IRISH HABEAS CORPUS SUSPENSION BILL.

HL Deb 21 February 1805 vol 3 cc581-90

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 Grenville

adverted 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 However, the proposition originally made by his noble friend had been qualified, so as he thought would remove the objection then offered; and he should before the other order of the day was entered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 Hawkesbury

observed, 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 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 Sligo

supported 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 Grenville

said, that no person connected with govt. had stated any possible mischief that could arise from his motion, and he certainly saw none.

The Lord Chancellor

observed, 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 Hawkesbury

then moved the second reading of the Irish habeas corpus suspension bill, which was accordingly read a second time. His lordship then, pursuant 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 Sligo

took 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 Hawkesbury

explained, 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 Carlisle

said, 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 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 Hawkesbury

assured 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 Spencer

said, 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 Longford

lamented, 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 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 Montrose

was 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 Enniskillen

urged, upon the experience of fourteen months residence in Ireland, the necessity of arming the executive govt. with strong powers.

The Duke of Clarence

said, 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 Limerick

alluded 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 Darnley

was 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 Auckland

declared 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 Grenville

was 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 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 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 Mulgrave

expressed 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 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 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 Clarence

addressed 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 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.