Lords Sitting of 21 February 1805

MINUTES.
The bills upon the table were forwarded in their several stages. Among these, the Greenland whale fishery and the loyalty loan bills, went through committees of the whole house, and were severally reported.—Mr. Alcock, from the commissioners of the Thames navigation, presented a statement of the receipts and disbursements of that corporation, during the year 1804 — It was ordered, on the motion of the bishop of Oxford, that the thanks of the house be given to the lord bishop of Rochester, for the excellent sermon preached by his lordship before the house yesterday, in the collegiate, church of Westminster.

CONDUCT OF JUDGE FOX.
The Duke of Clwrenceaddressed their lordships on the subject of the state of their proceedings with respect to the charges against the above judicial character. It was one, viewing the case in its different points of view, of such importance as he felt him-self called upon to deliver his sentiments upon it. The first consideration that presented itself, his royal highness observed, was, that their lordskips, the highest tribunal in the world, were about to exercise the functions in the case before them, to set a precedent for the conduct of future ages. God forbid! therefore, that any party views or considerations should enter into its investigation. Of the individual in
572
question he had no knowledge whatever. The first he had heard of him, was by the first notification of the proceedings in question to their lordship's house. They were, he conceived, then to determine what ought to be the form and course of the proceedings relative to the case of Mr. justice Fox. Their lordships were all aware of the important change made in the situation of the judges of England and Ireland, by the act of the 1st of his present majesty, and this was the first instance of the kind, which had come before them since that period; this consideration increased the importance of the proceedings before them, and to which were to be added, the high public situations in which the judges stood, who were moreover the representatives of the sovereign. Two different modes of proceeding presented themselves to their lordships' consideration: the first by suffering the matter to originate in the house of commons, where it could be proceeded with, either by mode of address to i the crown for the removal of the party, or by impeaching him before the high court of parliament; or their lordships could proceed with the matter as it stood before them. The same mode of proceeding, he thought, from the best consideration he was able to give it, to be decidedly preferable. In either of the modes by which the commons could proceed on such an occasion, their lordships would have an ulterior opportunity of deliberating upon the merits of the case, and deciding accordingly. This, he thought, would also be the most regular and expeditious way, although he thought, in such a case, all individual considerations ought to be out of the question. The disadvantages of the line of proceeding, as already chalked out, were too obvious to be dwelt on. But one consideration, in particular, struck him so forcibly that he could not forbear urging it. Supposing their lordships, on their investigation of the case, should deem Mr. justice Fox innocent of the alledged charges, and that the commons, afterwards, recourse being had to them, a very possible case, should vote an impeachment, which of course would come before their lordships far determination, what sort of answer could they make? The case ought to be considered and proceeded on with the utmost coolness and deliberation. What he thought the most advisable, as the case stood, was to propose to their lordships to suspend all proceeding in their house

573
for a given time, in order to afford the commons an opportunity of taking it up and, under the conviction that this was the preferable mode of proceeding, he moved, that the present order, relative to the committee of their lordships taking into consideration the matters alleged against Mr. justice Fox, be discharged, in order that the sitting of the committee be postponed for six weeks.—The question, agreeably to the regular course of proceeding, being put upon the first part of his royal highness's proposition, namely, that of discharging the present order,
The Earl of Limerickobserved, that on the present occasion, of the great importance of which he was fully aware, he felt no sort of bias whatever in his mind: for his own part, he had no knowledge of the learned person against whom the complaint was made, or of the causes of complaint against him. He therefore came to the consideration of the question before their lordships, with a mind perfectly free and unbiassed. With respect to the proposition of the royal duke, though he felt regret at being obliged to differ on any point, from that illustrious personage, it was one which, on his own view of the case, lie entirely disapproved of. Though he was divested of ail personal consideration with regard to Mr. justice Fox, yet he could not discharge from his mind all considerations of his case, as an individual, labouring as he must, after what had passed in their lordships' house, under a certain degree of imputation, which a reference to his public character certainly enhanced. He must deem any proposition, tending to delay, or to retain him in his present very disadvantageous situation, as rather hard. That the learned judge was placed in such a situation as he alluded to must be obvious, when it was considered that a noble member of that house, of high character, distinguished abilities, and commanding eloquence, had come forward as he had done, and whom everyone must think would not have so come forward, unless he felt himself imperiously called upon by a sense of his public duty. That noble person had, in an address to their lordships, equal in point of eloquence and animation to any ever delivered in that house, twice come forward with Specific charges' against the learned judge, and in consequence, it must be supposed that a degree of doubt at best must attach to the character of the learned person, until such charges were disposed of. This situation must be ren-
