and the gentlemen, who resisted it originally on the ground that there was no seditious discontent at the time to warrant it, now changed their ground, and admitted that such discontent did exist, but that it had now subsided. One of these gentlemen had formerly conceived, that the fact of a bill found by a grand jury against Mr. O'Connor and others at Maidstone, was a sufficient reason for his not persevering in his opposition to the renewal of this same measure on that particular occasion. He (Mr. Perceval) thought that the very circumstance of this same man being now in custody under this bill for treason confessed and acknowledged, was in itself sufficient for continuing it for the length of time required. Although the state of this country might be such as to admit his discharge, the House could not so well know whether the state of Ireland, in the treasons of which he took so active a part, was such as to admit it. Such knowledge could be best obtained in the united parliament; and therefore the question, he thought, should be reserved for its consideration.

before the House, which was, not what were the sentiments of gentlemen on for. mer occasions, but what they were as to the continuance of the suspension under present circumstances, and at the present time-whether there existed any reason for vesting a power in the executive government, to keep Englishmen in prison for four years, or even for one year, without bringing them to trial? He as serted, that ministers had grossly abused this power already, in keeping a number of persons in custody without trial, at least for a much longer time than they could pretend to have been necessary for sifting to the bottom the evidence which they had against them. The hon. gentleman who spoke last had said, that the statements made respecting the abuses existing in the Coldbath-fields prison were entirely unproved, and that they were merely the effects of party prejudice and violence. But, when he made these statements, he offered to prove them; he moved that witnesses should be examined at the bar; and he would yet pledge his character upon their veracity, were he allowed to enter into evidence upon the subject. He meant, however, to bring this subject again before the House, when he should have an opportunity of entering more fully into it.

The House divided:

Tellers.

YEAS Mr. Attorney General

Mr. Perceval

Mr. Sheridan
NOES Mr. Tierney

} 51

So it was resolved in the affirmative.
List of the Minority.

Mr. Baker disapproved of the opposition made to the present motion, because it was made in such a form as to seem to imply a wish on the part of the opposers merely to renew a discussion which took place last session, relative to the treatment of the prisoners confined on seditious or treasonable charges, and the state of the prisons in which they were confined; a discussion in which accusations were liberally made, but in which none of the alleged facts were proved. Gentlemen had a right to oppose; but they had no right to state what was not true. The hon. gentleman had Bouverie, E. said, that the persons confined under the Brogden, J. provisions of this act, were kept languish-Hussey, W. Burdett, sir F. ing in dungeons, without fire and other comforts. The fact was, that these persons were lodged in good apartments, provided with fire, and with every accommodation that their situation would admit of. As to the hon. gentleman's assertion, that this act deprived the people of England of their rights, he thought it a libel on the people of England; for he could not believe that they could think themselves injured by an act which could only affect the seditious and the treasonable.

Sir F. Burdett asserted, that Mr. Perceval had entirely mistaken the question

§

Jolliffe, W.
Jeffreys, N.
Lloyd, J. M.
Martin, J.

Robson, R. B.
Richardson, J.

Sturt, C.

St. John, St. A.
Western, C. C.

TELLERS.

Tierney, G.
Sheridan, R. B.

13

Dec. 12. The Attorney General brought in the bill, which was read a first time. On the motion, that it be read a second time,

Mr. Jolliffe said, he considered the further suspension of an act which constituted the chief security of the people's liberty, as cruel, unjust, and oppressive. The characteristic of a free, as contradis tinguished from a despotic government,

they had defended that constitution which they had been charged with destroying.

Mr. Rose thought the question was simply, whether if, from the meeting of the imperial parliament to the period when the bill would expire, there was too little time fully to discuss the propriety of its future repeal or farther continuance, it was not expedient to agree to the suspension now proposed? For his part he thought that the intervening space was too short for the cool consideration of the measure; and therefore he should support the bill.

was, that those suspected of having infringed the laws were sure to be brought to a speedy trial. The learned gentleman had argued, that so long as the present ministers continued in power, they would not abuse that which was committed to them. To this he might readily assent; but then, supposing other persons possessing different dispositions from them should be called upon to fill their situations, no one could answer for the use, or rather abuse of that power. If this act were liable to be suspended now upon no better grounds than what had been adduced, it was liable to be suspended at any time. He begged ministers to consider well in what a situation they put the people of this country. The ill effects of this suspension might fall even upon posterity, if this practice once got into use, till the Habeas Corpus act itself became a dead letter.

