§ Sir Evan Nepeanmoved the order of the day for the 3d reading of the Irish Habeas Corpus Suspension bill.
§ Mr. R. Martin (of Galway)rose and stated, that it was his intention to propose an amendment. Understanding that the principal ground for passing the bill, without instituting a previous inquiry, was the notoriety that a treasonable disposition existed in certain parts of Ireland, he trusted that he should have the support of those who maintained that such notoriety existed, in the amendment he should propose. To be consistent with themselves they could not withhold their assent to his proposition, which would go directly to the asserting of what they had invariably stated as the true grounds for the suspension.
§ The Speakerinterrupted the hon. gent. and stated, that the practice of the house was first to read the bill, previous to offering any amendment.
§ Lord Henry Pettysaid, he did not vise to occupy the attention of the house any farther, than by adverting to a precedent for a similar proceeding, quoted by an hon. and learned gent. (Mr. Ward) on a former evening, when he said, that the Habeas Corpus Act had been suspended in 1722, without any inquiry respecting the existence of any necessity for it having been instituted by parliament. Having since had time to examine into the grounds of that assertion, he thought it right to shew, though he did not see the hon. and learned gent, then in his place, that the two cases bore no analogy whatever to each other. At that time at least two-thirds of the king's speech were employed in pointing out the necessity there was for the house adopting such a measure. Even then, after considerable discussion upon the subject, there was,-he believed, the largest minority against it that was ever known in that house. And it was not finally agreed to, until sir R. Walpole, then one of his majesty's principal confidential ministers, had pledged himself that be would shortly lay such facts before parliament as would most fully justify him in having proposed such a measure. The disclosure of these facts, which took place 561 place in 2 or 3 months afterwards, certainly did bear him out in. the assertion which he had made. But now, where can the analogy be found? There is not a single word upon the subject in the speech from the throne. Can the hon. and learned gent. opposite declare, that he finds the analogy in what now exists in Ireland, or in what is likely to exist? If he does, that is an Argument for the inquiry, and not against it, as the house would then know upon what grounds they acceded to this extraordinary proposition, at a time when the necessity of the case is so far from being notorious, that every one of those gentlemen most intimately connected with that part of the kingdom, have declared, that, as far as their own knowledge could extend, the country was1 completely tranquil, and was as well disposed towards his majesty's govt. as any county in England. Until some inquiry was made, or until some pledge was given that a statement, similar to that which sir Robert Walpole had promised, and afterwards made to the house, should be given in the present instance, he could not, consistently with his duty, in the face of such a precedent, agree to the passing of this bill.—After the bill had been read a third time,
§ Mr. R. Martinstated, that it was his intention to embody in the bill the reasons which had been given for passing it. The measure would not be operative in. its effects, unless it were general, and applicable to every part of the united kingdom. As the law stood now, and as it would stand under this bill, persons may come from Ireland to this country, and carry on their machinations with safety against the constitution of that part of the union, To counteract this, he submitted to his majesty's govt. whether it would not be advisable to extend the salutary operation of the bill before them, to Great Britain as well as Ireland. How could the two countries be said to be identified, if martial law was to be established, and the Habeas Corpus Act suspended in one and not in the other? If it was not necessary that the two countries should be identified, he could, conceive no measure so well calculated to give it proof, as the bill-before them. For the purpose of making out sortie sort of justification of the measure, and of affording some supporters of the bill a plausible ground for the vote they, should give, he would propose, that, the preamble of the bill should commence 562 with these words: "whereas it is notorious that traitorous conspiracies are carried on between wicked and disaffected persons in Ireland, and persons resident in France." —The amendment was put and negatived without a division; the bill was read a third time, passed, and ordered to be sent to the lords.