574
dered the more painful and disadvantageous, when his judicial character was referred to. Under what a disadvantage must not a judge, so circumstanced, go the circuits, or dispense the law from the seat of judgment? Presiding in the circuits was a consideration very different with the judges of Ireland from what it was with the judges of South Britain. Since the recent additions ware made to the salaries of the judges in Ireland, a great deal of such increase was made to depend upon their going the circuits; this was probably done to ensure their, attendance upon that very important part of their duty. He deprecated whatever might tend to delay their lordships decision upon the case before them; the situation of an individual so circumstanced was to be considered—the length of time it would be necessary to retain counsel, or keep witnesses in town. A further delay of any time would have the effect of sending the learned person back as, for so it must be considered, a disgraced man. Possibly, in the first instance, it might be better the proceedings had originated in the other house. But, with respect to the right, it incontestibly vested in either house. Not a word in the relevant acts of parliament could be construed as vesting the initiative in the house of commons. He thought that, as the case stood, it would in every point of view be preferable to let the matter proceed as it had begun in their lordships house, who, in considering the matter, would of course be guided by no considerations, save those duties, which the nature and importance of the case imposed upon them.
The Earl of Carlisleexpressed his difference in opinion, in certain points of the case, from the noble earl who had just sat down. Though he was certain their objects, namely those of public and individual justice, were exactly the same thing. To adopt the proposition recommended by the illustrious personage would, even in point of expedition, be preferable. The suspension of the proceedings in that house, for six weeks, would, on the other hand, involve no surrender or abandonment of any of the essential rights or privileges of that house. But it would certainly produce a most essential benefit. The intended mode of proceeding would, on the other band, involve the greatest difficulties, one of which was, the probability of their having to appear in a double capacity; first, in that of

575
a grand jury, and afterwards by a metamorphosis, not very congenial to the principles of the constitution, in the characters of judges, in the ultimate result, upon the case. In. that event, it could not be said, after investigating the case previously, they could come to judgment with minds perfectly unbiassed. Upon the whole, he deemed it preferable to suspend the proceedings for a given time, and take the chance of the other house proceeding in the business; as they were, every step they should take would involve them in fresh difficulties.
The Earl of Westmorelandobserved, that viewing the question as he did, the real merits of which lay in a narrow compass, lie should give his negative to the propositoin of the illustrious personage. He deprecated every thing that tended to delay. Their lordships would recollect, that the case stood over since the last session, and that the parties on both sides had been summoned. His lordship adverted to the provisions of the acts by which the judges were placed in their present situations, and conceived the case to be such on the part of the house, as it would have been before these acts passed, with his majesty's confidential advisers, with respect to a question for the removal of one of the judges. That the proposition could be more expeditiously, as well as more regularly or constitutionally acted upon, by their lordships, he had no doubt. The advantages which their lordships possessed in that respect, their power of administering oaths, and recurring to legal assistance in particular, were many and obvious. The idea so much dwelt upon, of the possibility of a subsequent impeachment by the commons, he considered as no objection at all; the proceedings would go upon different matters of charge, and their lordships could therefore be no way pledged by any prior act of theirs. The case before the house would, be conceived, only lead to a question of renewal; the consideration of subsequent proceeding and impeachment would hot tend to embarrass their situation, and as to the particular case under consideration, he never heard of one that more loudly called for an immediate proceeding upon it. He conceived, circumstanced as the house was, referring to what had already taken place, the situation of the individual, and the steps which had been taken, they could hardly have an option upon the case; and
576
their lordships would do well, on the present occasion, to bear in mind the maxim in the great charter, which prescribed, that justice should be administered with as little delay as possible.
