Repeal of the Suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act-Treaty with Spain for the Abolition of the Slave TradeParliamentary Grant for the Building of New Churches-Reform of the Constitution of the Scotch BurghsAllowances to Royal Dukes on their Marriage-The Alien Bill-Dissolution of Parliament. merce. Last year the fires were extinguished in most of the ironworks; now they are in full activity, and the price of iron has risen from eight or nine to about fourteen pounds a ton. The demand for linen, the staple of the north of Ireland, is unprecedented both as to quantity and price. The funds are now 80; last year they were about 63. Money is most abundant, and when lent at mortgage on good security, lowering in rate of interest, and to be had at four and a-half per cent; at the same time that sales of land are effected at better prices than last year.' Mr. Ward, too (afterwards Lord Dudley), says, 'I have excellent accounts from Staffordshire. one moment the iron trade was as brisk as ever, but since it has a little gone off; no distress, however.' THE Parliament commenced its sixth ses- | subjected to defects in the existing constision on the 27th of January, 1818. The tution.' Mr. Wyndham Quin, the seconder speech of the Prince Regent, which was of the address in the Commons, said, 'the read by Commission, after a cold and formal country feels an increased circulation in reference to the Princess Charlotte, pro- every artery, in every channel of its comceeded to notice the improvement that had taken place in almost every branch of domestic industry, and alleged that the present state of public credit afforded abundant proof that the difficulties under which the country was labouring were chiefly to be ascribed to temporary causes. So important a change in the condition of the country, it was observed, 'could not fail to withdraw from the disaffected the principal means of which they had availed themselves for the purpose of fomenting a spirit of discontent, that unhappily led to acts of insubordination and treason.' 'And his Royal Highness,' it was added, 'entertains the most confident expectation that the state of peace and tranquillity to which the country is now restored will be maintained against all attempts to disturb it, by the persevering vigilance of the magistracy, and by the loyalty and good sense of the people.' A similar statement was made in the report of the Secret Committee of the House of Commons. In the course of the autumn,' it said, 'a gradual reduction in the price of provisions, and still more, an increased demand for labour in consequence of a progressive improvement in the state of agriculture, as well as of trade and manufactures in some of their most important branches, afforded the means of subsistence and employment to numbers of those who had been taught to ascribe all the privations to which they were unfortunately At There was reason to fear, however, that this prosperity was not built on a stable foundation, and that in part, at least, it arose out of unhealthy speculation. The average of wheat, which at the end of September, 1817, had fallen from 111s. 6d. in June, to 74s. 4d., by the close of the year had risen again to 85s. 4d. There was a great deal of speculation going on, not only in corn, but also in silk, wool, cotton, and other articles of foreign and colonial produce, and the imports had in consequence very largely increased. A state of prosperity,' says Mr. Tooke, 'it doubtless was as long as it lasted to those who were gain ing or appeared to be gaining by the rising | the discontented there had a correspondence markets; but to the bulk of the population with others in different quarters, he had these rising markets were the occasion of completely failed. He could not prove privation and suffering.' In the meantime, however, the increase in the price of labour and the diminution in the price of food removed one main cause of discontent among the working classes, and reconciled them somewhat to their situation. There was no reference in the speech to the suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act, or to the extraordinary powers intrusted to the Government. As soon as it was read, and before the address in answer could be moved, Lord Holland threatened to introduce a bill for the repeal of the Suspension Act, but was informed by the premier that a bill for that purpose would be brought in on the following day. The standing orders were immediately repealed, in order that the measure might pass without delay. It was read three times on the 28th, and next day it was brought down to the Commons, and there read three times and passed. 'Ministers,' says Romilly, 'were desirous that there should be no discussion on it, and in that wish the Opposition, in my opinion, not very wisely acquiesced. I took occasion, however,' he adds, 'to observe upon the conduct of Government, which had postponed the meeting of Parliament to so late a period, that it had been impossible to repeal the Act till after the time when the ministers themselves admitted that it had ceased to be necessary.' He declared his conviction that the suspension was a most unnecessary and mischievous measure, and his apprehension that it would be a most dangerous precedent.' The Opposition, though they allowed the repeal of the obnoxious Act to pass without discussion, raised a debate on the address, in which they affirmed that the recent trials had furnished no evidence of the existence of any such treasonable conspiracy as the ministers had assumed. The Marquis of Lansdowne said, 'In the trials at Derby, where it was the business and the particular object of the Attorney-General to prove that that in any part of the country there had been the slightest connection with these conspirators. This terrible conspiracy, too, was suppressed without the slightest difficulty by eighteen dragoons!' No doubt the Derby insurgents had been justly convicted; but he went on to say, 'it was not the suspension of the Habeas Corpus that put down the insurrection or the conspiracy, whichever it might be called; it had been extinguished by the due administration of the law-by apprehending and bringing the persons accused to trial; and the same law could have been applied with equal efficiency though the Habeas Corpus had remained in force.' He affirmed that the riot was not of a political character; it had not sprung from hostility to the institutions of the country, but from 'partial discontent, with which the great body of the population of the place where it broke out were untainted. Even in the very villages through which the insurgents passed the people ran away from them, and in no part of the country was there any trace to be found of the existence of a conspiracy to alter the king's government.' In the House of Commons Sir Samuel Romilly, who was conspicuous for his candour and moderation, maintained that the Derby insurgents, though they had committed a capital crime, were not guilty of treason. 