Page images
PDF
EPUB

1

mous declaration of the committee,
that the bill was highly neceffary;
and he was perfuaded that there
was nothing in the manner of in-
troducing it contrary to the rules and
ufages of the house.

Mr. Tierney maintained that
there was no cafe on the records of
parliament where fuch encroach-
ment on the people's privileges was
ever adopted on the report of a
fecret committee.

Lord Cole denied that the com-, mittee was formed from a party. He had the honour to belong to it, and difclaimed belonging to any party but fuch as would defend their king and country; and faid, that none other than fuch fhould be fuffered to fit in it.

Mr. Nichols fupported fupported the amendment, faying, that if minifters declined producing their evidence of the bill's neceffity, the natural inference through the country would be, that the evidence could not fuftain their statements.

The amendment was rejected without a divifion; and the bill was read a fecond time, and ordered to be committed the next day.

Lord Loughborough, on Monday, April 27, prefented to the house of lords the report of the fecret committee, to whom the fealed bags of freasonable papers from the other houfe were referred; which being read, and containing strong proofs of feditious and treafonable proceedings, in the inftitution of committees for general purposes, conductors, fuperintendants, &c.

The earl of Suffolk defired that the names of the lords chofen by ballot on the fecret committee be read. Which being done,

The duke of Bedford faid, that noble lords were not competent to debate a bill immediately of fuch great importance, without an op

portunity of maturely confidering the facts in the report juft then laid on the table.

Lord Loughborough perfectly agreed with the noble duke, that deliberation on the subject would be more fatisfactory to the houfe: but affured him, that from the information a day ought not to be loft in paffing the bill; and he had juft then received intelligence, that an open meeting of the difaffected had lately been held, for taking measures before the bill could pafs, to effect treasonable purposes; and that papers bidding defiance to government, and threatening its overturn, were pafted up against trees on the common where the meeting was. He did not however with any stage of the bill to pafs at prefent, only that they might go into the committee that evening, and debate it on the third reading the next day.

Earl Moira faid, that all the credit ought to be given to the exigency of the occafion, which was confiftent with their duty as peers of parliament; and therefore he fhould not refift the bill's going into a committee.

The earl of Suffolk faid, the reafon he had moved for the reading of the committee's names was, that he did not really know what they were. He complained that they were all lords of the fame fentiments, and was furprised that none had been felected from his fide of the house.

The duke of Bedford rofe, faying, that they would have two bills, in fact, to debate ;---the former and the prefent feditious-meeting bill. He could not agree to fuch violent measures without full proof of extreme neceffity: the evidence of the report was not ftrong enough to fatisfy him; and, if he

had

had been prefent, he would not have confented to its paffing a fingle stage. The noble and learned lord had ftated two points: one, that the committee had ftronger information than the report stated. If fo, they were cenfurable for not having made it part of their report. The other was, that he had received news that day of an open meeting being held where treafonable declarations were pofted up. Such a fact required the fulleft proof. He faid, he fhould referve himself to speak to the merits of the bill on the third reading; but he should now certainly negative its going into a committee.

Lord Hobart explained, that the committee was not ftated to have ftronger proof than that in the report; but from the general tendency of the information in the fealed bags it was plain that not an hour fhould be loft in paffing the

bill.

The duke of Bedford faid a few words in explanation; and the bill, with the duke's not-content alone, paffed the committee without amendment, and was ordered to be read a third time the next day.

On Tuesday, April 28, the bill was read a third time; and on the queftion being, put that the bill do país,"

The duke of Bedford rofe, and reminded the houfe that he had warned their lordships the day before against proceeding with the bill until an opportunity of reading the report of the committee fhould be given. Both this and the original report when the bill was firft paffed ought to be read: he had done fo, and had no fcruple to fay, that, from the infufficient evidence there, he was convinced that the bill ought to be inflantly

rejected. Before the house could be warranted to pafs a bill violating the compact between the king and the people, they were bound to demand clear proof of the neceflity which called for it. In proportion as the bill trenched on the people's rights, it weakened their allegiance to the crown; for the one depended on the other. The nature and extent of the evidence before the committee ought to be known. Noble lords fhould not forget, that it was not only compofed of peers who were either minifters or their fupporters, but the witneffes examined were chofen by minifters, and therefore to be fufpected. He had no confidence in minifters, whom he faw pursuing the fame fyftem as their predeceffors; and those had groffly abufed the confidence repofed in them. As to the bill itself, he thought fo violent an innovation on the rights of the fubject as unnecellary as dangerous and unconftitutional. The common law was fully adequate to avert all the mifchief apprehended, and in a much fafer way. By the bill of rights, the people might affemble to

petition against grievances whenever they thought proper; to prevent this was a direct violation of the bill of rights; nor could he think that there was any ground fufficient to induce the houfe to fo extraordinary a step. His grace therefore gave the bill his negative.

