arrearage of the old revenue. But whatever may be the differrence of quantity, his conclusion must be mine, namely, that our exertions in this war have exceeded the ability of the country, or the gratitude of her administration.

The House divided on Mr. Grattan's amendment, Ayes 12, Noes 149; Majority against Mr. Grattan's motion 137. Tellers for the Ayes, Mr. Grattan and Mr. W. B. Ponsonby; for the Noes, Mr. Cuffe and Mr. Vesey. The address was then agreed to.

SUSPENSION OF THE HABEAS CORPUS ACT.

MR. G. PONSONBY OPPOses the suSPENSION OF THE HABEAS CORPUS ACT.

October 14. 1796.

ON the preceding day, the Attorney-general, (Mr. Wolfe), obtained leave to bring in a bill, to empower the Lord-lieutenant, or other chief governor or governors of this kingdom to take up and detain all such persons as were suspected of treasonable practices. The bill was forthwith presented, read a first and second time, and committed for this day; and when the house resolved itself into the committee,

Mr. G. Ponsonby rose and said, were he even to stand alone, he would oppose such a measure; the members of administration were men of vindictive spirit, and he did not wish to entrust to them the personal liberty of the subject; they might apprehend any persons obnoxious to them, without giving any reason for such arbitrary conduct, and leave them to languish in prison as long as they thought proper. Ministers, he said, confounded the terms administration and government, and wished to represent all persons who opposed their measures as inimical to the King and the constitution; he thought there existed a great portion of disaffection to the present administration, but no treason so prevalent as to justify such an arbitrary measure, as the suspension of the Habeas Corpus act. He concluded, by moving, that the chairman should leave the chair. The motion was opposed by the Prime-sergeant, the Attorney-general (Mr. Wolfe), Colonel Blaquiere, Sergeant Stanley, Sir Frederick Flood, Mr. Ormsby, Mr. Holmes, Mr. Ogle, Sir Edward Newenham, the Solicitor-general (Mr. Toler), Mr. O'Hara, and Lord Castlereagh, who strongly urged the necessity of the bill. It was supported by Mr. Duquery, Mr. Fletcher, Mr. Curran, and Mr. Browne (of the college), who expressed his astonishment at the indecent hurry in pressing the bill through its several readings. He spoke strongly against the measure, and rather than be a party to such a proceeding, rose and left the House, declaring that he would not be privy to such unjustifiable and arbitrary acts.

Mr. GRATTAN said: The honourable member (the Solicitorgeneral) who has spoken some minutes before, has said, that we had assumed, with great arrogance and presumption, the office of introducing a measure for Catholic emancipation. I shall not apply such terms to the honourable member; they are unparliamentary and idle; but I may be permitted to say, that what has fallen from him has been rather frivolous and weak, though somewhat loud and very vehement. I had not assumed the situation of declaring the Catholic sentiments, but of advancing to the best of my power the Catholic interest; indeed, the national interest, for they are inseparable; but I beg to ask, whether the member has not been guilty himself of that assumption which he charged on others? The member had moved, in 1795, the rejection of the Catholic bill; the member has now come forward as the representative of the Catholic sentiments, and assures the House that at this time they are perfectly ready to come forth in support of the administration, without the privileges of the constitution, and notwithstanding the declaration of the secretary, that he is now, as before, ready and determined to refuse them. I incline to believe that the honourable member has no authority from them for making such a declaration; and it seems extraordinary that a gentleman should be made the confidential representative of their sentiments, who a year and a half ago was the ministers' confidential officer to propose a negative on their just pretensions. He is angry at our zeal of language; I am sorry for it, yet more, for the necessity of upholding such a language, even though it should displease him. I do not find that he answers the argument, though he finds it easy to rail against the expressions. Our argument has appeared to him in the shape of a giant whom he cannot encounter, and he is angry therefore. I assure gentlemen, there is nothing more I wish, than to accommodate my expression to the temper of the House, except in moments where a higher duty called on me to give offence to majorities; and, therefore, I laugh at the idea, at such a moment, of attuning my expression to the temper of administration, or even of the House. I speak not for them; not for the House, but for the country; by her sense I will abide against placemen and against majorities; nor shall I be induced, by any observation, to conceal the horror I entertain at their system, or abate the fervour of my mind, exercised to deprecate the continuation of that system with all the melancholy and alarming prospects which is afforded to the country.

I know of what majorities are composed, and on what frivolous motives, not to say more, they sometimes decide against the

best and dearest interests of Ireland. It was by resisting majorities, and immense majorities, that whatever this country had gotten, had been obtained; and those majorities themselves had come over to minorities, with recorded acknowledgment of error, and precipitation, and folly. A new reason has been advanced in support of the bill before you,-a most extraordinary one indeed. It has been said, that the suspension of the Habeas Corpus had been rendered necessary in consequence of the strength of the debate on the Catholic question. See the use to which this bill may be applied to intimidate freedom of speech! to overawe members of parliament, speaking for the liberty of three-fourths of their fellow-subjects! What, then, will the condition of the citizen be; of the man who is no member, but who is not, therefore, in my mind, the less to be regarded? What will his situation be, under this law, if he gives offence to government, by taking a leading part for his fellow-subjects and his brethren? You have refused in your former sessions, under internal conviction of his guilt, to institute an enquiry into the conduct of a minister, and now you, without an enquiry, attaint the constitution.