Lord Aucklandobserved, that were it possible to tread back the steps they had taken in the business, it would be preferable the matter should originate in the other house of parliament. But their lordships were not now in such a predicament, and they should bear in mind how the case stood; the matter was before them 7 or 8 months, and a committee appointed to investigate its merits to a certain, extent: this, though in the nature of an ex parte examination, would be proceeded in with all possible deliberation. As they were so far embarked, he saw not how they could well get over it but by proceeding. Should they, in the course of the investigation, find grounds for proposing an address, that should be followed up without any unnecessary delay, but discussed with all the attention the importance of the case required, and to the consideration of which their lordships would come with minds perfectly free from prejudice.
Lord Mulgravedisapproved of any departure from the line of proceeding already resolved upon, and every objection, made to an immediate proceeding on the part of that house, was, in his mind, equally applicable to the other house of parliament. It was no argument against any species of proceeding in that house, to say that the commons possibly may not concur. Such a principle should never be laid down. He saw no advantage which could possibly result from a recurrence to the house of commons, in the present state of the business; the judicial character was one of the greatest importance, and whatever affected it should be seriously considered. And, in every view of the case, he thought it preferable to continue the present line of proceeding, but chiefly in those of regularity and expedition. A speedy decision, in such a case, was of incalculable importance, and as such he must oppose the motion.
Lord Carletonobserved, that the learned judge in question was desirous of having the charges against him thoroughly considered, and anxious to confront the witnesses that should be brought forward. The consideration of his integrity, his fame, his high office, combined to render him anxious for an opportunity to come forward in his vin-

577
dication. He meant not then to say how far those charges were founded or not, against the learned judge, but he thought he was justified in assuming that some of them were not well founded, because they were withdrawn. In adverting, generally, to the case, there were some peculiar circumstances relative to the powers of the judges in Ireland, which, m some points, were very different from those of the English judges; and some of these immediately bore upon the object under consideration. The noble and learned viscount referred to the different acts by which the present situation of the judges was constituted; but, he stated, it was not until the year 1772, that the Irish judges were placed upon the same footing as those of England. With respect to the point immediately under consideration, the mode and course of proceeding in such a case, the acts were silent upon it; but the question avowedly was not of the powers of either house; it was a case of discretion with their lordships. With respect to the probability of the matter being taken up in the other house; that there were petitions presented long since, they knew, but nothing farther; and so far as they were aware, or could argue from appearances, the commons did not mean to proceed. Adverting again to the situation in which the character of the individual stood pending the discussions, he thought it would be preferable, that their lordships should proceed in the course already resolved upon.
The Marquis of Abercornstated, that his only object in coming forward, was the ends of justice, and to settle the case between the learned judge and the petitioners, on the part of an injured public. As to the form or mode of effecting that, he had no wish to express; and, though his opinion, from what he had heard upon the point, was decided, he had no wish to express that opinion. The discussion of the important subject under consideration had been, on all sides, treated with due gravity and decorum; there was, however, one exception. A learned lord, who formerly filled a very serious and grave situation, had, he thought, in some measure, departed from the proper mode of treating the subject. There were even appearances of a bias in his mind, and he regarded him as insinuating that he thought some of the charges were ill-founded, as he said he had abandoned them. With respect to the charges, his wish was, not to bring for-
578
ward any but what were of sufficient weight and importance. The reasons which induced him not to bring forward, the second time, those charges which were omitted, was specifically stated by him at the time; and these were, on the present occasion, referred to by the noble marquis.
Lord Carletonspoke in explanation. He would leave it to the noble marquis himself, how far he had, in his expressions, departed from that degree of gravity and dignity which should always accompany discussions in that house. With respect to the charges adverted to, he only said, he had a right to assume some of them were not well founded, because they were withdrawn. He by no means alluded to the noble marquis, as having proposed them, knowing them to be ill founded; did the noble marquis know him as well as some noble lords in that house, he would not have so expressed himself; he never had a personal altercation with any man; he never made the smallest personal allusion to the noble marquis in what he said, still less did he attribute to him any improper motives.
Earl Spencerspoke generally in support of the proposition. No individual Considerations, he thought, should weigh on such an occasion; their lordships should consider they were about to set a precedent on a case of the highest importance; a circumstance which should outweigh all minor considerations.