The earl of Weftmoreland faid, that it muft alarm every man to attempt the fupport of a bill roundly afferted to be a breach of the compact between the king and people at the revolution. The reverence with which all was treated by the houfe that paffed at that important period of our history

would

would naturally reftrain any ftep leading to fo fatal a confequence; and those who made fuch an affertion should state the words of the bill of rights to fupport them. He faid, if fuch a measure as this had been deemed an invafion of the people's rights, the 13th of Charles II. would not have been on the ftatute book. When the bill paff ed three years ago, many petitions were prefented againft it: now-it had been tried, and its effects witneffed, not a fingle petition was on the table. The confequences were fo falutary, that he rather expected minifters to be cenfured for not having fooner revived it. The origin of the prefent bill was this; his majefty had ordered the chancellor of the exchequer to notify to the other houfe that ample proof had reached him and his council of feditious and treafonable meetings; and that a fyftem was organifing, big with the utmoft danger to the state. Two large bags full of papers, proving the exiftence and increafe of the confpiracy, were prefented to the houfe of commons. The committee of the house reported on their contents: the report was laid before their lordships, who appointed a committee of their own, and

made two reports, proving the ab folute neceflity of paffing the bill. Rebellious organisation had begun in Ireland, had been furmounted and quieted by loyalty and energy in the government, and by bills of this nature; but, from the evi-lence, it was plain that the Irish system had been improved in the prefent inftance. Committees had been formed, fecret figns of information between the members agreed on, the means of procuring arms provided, fubfcriptions opened, conductors appointed, fuperintendants and metengers felected, and plans of affaffination and murder of thofe at the head of government reduced to a fyftematic regularity. There was, therefore, every reafon for endeavouring to avert the fatal confequences which had followed in a neighbouring nation. He faid he fhould vote for the bill, because it was recommended by the crown, by the king's minifters, by the committees of both houfes, and (what was infinitely more weighty) by the joy fhown by the feditious when the last bill ceafed to exift, and the alarm they felt on hearing of its intended revival, and their efforts to anticipate it by their treasonable machinations. The bill paffed.

CHAP. VI.

Continuance of Martial Law in Ireland-Debates on that Subject in the House of Commons in the House of Lords.-Further Debates respecting the Continuance of that Bill-in the House of Commons in the House of Lords.

O thofe who may conceive the rebellion had been lately extinguifh

mer chapter not unneceffary in this country, the propriety of extending the powers of the executive government in a country where a defperate

The kingdom of Ireland appeared at the clofe of the year 1800 to be ftill in a ftate of agitation and diforder, and it was judged to

be

be inexpedient to relax entirely from the fevere measures which had been adopted for the coercion of the factious fpirits in that part of his majefty's dominions.

On the 12th of March, therefore, lord Caftlereagh rofe, in the houfe of commons, to introduce a motion, of which he had given notice on the 6th, relative to the neceffity of ftill enforcing martial law in certain parts of Ireland; but previous to ftating his arguments, he faid he fhould move that two acts be read, paffed by the Irish parliament for the fuppreffion of the late rebellion. The clerk was about to read them, when Mr. Sheridan rofe, and, after apologifing for preffing forward on this fubject, faid, he alfo wifled for thefe acts to be read, but for a different reafon from that of the noble lord. His object for rifing was to diffuade the bringing on this momentous queftion at prefent. When the acts were read, it would appear that there was nothing urgent in the motion, though this was the only reafon affigned for making it. The house were not regularly in poffeffion of the queftion: he muft therefore endeavour to diffuade them from entertaining it, fince nothing was more unconftitutional than to difcufs it without a previous communication from the crown, advised by oftenfible and refponfible minifters. The noble lord was doubtlefs a moft refpectable individual; but he was only an individual, and could not be confidered as a refponfible minifter. Would then the houfe regard the right honourable gentleman (Mr. Pitt) as the advifer or the refpontible minifter? He would fcarcely venture to tell them fo. Now, if ever a propofition was made for fubverting the conftitution, the arming the crown with 1801.