'Brandreth,' he said, 'had committed a murder, and those who aided and abetted it were in law equally guilty. But in his conscience he believed from the information he had received that the whole of that insurrection was the work of the persons sent by the Government-not indeed for the specific purpose of fomenting disaffection, but as emissaries of sedition. from clubs that had never existed. It had been declared that the prosecutions had been discontinued because everything was tranquil, and the ministers were willing to show their clemency. But if there had been any truth in the statements of the | which that act had conferred upon them. atrocious crimes which these men medi- In the beginning of February, certain tated, were they persons to whom clemency papers relating to the state of the country, ought to be shown? Were men conspiring sealed up in green bags, were, by the comto burn factories, to attack barracks, and mand of the Prince Regent, presented to create a revolution, to be discharged without both Houses of Parliament, and were again a trial and without punishment? But though referred to secret committees. Before the the country was so tranquil that it was end of the month, both committees reported deemed unnecessary to resort to the ordi- upon the documents submitted to them. nary modes of legal trial and the alleged As the members of both had been apoffenders were discharged, yet the persons pointed by the Government, and most of against whom there had never been supposed them had constituted the committees of to be evidence sufficient to put them upon the previous session, they of course contheir trials, those who had been arrested curred with the ministers in the view under the suspension of the Habeas Corpus, which they gave of public affairs, and in were kept in prison; so that those against their approbation of the steps which had whom the strongest case was made out were been taken for the suppression of the disturdischarged, those against whom the case was bances. Indeed, the Peers by a majority weakest were kept in confinement.' After refused to refer to the committees any of commenting on the proceedings in Scotland the numerous petitions from persons who and the Derby insurrection, Sir Samuel put complained that they had been aggrieved by strongly the fact that the ministers had the suspension of the Habeas Corpus. The previous information of Brandreth's designs, Lords affirmed that a general rising had yet they did not seize him. He was suffered been intended, and the day fixed on which to go on till he had effected all the mischief it was to take place; but the execution of in his power, and the only use proposed to the 'desperate designs' of the conspirators be made of the suspension of the Habeas had been thwarted by the vigilance of the Corpus was not made of it. With regard Government, the great activity and intelto the prosecution of Hone, if the pro- ligence of the magistrates, the ready assistsecutions were not vindictive, why were ance afforded under their orders by the they undertaken? The publications them- regular troops and yeomanry, the prompt selves were stopped before the Attorney- and efficient arrangements of the officers General attempted to suppress them; but intrusted with that service, the knowledge this injudicious attempt brought them again which had from time to time been obtained into public notice and gave them infinitely of the plans of the disaffected, and the congreater currency than they would have sequent arrest and confinement of the obtained in their original state, with a great agitators.' With reference to the Derbymass of concealed, forgotten, and unknown shire insurgents, it was stated that they parodies attached to them. The least were not formidable for their numbers; criminal of the parodies was the last pro- but they were actuated by an atrocious secuted, and the prosecution was persevered spirit, and the language used by many of in after a double failure, because the them, and particularly by their leaders, left Attorney-General thought it would have no reason to doubt that their object was manifested weakness in himself to have the overthrow of the established governrelinquished it.' ment and laws, extravagant as these objects were when compared with the inadequate means which they possessed.' It was admitted that 'in the villages through which they passed a strong indisposition was As soon as the repeal of the Suspension Act had taken place, the ministers took steps to justify their conduct in the mode of employing the extraordinary powers manifested towards their cause and pro- | that a small number of active and infatujects,' and the insurrection was characterized as 'of small importance in itself.' 'Not only in the country in general,' it was added, 'but in those districts where the designs of the disaffected were most actively and unremittingly pursued, the great body of the people have remained untainted even during the periods of the greatest internal difficulty and distress.' ated individuals have been unremittingly engaged in arranging plans of insurrection, in endeavouring to foment disturbances that might lead to it, and in procuring the means of active operations, with the ultimate view of subverting all the existing institutions of the country, and substituting some form of revolutionary government in their stead.' It was admitted, however, that they had made few proselytes, and that none of these belonged to the higher classes of society. Like the Lords, the committee of judicious manner in which the Ministry had executed the extraordinary powers intrusted to them, but expressed it as their opinion that the vigilance of the police and the watchful care of the Government would probably be sufficient, under present circumstances, to