Mr. Hobhouse said, he had not intended to have spoken this night upon the subject of the bill; but since it had come into discussion, and the learned mover had shown himself so warm in its support, he felt it impossible to give a silent vote. He agreed with him in thinking, that the The Attorney General believed that the question was of the highest importance, greater part of the House had their minds and involved the most serious conseimpressed with a persuasion of the neces-quences; but he could not concur with sity of the measure. On this account he had thought it unnecessary, on bringing it forward afresh, to take up the time of the House in detailing the reasons on which this suspension had been originally moved. The measure was one which the House had adopted from time to time. Parliament had conceived that, in exist ing circumstances, it was necessary to the safety of the country, that this shield should be lifted up, as a guard to the constitution of the country. All that he now desired was, that as ministers had not abused that power which parliament had vested in them, gentlemen would consider this as a pledge that they would not in future. He had stated as a reason for bringing forward the measure now, that the present Suspension act would expire on the 1st of February, and that the time of the united parliament would be so occupied, that it would have no opportunity, at so early a period, of discussing at large the general question as to the expediency of its further continuance. Having the concurrence of so large a majority of the House, nothing should deter him, in the situation which he had the honour to hold, from doing his duty. He trusted he should possess sufficient firmness, in spite of every threat, to persevere in measures which he thought right. He was persuaded, that the people at large felt their obligations to ministers; and that, from time to time,

him in attributing so much weight to the majority of the preceding evening. Did it follow that a majority, however great, must necessarily be right? Examples of the contrary had frequently happened. One suggested itself to his memory at that moment. During the last session, the chancellor of the exchequer introduced an additional bill respecting income. It was accused, on this side of the House, of irregularity. A considerable majority over-ruled the objection; but on the subsequent day the bill was withdrawn, at the instance of the Speaker, in consequence of the alleged informality; and thus the majority reversed their own proceeding. The measure before the House, ought not to have been brought forward at this time. The learned gentleman had not proved, that any of those causes which were originally pleaded in favour of its adoption, were now in force. None of those seditious and incendiary societies, which were formerly made the subject of complaint, now existed; no menaced invasion now alarmed us for our safety. If such causes were in existence, the learned gentleman might, perhaps, be warranted in appealing to notoriety, in appealing to the feelings of the House, without adducing any particular evidence; but as no such circumstance, nor any other adequate necessity, appeared, it was for the learned gentleman to prove how this House could answer to itself for

the continuance of a law which had so House had admitted the necessity of such long suspended the dearest rights of the a measure at one time; the assertion he constitution, and placed the liberties of denied. It never had been admitted on the people of England at the absolute his side of the House, that a plot, such as disposal of ministers. Another argument ministers had represented it, ever existed; advanced by the learned gentleman was but it had been admitted, that there was the excellent use which ministers had something which furnished a pretence for made of the powers committed to their trying the effect of suspending the act for hands; but to this position he could a time. Those who urged the House to never assent. When he saw men appre- the adoption of the measure, pointed out hended upon suspicion without the for- no case to show its necessity; but they mality of an information upon oath, and contented themselves with saying, Look detained nearly three years without being round, and the necessity will every where brought to trial, or even learning the present itself. By this they certainly names of their accusers, he never could meant to intimate, that till the spirit of join in the praises which were so unde- republicanism was extinguished, the peoservedly bestowed upon the gentlemen ple of this country were not to expect the opposite. He was ready to admit that restoration of that act which was the very there might be times and circumstances essence of their constitution. He feared, in which it would be extremely proper to if such were the case, it would be difficult arm the executive with a power of appre-to say when the people would return to hending and keeping in temporary custody persons accused of treasonable projects, until those projects could be fully developed; but it never could be said, that a space of almost three years was requisite to unravel a plot. Upon the principles of common justice, and in conformity to the spirit of the British constitution, he therefore called upon ministers to bring to a fair trial those unfortunate men who had so long languished in gloomy imprisonment, that, if guilty, they might suffer the punishment due to their offence, or, if innocent, be restored to liberty and to their friends. Their continued protracted state of confinement he could consider in no other light than an anticipation of punishment, without the form or semblance of a trial.

Mr. Martin said, he had once given a vote for the suspension of the Habeas Corpus act, upon the presumption that the power granted to ministers would be properly exercised; but he thought that power had been abused, by keeping persons in prison for years together, without assigning any reason for so doing.