Lord Hawkesburyobserved, the more be considered the subject in question, the more he was confirmed in the justness of the objections he bad offered on a former night. By what fell from a noble lord opposite, he was misconceived in what he said on a former night; what he had said was, that when the commons had decided upon a vote of impeachment, he could not conceive any ground upon which they were not bound to agree to an address for removal in the first instance. With respect to what had been said that night on the ground of delay, proceedings of the kind involved a kind of trial in the house of commons as well as in that house; of this the case of Mr. Hastings, who was heard in his defence at the bar of that house, was an instance, as was also that of sir Elijah Impey, though the events were different. However, with all possible respect towards the house of commons, he thought, that, in the particular case before them, truth and justice were more likely to be obtained

579
by pursuing the investigation, as resolved open by their lordships, than by referring it to the commons. No material inconvenience could arise even in the event of the contingencies so often alluded to, and he trusted the investigation, either with reference to the private or public interests involved, would be proceeded on with as little delay as possible. He should, therefore, object to the motion.
Lord Grenvilledeclared, that a more extraordinary doctrine he had never heard laid down gravely in that house, than that one and the same individual should be tried twice for one and the same offence. There was no court of justice in his majesty's dominions, that would for a moment entertain the abominable proposition. The act, he believed in his conscience, was passed to prevent persons who were incapable of performing the duties of their office, or who might be immoral characters, from longer holding the situation of a judge. It was a sort of milder punishment than that of impeachment, which was derected to something criminal. When he heard a noble lord make the assertion, that it was most proper that the persons who commenced the investigation should go through with it and come to a decision on the case, he might suppose that the ordinary proceedings of our courts of justice were nearly at an end. He might expect to hear the noble lord come down to the house to-morrow, and move to ever turn the whole system of the justice of the country. The ordinary and established manner of proceeding, was for a grand jury to hear only one side of the question, and on that to find a bill; but then the same persons did not go on to the conviction of the party accused. It would be remembered that in the case of Warren Hastings, the other house, when the charges were alledged against him, gave him an opportunity of being heard at the bar in his defence, before a single article of impeachment was made out against him. They then brought him before this house, which, by virtue of its superior privilege, examined witnesses upon oath. In the case of sir Elijah Impey also, a defence was made at the bar of the other house, and in con-sequence of that defence the charges were set aside. The house of commons therefore were properly the grand jury, who undertook the first investigation of the charge, and either founded a proceeding on it, or rejected the accusation. This was, as it is by its
580
constitution, the court of justice, the province of which it was to examine the business more minutely, and to come to such a decision as the case might warrant. Notwithstanding, by the word of the act of parliament upon which this proceeding was grounded, the accusation had a right to be begun in either house, yet the idea of the same persons making the first enquiry, so as to sift out the nature of the crime, and afterwards pronouncing judgment upon the case, was so repugnant to every principle of British legislation, that he thought it best to leave the other house an opportunity of taking up the measure, if they should think fit. He was the more inclined to do so, as, if he was not misinformed, the delay which had already taken place in that house was occasioned by the petitions not having been renewed. The short delay which had been proposed would only give them an opportunity to renew the petitions, and then the business would come in its regular course before this house. He therefore supported most cordially the motion of the noble and illustrious duke.
Lord Sidmouthsaid, that in the natural division of the respective duties and privileges of the two houses of parliament, that which was judicial seemed to belong as peculiarly to the chamber of lords, as that which respected finance belonged to the chamber of commons. He by no means questioned the right of either house to originate subjects of every kind, but their lordships well knew that the chamber of commons did in fact claim and exercise the right of commencing questions of finance; and it could not be denied but that, the house of lords, by possessing the power of administering an oath, was peculiarly fitted for the discussion of judicial questions. He therefore thought this question properly began here; and he could see no just ground whatever for the delay of six weeks; at the end of that time they might be in the same situation as they were now. It was of the utmost importance that the matter should be deckled on forthwith. The noble lord who spoke last, seemed to resolve the power of the two houses as to inquiry into the conduct of judges, into the single case of supervening imbecility. Now, he thought, that this was a case more suited to ministerial arrangement, and of which the noble and learned lord on the woolsack would feel it his duty to take cognizance.
