; but the present bill, according to the assertions of those who supported it, and its own preamble, came before their lordships with the allegation that no illegal act had been done. The report which had been made by their lordships' committee stated, that the persons taken into custody had been arrested on oath. According to all the assertions and allegations there had been no illegality; and if there was none, there could be no need of indemnity. But it was said, that if ministers should be called upon to justify them selves in courts of law, they would be obliged to produce evidence, which it would be improper to disclose. He could not say that it might not be pos sible that a bill on this subject was requisite; but the object of such a bill could not be indemnity. spring. The preamble declared that a traitorous conspiracy had existed, that numerous persons had tumultuously assembled, &c. and stated acts to have been done, which, under the supposition of all the proceedings being legal, were proper to be resorted to. in Another difficulty arose considering the bill, which, instead of being founded on precedent, differed in one material respect not only from all the old bills of indemnity in this country, but from that of 1801, inasmuch as it granted indemnity not only for arresting and detaining prisoners, but for discharging them. Have prisoners then been illegally discharged? It would become their lordships well to consider what might be the effect of the introduction of this word into the bill, not merely with respect to the protection of ministers, but to the future security of the persons to whom it applied. The Lord Chancellor remarked, that with respect to what had been said to this bill being founded on precedent in all its provisions, he certainly had never so argued There was another point which it. He had, on the contrary, also appeared to him worthy of observed, that when the Habeas their lordships' consideration. Corpus was suspended in the It had been asked, how their reign of king William, it was lordships could suppose that the distinctly acknowledged in the Habeas Corpus could be sus- bill of indemnity that illegal acts pended, without this bill becoming had been committed; but it was necessary? He must confess, at the same time declared, that that he had not seen this natural these acts were so necessary for consequence; but if it really the safety of the country, and existed, ought it not to be their the preservation of the constitulordships business to make out tion, that it was fit no persons that connexion in the committee? should be put to the expense of The bill, as it stood, contained defending themselves in suits no reference to the Suspension which might be brought against act from which it was said to them. The principle of the act of |