Lords Sitting of 13 February 1805

MINUTES.
The farther consideration of the appeal cause, Lucina v. Craufurd, being resumed, several points arising out of the case were, on the proposition of the Lord Chancellor, ordered to be referred to the consideration of the judges, who attended for the purpose.—The Earl of Enniskillen, one of the Irish representative peers, and the Earl of Kellie, one of the sixteen Scots peers, were sworn and took their seats.—Counsel were heard in continuation, on the Irish appeal cause, Fairfield v. Morgan, viz. Mr. Parke, on the part of the respondent; after which, the farther consideration of the case was deferred till Friday.—The exchequer bills bill, the assessed tax commissioners, and the annual indemnity bills, were read a second time, and severally committed for to-morrow.—Mr. Williams, secretary to the commissioners of naval enquiry, presented the tenth report of the said commissioners, which being laid upon the table, was on the motion of the Duke of Clarence, ordered to be printed. After a few words from his R. H. relative to the printing of the last report of the commissioners, the royal duke observed, that, as the tenth report contained matter of great moment and importance, he should particularly attend to the circumstance of its printing.—Earl Camden presented a paper relative to the British forces in foreign stations.—The Duke of Clarence moved, for an account of the number of men wanting on the first of Jan. 1805, to complete the full complement of the royal regiment of artillery, the gunners, drivers. &c. Earl Camden objected, that the illustrious person who had just spoken, had stated no parliamentary ground for the production of the papers moved for. The Duke of Clarence said, he should not press the motion, but his object was to obtain information as to the total deficit in the army, which was a subject, he was afraid he should have frequently to exercise their lordship's patience upon in the course of the session.—His R. H.'s motion was then negatived.

IRISH HABEAS CORPUS SUSPENSION BILL.
Lord Kingsaid he should have to call their ldps'. attention to a point of considerable importance: it would refer principally to the exercise of the discretionary powers vested in the crown, by the suspension of
470
the habeas corpus bill in Ireland. In that view he moved an address to his majesty, praying that there may be laid before the house;—1st, an account of the number, names, &c. of persons confined under the act for suspending the habeas corpus in Ireland;—2dly, an account, &c. of the persons from time to time discharged from such confinement;—and 3dly, an account of the conditions upon which such persons were discharged.
Lord Hakesburyobserved, that, with respect to the first and second heads under which the noble lord's motion was classed, he had no objection to producing the statements required; but, with regard to the last head, he thought the case was very different, and that a sense of duty impelled him to object to it. The act in question vested a discretionary power to apprehend and detain, without bringing to trial, persons, who, there was reason to suspect, were guilty of traitorous practices; and a disclosure of the conditions upon which any of those persons might be discharged, under the circumstances of the time, was so obviously objectionable, upon considerations of prudence and policy, that he deemed it unnecessary to take up the time of their ldps. in demonstrating it. At the same time, he was not prepared to say, nor did he mean to state, whether or not there were any persons in the predicament assumed by that part of the noble lord's motion; but, to contend, that, if there were, it would be impolitic and imprudent in the extreme, to agree to that part of the motion, which, if pressed, he felt his duty to resist.
Lord Kingreplied, that, in consequence of what had just fallen from the noble sec. of state, he should, for the present, wave that part of the motion. However, he begged the noble lord to consider farther of the point, between that, and some future day, whether it was right to persist in refusing to lay such information before parliament? In his own mind, it was highly proper; and it was his intention, therefore, to bring forward a motion to the like effect on u, future opportunity.—The question was put on the first and second motions, and they were ordered accordingly.—Adjourned.