Lord Grenvillesaid, that he could scarcely

581
believe that the noble viscount had been in the house when he spoke, so totally had the noble viscount mistated what he had said. He had expressly enumerated three grounds upon which the two houses would feel it their duty under the act of King William to address his majesty; 1.crime in the execution of his duty; 2. criminal conduct not in the execution of his duty; and 3. supervening incapacity.—The question was again put, on which
their lordships divided, when there appeared for the motion of the duke of Clarence, 63. Against it, 36. Majority 27.

IRISH HABEAS CORPUS SUSPENSION BILL.
The order of the clay for the second reading of the Irish habeas corpus suspension bill was called for. Previous to its being read,
Lord Grenvilleadverted particularly to what had passed on a former night, in consequence of a motion of a noble friend of his (lord King) now absent, He contended, that the species of information required by his noble friend was of great importance to enable their lordships to understand the subject in question. It was right parliament should know upon what conditions those who were liberated from arrests were discharged; the production required was agreeable to the practice and usage on former occasions; he was at a loss to know upon what grounds that which transpired between govt. and those whom they deemed traitors or conspirators should be kept secret from parliament. However, the proposition originally made by his noble friend had been qualified, so as he thought would remove the objection then offered; and he should before the other order of the day was entered upon, move an address to his majesty, "that a statement of the conditions upon which persons liberated from arrests, &c. should be laid before the house, except so far as the same may relate to information given, or to be given, respecting any traitorous proceeding," &c.—On the question being put,
Lord Hawkesburyobserved, that what he said on a former night had been misconceived. He said that he knew of no such conditions, not being aware of any proceedings in the way of release to which they might apply; but his objection was to the principle of the motion in the manner it was brought forward; and he repeated his conviction, that under such circumstances, and at such a time, to agree to such, a motion, might be productive of
582
consequences the most dangerous; neither did he approve the motion as qualified by the noble lord; it would involve as admission of the fact, and its consequences in every other shape would be nearly the same. The specification required by the qualified proposition was, in effect, liable to the same objections, it would imply a degree of suspicion, as, with the other objectionable considerations, would amount to as pernicious a result as the original motion certainly would involve, and of which, he trusted, the common sense of their lordships would be sufficiently aware.
The Marquis of Sligosupported the observations of the noble secretary. The disclosures alluded to might be of a most destructive tendency. His lordship alluded to some cases, as a correspondence with the enemy, in which a disclosure would be not only impolitic, but dangerous; and he adverted to the case of Oliver Bond, the remission of whose punishment might, in. a certain point of view, be said to have saved Ireland. The state of Ireland was in general good; yet, he thought the suspension of the habeas corpus act in that country, with a reference to certain circumstances, a prudent and politic measure.
Lord Grenvillesaid, that no person connected with govt. had stated any possible mischief that could arise from his motion, and he certainly saw none.
The Lord Chancellorobserved, that he filled the office of attorney general when the habeas corpus act was first suspended, and, though fully convinced as he was of the beneficial tendency of that suspension, yet, if such a disclosure as that now requested had been made, he should have thought it his duty, as speedily after as possible, to have moved for the repeal of the suspension. It would be better tolet the present bill expire, than to agree to such a condition as that proposed. He agreed with his noble friend as to the effects of the qualification of the original motion, and with the noble lord who had come forward, from his experience of the transactions alluded to, that there could be no degree of safety, nor could the beneficial effects of the suspension be expected, if such a condition was attached to it.—The question was put, and the motion was negatived without a division.
