HL Deb 18 February 1805 vol 3 cc541-2
Lord King

called to the recollection of their lordships what had fallen from him on a former evening, relative to the suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act in Ireland, and the great discretionary power vested in the crown in consequence. It being in agitation to renew the measure, as one of very questionable importance, he thought that adequate reasons should be assigned for it. With that view, he called for the information which was stated in his motion on a former night. He expressed his hope that the noble secretary of state had, upon further consideration, altered his opinion upon the point, and would agree to the production of the information required. His lordship then proposed his motion, similar lo that offered on a former night; the leading point was, "that an account of the conditions on which such persons as were liberated from confinement under the suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act, were discharged, be laid before the house."

Lord Hawkesbury

replied, that the more he had considered the point, the more confirmed he was in his objections to such a proceeding. The noble secretary then repeated his observations on the former occasion, as to the dangerous tendency, in various points of view, of making the disclosure required; this, he thought, so obviously the case, that he did not wish to take up their lordships' time in further descanting upon the subject.

Lord Grenville

could not see any objection to that part of the motion; he thought the condition upon which these persons were discharged was a piece of information which it was necessary, should be laid before parliament, in order that they might see how the powers given by former suspension acts had been used, particularly when they should probably be shortly called upon to renew that suspension. He could not conceive that any mischief could arise from the disclosure of secret information mentioned by the noble secretary of state, as the conditions of their discharge must be known to the persons liberated, and if this part of the motion was refused it would follow that information was granted to those persons who had probably been arrested upon suspicion of treason, which was denied to parliament.

The Marquis of Sligo

declared his entire opposition to that part of the motion, as local circumstances rendered it highly inexpedient that such information should be disclosed.—After a few words from Lord King, that part of his lordship's motion in question was withdrawn.—Adjourned to Monday.