Gentlemen ask, Do not you believe that there are treasonable practices in the country? The question shows how little they have considered the subject which involves the liberty of their country. The question is not, whether treasonable practices exist, for there was hardly any time in which such may not be said to exist in England, in Ireland, and in Scotland; but the question is, whether a treasonable conspiracy exists, and to a degree as to become dangerous to the state, and which, coupled with the alleged probability of invasion, renders the suspension of the Habeas Corpus necessary? But with respect to an invasion, that danger, for the present, seems removed; and as for the conspiracy, whatever opinions gentlemen may have, sufficient to ground a committee of enquiry, you have no parliamentary evidence before you at present to pass such a bill. The mover of the bill has not produced any parliamentary evidence to support it; he has stated the trial of Mr. Jackson, but then he very properly disclaimed what appeared on that trial as the ground of his bill. He mentioned the trial of the Defenders; but then he soon after very properly disclaimed what appeared on their trials as the ground of their bill; very properly, I say, because the trial of Jackson took place two years ago, and cannot be a ground for the hasty proceeding of last night; and, with respect to the Defenders, they are now quiet, and you did in their case, in the last session, pass certain laws as specifics, and they were pretty strong applications for that distemper.

The member then reduces himself to two grounds of

evidence; one is, the speech of the King, and the other ground that of the Attorney-general; that is to say, the minister's speech from the throne, and the minister's speech in the House of Commons; that is, on the evidence of the minister only, he attempts to suspend the law which was passed to secure the liberty of the subject against the minister. It is the right of Parliament to question every assertion of the speech. It is the right of the members of Parliament to say, if they think so, that every assertion of the speech is false; and yet, on the assumed infallibility of that speech, does he attaint the liberty of every subject in Ireland. Charles I. came in person to accuse certain members of high treason, and lost his head by the attempt. The minister in this case comes to Parliament to accuse the subject with general charges of treason, and the subject loses his liberty by the attempt.

The right honourable member knows he cannot stand on such evidence; he therefore attempts to supply it by his own. The Attorney-general's testimony comes in aid of the minister's testimony; the minister in one shape comes in aid of the minister in another shape, against the liberties of the people; and what is this auxiliary evidence? He tells you that there is a treasonable business in this country, the nature of which is a secret! Thus the minister of the crown, and the servant of the minister of the crown, are received by this house as complete evidence to assent to a bill in one night, indeed in a few minutes, that suspends for a year and a half the personal liberties of every man in Ireland. I apprehend they had in England a special committee, a very long and a very minute examination, and a very full report, before they attempted, a few years ago, to suspend the Habeas Corpus act. It was with all that precaution, a very bad measure, and they have accordingly discontinued that suspension in a country full of emigrants, and abounding more in treasonable practices than Ireland; but here the rapidity with which we demolish the liberties of the people is shocking. The member seems to feel the weakness of his witnesses, and endeavours to supply it by the passion of his friends, the other servants of the crown; and then, indeed, they, the servants of the crown, come forth with their declaration to bear out the minister in his declarations that there is a conspiracy; that is the minister still, in more shapes and in more forms; and country gentlemen catch the alarm, and are taught to fear so much about their property and their religion, that they give up the liberty of the subject for what they call the preservation of both. What is it you do give up? You give up the personal liberty of the people of Ireland, and you do this on such evidence as I have stated,

and in the course of a few hours. You give six privy counsellors with the Lord-lieutenant; the Lord-lieutenant without the privy counsellors; and the Lord-lieutenant's secretary, without either, to send to prison any man in Ireland. You give an Englishman, without residence or stake in Ireland, and, therefore, without responsibility, a power to send the Irish to Newgate of his own true will and pleasure, and you give him this power for eighteen months; that is, to the end of the next session of Parliament. Any active citizen, any offensive Catholic or Presbyterian, any friend to parliamentary reform and enemy to the abuses of government; any of that body against whose claims the secretary has declared himself a decided enemy, may, by that secretary, be committed to Newgate under any pretence which he may advance, without the smallest truth and without any responsibility; and you do this, you say, in order to preserve to your country the blessings of our excellent constitution!

As to your political liberty, the influence of the Crown seems to have corrected that blessing; as to your civil liberty, this bill, added to the bills you have passed last session, seems to correct that blessing also. By the influence of the Crown, the minister becomes the master of your legislature, and, by those bills, he becomes master of your person. Now, after this, where are the blessings of your constitution? You have deprived the subject of political liberty, and you now deprive him of civil liberty, lest he should exercise that liberty to reform abuses; lest he should use the liberty he has left in order to recover the liberty he has lost. I protest against the system; it is abominable; you feel it to be so, and take these measures of power, because you know the people cannot be reconciled to it but by power; because you feel you have lost the confidence of the great body of the people. Depend on it you must give up the system; you have gone on from bad to worse; from corruption to coercion; from the bills of last session, which were to have quieted the country, and which, the speech says, indeed, has in a great measure been rendered quiet by them, to this bill. The suspension of the Habeas Corpus, introduced on an assertion, that the country, so far from being rendered quiet, has, under the operation of your system, proceeded in some cases to a conspiracy to subvert the laws and the constitution. In your situation what would men of sense do? Give up that system, if it has had such a fatal effect on the public mind as to have produced not only general hatred in the great body of the people, but in some cases, as the preamble of the bill sets forth, treasonable conspiracy; why then,