Lord Hawkesburythen moved the second reading of the Irish habeas corpus suspension bill, which was accordingly read a second time. His lordship then, pursuant

583
to his notice of Tuesday night, moved the order of the day for the consideration of the standing orders, No. 26 and 155, with a view to the suspension of the same, as fax as related to the Irish habeas corpus suspension bill. Before the question on this motion was put, his lordship stated, that, under the special circumstances of the case, he should have to propose that the bill be forthwith committed. He trusted the house would immediately concur in the obvious expediency of such a proceeding, and perceive, from a glance at the preamble of the bill, that no delay in the progress of the measure should take place. As to the necessity for continuing the suspension, he presumed to think that little need be said. Though he could assure the house, that at no period was the north of Ireland more tranquil or more loyal than at present, yet he was sorry that he could not say the same of every part of that country. The reasons for the suspension were notorious. It was perfectly known that there were not merely committees of Irishmen in France, but corps embodied, and in the pay of the enemy; that they held correspondence with disaffected persons in Ireland. And therefore he thought that if grounds had subsisted for suspending this glorious act, no less than nine times, in the course of the last war, much greater subsisted now. He concluded with moving to discharge the standing order.
The Marquis of Sligotook notice of the expression, that the north of Ireland only was loyal. He believed that every part of the country was loyal; taken in the mass, it was in a most perfect State of tranquillity; though he was ready to own that emissaries might be at work to sow disaffection, and that this bill might be necessary and useful to keep them quiet.
Lord Hawkesburyexplained, that he by no means intended to say that the north of Ireland only was loyal, but that he could not say so much of the tranquillity of every part of Ireland, as of the north.
The Earl of Carlislesaid, that whatever reasons there might be for continuing the suspension of the habeas corpus in Ireland, there could be none for treating parliament in this summary way. Acts of parliament were not subject to apoplexy. Their dissolution was necessarily foreseen, and it became the duty of ministers to explain to that house, what had prevented their introduction of this bill in time for it to undergo its regular investigation. It seemed necessary to create a new patent
584
office, to apprise ministers of the approaching death of their own acts. He was an enemy to this unexplained mode of depriving the subject of his most invaluable privilege, and trusted they would be told why all this unprecedented, speed was necessary.
Lord Hawkesburyassured the noble earl, that no peer could pay more sacred regard to the liberties of the people than himself. But in this instance there was no time to go through the usual forms, since the present act expired on Tuesday next, and there required time to forward the act, after it had received the royal assent, to that kingdom.
Earl Spencersaid, the question was not whether the act should be again suspended, but whether it should be suspended without inquiry? Parliament had now sat since the 15th of January. Why not, if the reasons for this bill were notorious, introduce it sooner, to give it the sanction of deliberate inquiry? As to the notoriety of the grounds for the suspension, he, for one, knew nothing of it, and was denied all means of know-ledge. A noble marquis who was well acquainted with the country, had said that it was in a state of tranquillity. Why, then, all this haste? Even departing from all the rules of the house, it was very doubtful, if even possible, that the act could arrive in Ireland in time; for it could not receive the royal assent before Saturday. It had been urged in support of the motion that the habeas corpus act had been suspended nine times in the course of the last war. He did not, however, recollect any instance, without-a particular case made out, or a previous enquiry. It was only said, that Irish traitors in France were corresponding with disaffected persons in Ireland. If that were sufficient, then, as long as there was a disaffected man in Ireland, and an Irish traitor in France, the French, govt. might make a case whenever it pleased to deprive us of the best security of our liberties.
The Earl of Longfordlamented, the system of desolation that had prevailed in Ireland for ten years past. You, have heard of it, said his lordship, but we have felt it. You would give much to avoid the experience of such calamities. We would give much more to prevent their repetition. The people of Ireland look with confidence to a firm and vigorous govt. and they are ready to make sacrifices to deserve it. If it be a matter, of notoriety that a correspondence is now carrying on

585
between traitors in France and disaffected persons in Ireland, I cannot conceive a stronger ground for the suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act.
The Duke of Montrosewas confident, that if the Habeas Corpus Act bad been suspended in Ireland, in 1803, the insurrection in Dublin would not have taken place.
The Earl of Enniskillenurged, upon the experience of fourteen months residence in Ireland, the necessity of arming the executive govt. with strong powers.
The Duke of Clarencesaid, that the question was not whether the bill was necessary, but, whether they should pass it without enquiry. The noble secretary spoke of his veneration for the habeas corpus, and yet in his actions sported with it in the most wanton manner. What had ministers been doing for the six weeks that parliament had sat, not to bring in this most important bill in time to allow the house to discharge their duty to the country?