Mr. Sheridan maintained, that the suspension of the Habeas Corpus act ought not to be considered as a thing which it was proper to pass on general grounds, but that every year a specific cause for its suspension should be stated. Upon the ground and principle upon which it was now recommended, there never could arrive a time, when the country would enjoy that liberty it derived through the medium of the Habeas Corpus act. It seemed to be asserted, that his side of the

the enjoyment of that invaluable privilege; but it was said, that before the Suspension act could be suffered to expire, it was necessary to wait for the Irish gentle. men. Such a reason might be plausible enough, if, by waiting for them, there was any probability of gaining information the House was not already in possession of. What did the Irish members know about the internal state of this country as connected with the Habeas Corpus act? It was most extraordinary, that the reason upon which the union was recommended to them was, that they would be coming from a scene of tumult, riot, and confusion, to a land blessed with happiness, good order, and liberty; and yet, that the moment the union was effected, they were to be told, they had got into a place, where, such was the state of the public mind, that it was necessary to suspend the most valuable blessing of the constitution. Supposing the question was left to their discussion, they must necessarily think such a line of conduct was the most rigorous on the part of ministers that could be proposed. He believed, there scarcely ever was a period, when the loyalty, the temper, the moderation, and the forbearance of the people, were greater than at present; their submission to the laws, and the patience with which they endured the heavy pressure of the times, ought to place them beyond suspicion. If, how ever, there were persons who were justly the objects of suspicion, were there not sufficient means of repressing them? Had not ministers the assistance of the volunteer corps in checking the least tendency

"

towards seditious practices? Was it try? Unhappily, from the peculiar state possible the very small band of disaffected of the country, the means of inflammation could in the least affect the general mass were more ready now than formerly; and of the people? Impossible. There was it had ever been seen, that those who nothing, then, to justify the House in were actuated by a spirit of hostility acceding to such a measure. against the government never failed taking advantage of any temporary distress or pressure of the country, in order to inflame the minds of the people. It was the distinguishing character of that sys. tem of Jacobinism which the House had in a great measure repressed, to avai! itself of the passions and prejudices of the lower orders, and to make use of them for their own destruction. Had the hon. gentleman forgotten the endeavours practised in this country to introduce the same system that had deluged Ireland with blood? To what was the country to attribute its escape from the horrors of that system, and the more violent and concise means used to repress it, but that the parliament had enabled ministers to prevent its gaining strength?Then, as to the propriety of discussing the measure with the Irish members: in the first place he never understood that any one had ever argued the necessity of discussing the subject with the Irish members: all that was said was, that because the Suspension act would expire before the imperial parliament would have had time to devote their attention to the subject, it was a reason why it should be prolonged for a further period, till it could be fully discussed. If the House had been called upon to continue it longer, he would have had no difficulty in showing that circumstances would have justified the House in assenting to the measure. Then, as to what the hon. gentleman had said with respect to our inviting the Irish to a union with this country, by representing its superior advantages, and that by such a restraint as this we should drive them back, he would ask, at the very time when those inviting blessings were held out to them, when this unhappy land formed a striking contrast with the misery of others, what was the state of this country? This very suspicion of the designs of the seditious existed, and this very law existed to restrain them; yet the people of Ireland were to be told, their union with England had defrauded them of the liberty and calm security that they before enjoyed! It was said, the people of Ireland had not thought it necessary to have recourse to this measure. Had they not had recourse, however, to other [3 B]

Mr. Pitt observed, that it had been said by an hon. gentleman opposite, that the principle on which the House was asked to extend the suspension of the Habeas Corpus act, put an end to all hope of its ever being restored to the country. He by no means considered the question in the same point of view; nor could he imagine why the further suspension of the act, during a period when the necessity for such suspension existed, should prevent the country from having all the advantages of the act when the danger in taking off the restraints upon its operation had ceased. That circumstances A rendered its suspension necessary at the present moment, was a fact of which it was impossible to doubt; and he was well assured the House would not hesitate in I continuing the precaution, until it was actuated by a general persuasion that the precaution ought no longer to be continued. Could the hon. gentleman expect, when the sense of the House was in fayour of continuing the precaution, that his opinion should decide the question? the hon. gentleman would be so good as to recollect, there was a time when the measure was first proposed, that it had the sanction of his opinion. Could he then think that it was necessary to proceed again to a formal inquiry, and to enter into a minute examination of evidence, in order to be satisfied of the necessity of placing such a power in the hands of ministers? Was it not a fair mode of reasoning, from what might be seen of the situation of this country and of the rest of Europe, that there did exist the same just ground for continuing the measure, as there had at first existed for adopting it? He admitted at the same time, that the effect of this measure, and of others adopted by the wisdom of parliament, had rendered the danger less in this country now, than at the period when the act was first suspended. But would the hon. gentleman say, there was not the same want of precaution, in order to prevent the return of a danger to the same extent? Would he say that the spirit of sedition and Jacobinism was wholly extinguished, and that it had no partisans in this, coun[VOL. XXXV.]