[ocr errors]

the dangerous power of enforcing martial law was of that nature: would it then be embraced without any communication from the crown, or fixing any refpontib.lity upon the minifter? When it was propofed `_ in the Irish parliament, it was in confequence of a communication from the lord-lieutenant, his majetty's reprefentative In cafes of infurrection or rebellion, the lordlieutenant might refort to martial law; but furely it could not be done, where the exigency of the cafe did not justify it, without impofing refponfibility on fome minifter. The noble lord might say that the fpirit of faction was yet unextinguifhed; that one clafs of the Irish might expect more juftice from a court martial than from a jury; that a foreign invafion was apprehended; that fresh plans of infurrection had been formed, and were ready for execution. If the houfe had a pledge from the crown that minifters knew the reality of thefe dangers, much as he abominated the exercife of martial law, he should feel himself bound to act on the principle of confidence. But he yet must afk, with whom lay the refponfibility, if this confidence were unfoundedly called for, and criminally abused? What might now be brought before the houfe fhould be regarded only as a narrative, not a folemn communication, that could justify the house in incurring fuch refponfibility. Were a committee upon the ftate of Ireland propofed, various objections would be urged, efpecially, how dangerous it might be to dif clofe the information which inquiry muft demand. Was the measure then to be affumed as neceffary? Let the house ponder on the refponfibility they incurred by crediting it. Let them cautiously

M

confider

66

confider what was now afked of them, after the promifes of the blethings that were to refult from the union; after the congratulations that the rebellion was not only fuppreffed, but that the angry fpirit which occafioned it had fubfided. After all this, what was the houfe called to do? Why, only to admit and fanction a bill, the preamble of which faid, Whereas a rebellion is now raging in the country, &c. Whereas a ruinous confpiracy exifls, &c." Would the lord-lieutenant affert that this was the prefont ftate of the country? Or, were bills to be propofed without recapitulating the preambles? And when were thefe bills attempted to be revived? Was it not after the queftion of the union had been carried, and the pretence of the rebellion no longer exifted? But the material point was, Where was the neceflity of the cafe? It would be faid the act expired on the 25th inftant, and fo alfo did the money bills. Granted: but where was the danger of letting it expire? Had it not been in fact permitted to expire? and what mifchief enfued during the interval? Had any mifchief been apprehended, it would have been criminal in government to allow the act to expire, Had one year's experience, of the union fo irritated the public mind of Ireland, that this harth unconflitutional measure must be adopted? Was it apprehended that a tempo rary forbearance to enforce it might revive the hopes of reverting to the confutution? Was it to be feared that the army would be let loofe on the country, unlefs the act were pafled? Was it the mortification of feeing fome fufpected wretch tried before a jury inftead of a courtmartial? Was it the approach of a greater danger than that of infur

rection and rebellion: For, n the fe cafes, had not the lord-lieutenant a power of enforcing martial law by proclamation? What at leaft could prevent the delay of the queftion for a week? by which period it was ardently hoped that his majefty's health would be fully restored, and when the houfe might entertain the queftion in a due and conftitutional form. He muft therefore conclude with moving, that the houfe adjourn.

Lord Caftlereagh then rofe, in reply to Mr. Sheridan, and in fupport of his motion faid, that he was called upon to fubmit to the house the reafons for the measure which had been fo warmly oppofed by the honourable gentleman, and which, he trufted, would convince the houfe that he was fully juftified in bringing it forward without any previous communication from the crown. The task he had to perform was extremely painful, but it was a duty of which he was determined to acquit himfelf. He was ready to acknowledge that the introduction of martial law in Ireland was almoft unparalleled in its conftitutional hiftory; but yet he muft remind the houfe that the fpirit and principles of modern Jacobinifm had compelled the legiflature to recognife a fyftem of judicature unknown except when the operation of all laws was fufpended from the open exiftence of rebellion in the field. The necetlity of reforting to fo ftrong a meature was lamentable; but, if it did exist, he could not betray his country and the conftitution. He owned the difficulties of carrying fuch a meafure in an affembly where fo few had a local knowledge of the cir cumftances that juftified it; but he recollected that there were among his hearers fome military gentle

men

« PreviousContinue »