The Earl of Limerickalluded to the experience of 10 years past, the arrival of the French in Bantry Bay, and the rebellion in 1803, and contended, that if the bill were not passed, there would be French emissaries in every part of Ireland.
Earl Darnleywas averse to granting such a power to any set of ministers, and least of all to the present; for it was known that they were totally divided among themselves as to the treatment of Was there any such notoriety? If there the Irish people. One set of them had gone out of office expressly because they could not obtain for the Irish what they thought they deserved, and what would keep them loyal. The other had come in on the express condition of withholding from the Irish this boon. Could he consent to give to such men this tremendous act without inquiry?
Lord Aucklanddeclared his conviction of the necessity of the bill, and at the same time could not figure any objection as to the propriety of discharging the two standing orders of the house, which, instead of being an infringement, was in itself a recognition of their privileges remaining in full force.
Lord Grenvillewas of opinion, that the node of proceeding with respect to this bill was directly in the teeth of the established farms of the house. It was a rule which ought always to fee most rigidly adhered to, never to suspend the Habeas Corpus Act except in cases of the last extremity. Now, he would ask, was there
586
an insurrection in Dublin? Was the danger so very imminent that no inquiry could be entered upon in consistency with a proper regard to the salvation of the country? Was a rebellion actually raging in Ireland? If there was nothing of this sort, then it was pregnant with the most pernicious consequences to the constitution, to agree to this measure without an enquiry. Inquiry would compromise the lives of no witnesses; it might be conducted with the greatest caution. No danger could be apprehended from it to the country. It would destroy no sources of intelligence, and upon no possible supposition could it reasonably be considered as calculated to produce any harm, la the course of last war no less than seven or eight enquiries had been instituted, and not one of them was attended with any pernicious consequences. It was true that this was not a new measure, it had been passed on the spur of the occasion, when a formidable insurrection was said to prevail in Dublin. No inquiry had been appointed at that time, nor, indeed, was there time for any in the light in which the danger then appeared. But as there was no inquiry at the original passing of this measure, so much the more occasion was there for an enquiry at this time. The ministers rested their arguments for this bill upon the notoriety of the case. Was such an insurrection in Ireland, why was not this fairly stated? If the disaffection was such as to render this measure necessary, why was an inquiry refused? So far was the disaffection in Ireland from being notorious, that no allusion was made to it in the King's message. On, the contrary, the constant assertion had been, that it was in a state of tranquillity. It was now said to be notorious for disaffection. For this, however, there was, nothing but the assertion of ministers. These were not grounds for the house to act upon. Parliamentary evidence of the necessity of the measure was requisite, before any consent could be constitutionally given, unless in a case of ultimate necessity. No such case existed in the present instance, or indeed was even attempted to be stated. He begged however, that their lordships would not misunderstand him. Whether or not insurrection or even Strong disaffection existed in Ireland he knew not. God knows, said his lordship, that as a private individual, I am much in

587
the dark en this subject, and certainly, as a member of parliament, I am completely ignorant respecting it. Many respectable lords who are members of this house, and who have, come from Ireland, have told us that there is a necessity for this measure. With me certainly their testimony is not without its proper weight. In deference to what they say, I am willing to admit that there may be a strong probability that the measure may be necessary. But as a member of parliament, I know nothing of the matter, and therefore it, is, that an inquiry appeals to me of so much importance. In what situation then am I placed? I cannot say that the bill is not necessary. Ought I therefore, to allow it to pass without any inquiry? No certainly. As. I, as a member of parliament, know nothing of the matter, the burden of the proof lies upon these who propose it. The plain line of conduct for me to pursue then would appear to be not to shew that it is not necessary, but to give it my opposition, because it has not been proved to me that it in necessary. His lordship concluded with saying, that there was, at all events, no parliamentary ground for agreeing with the recommendation of the noble lords on the other side, and, in the absence of all such proof he could not agree to dispense with the established orders of the house. If it should happen that the act should expire before evidence of the renewal reached Ireland, he presumed the government there would know so much what was required of them, as to continue it in force for a few days, and he knew that in doing so they would be indemnified by parliament. If, however, it, was the resolution of their lordships so far to overturn the ordinary resolutions of that house, as to allow the bill to go through more than one stage in a day, he thought they had better carry it through all its stages this night.