prevent any serious disturbance of the public peace. The report then proceeded to notice the arrests that had taken place during the supension of the Habeas Corpus Act. It was deemed unnecessary to say anything the Commons applauded the temperate and respecting those persons against whom bills of indictment had been found by grand juries, and of those who had been brought to trial or had fled from justice. But warrants had been issued by the Secretary of State against ten persons who had not been taken, and against forty-four others who had not been brought to trial. Of these seven had been discharged on examination. Against thirty-seven warrants of detention had been issued on suspicion of treason. One had been released after being finally committed; another had been discharged on account of illness; a third had died in prison. It appeared to the committee that 'all these arrests and detentions were fully justified by the circumstances under which they had taken place.' 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 these expectations have from time to time been unavoidably relinquished.' In conclusion, the report declared that it had appeared to the committee that the Government, in the execution of the powers vested in them, had acted with due discretion and moderation. The report of the Commons went over the same ground, and referred in similar terms to the Derbyshire insurrection and to the movements near Nottingham and in Yorkshire. In adverting,' they said, to the state of the metropolis during the same period, they have observed with concern These reports of the secret committees of the two Houses were intended to pave the way for measures to protect the Government and the magistrates from proceedings that might be taken against them, for the illegal acts they had committed in suppressing the recent disturbances. Accordingly, on the 25th of February, a bill was introduced into the Upper House by the Duke of Montrose, entitled a Bill for indemnifying 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.' The bill was resisted at every stage by the Opposition in both Houses, who argued that, if the Ministry had been guilty of illegal and oppressive practices for which they needed to be indemnified, then the reports of the secret committees, which asserted that they had acted with moderation, must be untrue. If, on the other hand, they had so acted, and had kept within their powers, they did not require an indemnity. The defence of the measure in the Upper House mainly from rupture, termed him the revered and ruptured Ogden.' This expression, which was an offence equally against good taste and good feeling, raised a great clamour, and was long kept up against the brilliant but not always prudent orator. The most powerful speeches made against the bill were those of Mr. Lambton (afterwards Earl of Durham), Sir Samuel Romilly, and Mr. Brougham. Romilly denounced it as a most objectionable and dangerous measure. It was improperly called a Bill of Indemnity, he said; 'the object of indemnity was only to protect individuals from public prosecutions, without interfering with the rights of private men; but the object of this bill was to annihilate such rights. Its true description was a bill to take away all legal remedies 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 payment of double costs.' devolved upon the Premier and the Lord | age), who had been imprisoned while suffering Chancellor, who found it no easy matter to hold their ground against the powerful attacks of the Marquis of Lansdowne, the Earls of Lauderdale and Rosslyn, and Lords Erskine, Holland, and King. But all the amendments proposed by the latter were rejected by large majorities. The second reading of the bill was carried on the 27th of February by 100 votes to 33, and the third reading, on the 5th of March, by a majority of 93 to 27. A strong protest was entered on the Journals of the House, signed by five peers, embodying a summary of the arguments against the bill which had been employed in the debate. It was urged that it was now evident that there had been no such wide-spread treasonable conspiracy as had been alleged, and not even any extensive disaffection to the Government; that a vigorous exercise of the ordinary laws of the country would have been quite sufficient to repress disturbances and restore tranquillity; that the Suspension Act merely authorized the detention of persons accused, and was not intended to indemnify ministers for arrests made on mere suspicion, and for the numerous cases in which suspected individuals, against whom no evidence was ever produced, were subjected to long and severe imprisonments; that the bill protected unwarrantable and malicious, as well as justifiable proceedings, and that it sanctioned not the occasional resort in cases of necessity to secret means of obtaining evidence, but the systematic encouragement given to spies and informers. In the Commons an equally strenuous opposition was offered to the Indemnity Bill, but with the same result. The first reading of the bill was carried on the 9th of March by a majority of 190 to 64; the second reading on the 16th by 89 to 24; and the third reading on the 13th by 82 to 23. The debates on the measure were both keen and protracted, and it was during the discussion on the motion for going into committee that Canning referring to one of the persons (a man of seventy-four years of Sir Samuel went on to argue that ministers required no indemnity for the exercise of powers granted by Parliament, and that if they were now to be indemnified it must be for conduct which the Suspension Act did not authorize, not for detaining men in custody under that law, but for committing them to prison against all law. 'With regard to another object of the bill, the indemnifying of the magistrates for illegal acts of power committed by them, it was most dangerous by such a bill to inform magistrates that whenever the Habeas Corpus was suspended they might exercise what acts of authority they thought would be most agreeable to ministers, and that everything would be covered by an indemnity. The petitions on the table furnished evidence how grossly the law might be violated where there seemed some invitation to it by ministers.' After a scathing exposure of the practices of Castles, Oliver, and other spies employed by ministers, Sir Samuel concluded with the following |