Lords Sitting of 31 July 1807

IRISH INSURRECTION BILL.
On the

1023
question for the third reading of this bill, a number of amendments, similar to those offered in the house of commons, were proposed by lord Holland, earl Fitzwilliam, and the duke of Bedford. After much discussion, they were all negatived.
The Duke of Bedfordmoved to limit the duration of the bill to one year and two months, after the commencement of the then next session of parliament, instead of two years and six months after the commencement of the then next session of parliament, as expressed in the bill. The noble duke thought that a bill conferring such extraordinary powers should have as short a duration as possible.
Lord Hawkesburythought, that the knowledge that such a bill existed, and that the powers conferred by it might be called into action, would do much to repress and keep down a spirit of disturbance. With this view of the subject, regretting as he did, the necessity that existed for such a measure, he still thought that the longer period was preferable; nor did he see any reason to expect that the causes which produced the necessity for this bill would cease to operate within the shorter period proposed by the noble duke.
Lord Hollandviewing as he did the state of Ireland, and with the sentiments which he had constantly avowed with respect to the causes of that unfortunate situation of affairs in Ireland which led to the necessity for the present bill, could not help pressing upon the attention of their lordships the great importance of discussing the affairs of Ireland in parliament, and of endeavouring to come to those conclusions which might, by removing the causes of grievance, prevent the necessity of recurring to such measures as the present. He could not, therefore, but be a warm friend to frequent discussions of this subject. He thought that every opportunity should be taken of recurring to it, and therefore he supported the amendment moved by his noble friend, in order that this important subject might again come under the consideration of parliament at an earlier period than it otherwise could do, according to the term of duration expressed in the bill.
The Duke of Montrosedeprecated frequent discussions of this subject, which could do no possible good, but on the contrary, only tended to keep up a spirit of irritation amongst the people of Ireland. Instead of shortening the duration of the
1024
bill, he, on the contrary, would have voted for extending it. Parliament always having the power of repealing it if the necessity which now existed for it should cease.
Lord Sidmouthwas inimical to giving a long duration to bills of this nature, but from the situation of Ireland, he believed the term of duration, expressed in this bill, to be necessary. He was decidedly hostile to frequent discussion of this subject as tending to excite irritation in Ireland.
Earl Grosvenorsupported the amendment, conceiving from the nature of the clauses, that the bill ought to have the shortest possible duration.
Lord Mulgravewould rather have agreed to extend the duration of the bill than to shorten it; convinced, as he was, of its necessity, and, at the same time, that it was always in the power of parliament to repeal it in case that necessity ceased.—The amendment was negatived, and the bill read a third time and passed.