Lord Mulgraveexpressed his astonishment that the noble lord should have argued against a measure, which, on former occasions, had been adopted without any previous inquiry, and when there were no stronger grounds for it than on the present occasion. A bill of this kind had been passed year after year, without any parliamentary investigation, but merely on the notoriety of facts; it was not objected to in the manner it was at present; and would any one pretend to say, that there were not circumstances at this
588
moment as strong as any which had hitherto existed, to warrant an act of this kind? It had been stated that Ireland was at this time in a situation of great tranquillity, that there were no disturbances, no insurrection in that country. That such appearances might exist there he would not pretend to deny. But experience had taught us, that appearances were not to be trusted to. Every noble lord who heard him must recollect, that at a time when Ireland was understood to be in a state of the most profound tranquillity, when the people were said to be perfectly loyal, and when the Habeas Corpus Act was not suspended, that an event the most alarming and disgraceful that ever occurred in any country took place, that a dreadful insurrection broke out with circumstances of the foulest and most aggravated atrocity, and which were followed by the murder of one of the most upright and respectable magistrates who ever presided in a court of justice; such was the secrecy with which conspiracies had been carried on in Ireland, that a state of apparent tranquillity could never be considered as a proof of the loyalty of the people. And whatever might be said of Ireland at this time, it was well known that numbers of disaffected persons were still to be found there, and that they carried on a traitorous correspondence with others of their countrymen residing in France is lord-ships next took occasion to allude to the objection that had been made against reading the present bill in all its stages on the same day. He could not see how any well founded objection could be urged against a proceeding of this kind which, had often been adopted on former occasions. He well remembered that the noble lord opposite to him (Grenville) had in the month of April, 1798, brought in a bill to suspend the Habeas Corpus Act in England, without any previous parliamentary inquiry; and that the bill was carried through all its stages on the same day. There were apparently no more grounds for such a proceeding at that time than at present. Yet it was a proceeding in which parliament concurred almost unanimously. Several times since that period it was not thought necessary to institute any inquiry upon which a measure of this kind could be grounded. But noble lords should recollect, that notice had been given of the intention of ministers to propose the reading of this bill in all its stages; and that

589
notice having been received by their lordships constituted an order of the house, which amounted to an acknowledgment that such a proceeding was perfectly consistent with the visages and orders of parliament. There was nothing therefore, objectionable in what had been done: there was nothing out of the common order of parliamentary usage, and all objections must come with still less force when the shortness of the time was considered, and the necessity for passing this act. He should, therefore, conclude by assuring the noble lord, that it was the unalterable determination of ministers to have the bill read that very night in all its stages.—Their lordships then divided on the motion of Lord Hawkesbury; contents 41; non-contents 13; majority 28.
The house then went into a committee on. the bill, when.
The Duke of Clarenceaddressed their lordships to the following effect:—My lords, after having seen this measure brought forward without any previous inquiry, or without any single ground having been stated on which it can be justified or even defended; after observing the precipitancy with which it is attempted to be hurried through the house, I. should willingly reject it altogether, were it in my power, because it goes unjustly to deprive a large portion of the subjects of the kingdom of the benefits they are entitled to from the constitution. But as I fear it is not possible to reject the bill, I wish to propose an amendment that will have the effect of doing away some of its evil consequences by limiting its duration. I wish to introduce an amendment by which it shall continue in force no longer than 6 weeks. During that interval the ministers will have an opportunity of coming to their sober senses; they will have time to reflect on the nature and consequences of the bill, and to deliberate with themselves how far it may be expedient for them to renew it. If then it it should appear to them that it ought to be continued, they will be enabled to do so in a constitutional manner, by bringing down a message from his majesty, stating the existence of traitorous conspiracies in Ireland, and recommending such an inquiry and investigation, as may lay a just foundation for a bill of this nature. I therefore move, that instead of the word "six weeks after the next session of parliament," there be inserted the following words: "six weeks
590
after the passing of this act."—The amendment was put, and negatived without a division. The bill having then gone through the committee, was reported, read a third time, and passed.—Adjourned.