should affirm, « Although every body denied what he had advanced, no one contradicted it."

Mr. Courtenay maintained that it was still undisproved, though not un-contradicted.

The house went into a committee upon the bill; and it was agreed that it should remain in full force till the 21st of May, 1799.

In the house of lords, on Friday, Jan. 4, lord Grenville moved for the suspension of the habeas-corpus act. After the bill had been read, the earl of Suffolk rose to oppose it. He said it was highly necessary that ministers should assign some reason for the renewal of this bill before it was proposed to the house; and the infringement upon the constitution of our country demanded some weighty reason, which had not yet been made known. These indeed were times of difficulty and danger; but was the danger such as to justify a measure as grievous as it was unconstitutional? Ought not the evidence to be produced of its necessity before it was adopted? and, if ministers were to be intrusted with a power so extraordinary as this bill would confer upon them, they should well reflect upon the lenity and moderation with which it should be used.

His lordship adverted to the treat ment of colonel Despard, whose situation inspired universal regret wherever his amiable character was known. Sincerely he hoped that some of the accounts had been exaggerated respecting it; but to be confined in a cell seven feet square, without fire, or any other light than came from the top, without chair, table, or any thing to rest upon but a truckle-bed, was a cruel mode of punishment for a gentleman who had lived in the enjoyment of luxuries. But here it could not be jus

six

tified: there had been no specified charge against him, notwithstanding his confinement had lasted months; and he appealed to the humanity of the secretary of state, whether this species of confinement was proper for a gentleman of the rank and character of colonel Despard. If these measures were to be pursued when no crime had been specifically alleged, no subject in the kingdom could be safe.

Lord Grenville thought the reasons formerly given for passing this bill amply sufficient, and they remained in sufficient force to induce their lordships to continue it. As to the harshness with which it was said colonel Despard had been treated, he did not pretend to say he knew any thing about the matter: he had been told lately that something of the kind had been complained of, and that it was immediately discountenanced by government. The subject had already undergone investigation, and more would soon be made, by which, he believed, it would appear that no unnecessary rigour had taken place.

Lord Holland declared, that it had been his intention to have opposed this bill in a former stage of it; and he should have done so but for an accident, which detained him when it was read a second time. To propose such a bill as this, under very different circumstances from the present, would have alarmed him, but to propose it without any evidence on the table of the house, was a thing too extraordinary to pass unnoticed. It was under the act of the habeas-corpus that all or any of us walked the streets in freedom; and, but for that act, every individual might in an instant be put into confinement, to pine within the walls, and to be a prey to the hor rors of a prison, without hope of

any

any appeal to the laws of his country.

Only the most imperious necessity ought to induce the house to abandon so strong`a bulwark to the liberty of the subject, and it was the part of their lordships to consider what proof they had before them of the existence of that necessity. Were he to admit all that had been urged by ministers to be true (which would indeed be a large cor cession), the whole taken collectively would not be sufficient for this suspension. That we were in a state of war, was no reason the evils of war were enough of themselves, without being aggravated by the loss of liberty; and although he would not join with those who were in the habit of pronouncing eulogiums on the constitution which they sought to subvert, yet he thought too highiy of it to doubt its being adequate to its own protection, even in the hour of turbulence and trouble, in which situation we were not at present involved. The custom of ministers was to call every man a jacobin who opposed them in any thing; but this was a bad argument, a poor reason for taking away the privileges of the whole community. The habeas-corpus act was so excellent a law, that nothing less than the detection of a conspiracy to overturn the government could justify this measure. Besides, before so much of the liberty of the subject was taken away, should be very careful to whom it was entrusted. Certainly not to those who already had abused that trust, nor to any set of men whilst there was tranquillity in this country. The suspension rested either on the suggestion of the minister, or on the general disposition of the people of England. What had these dispositions been? Why, the

we

very moment they were informed that an insult had been offered to their monarch, they testified attachment to his person; they proved, that, however they might bewail the evils of war, they had an attachment to the government under which they lived; and, therefore, his lordship affirmed the bill was totally unnecessary, and a gross calumny on Englishmen.

But it was still asserted that there had existed conspiracies of a deep and insidious kind, formed by men of settled hostility to all order and the laws. Here it might be well to remember, that several persons had been brought to trial on charges of high treason; that the reports of the house had almost predisposed the whole British public to pronounce them guilty before trial; that the crown, in short, had exerted all its strength, and employed all its means, on that memorable occasion: and what had been the result? why that the accused were honourably acquitted by a jury of their countrymen; and the treasons and seditions, of which ministers had spoken so much, and which the country regarded with such horror, disappeared in a moment; the nation sobered, and general tranquillity took place of general panic. If then no conspiracy existed, if sedition had been suppressed, and treason routed, what necessity could there be for the further suspension of the habeas-corpus? But if all the dangers stated in the preamble had been real, he would not admit that they justified an act which secured the personal liberty of the subject, and enabled him to obtain, without delay, a trial by twelve fair men of his country. From this act was derived all our privileges and all our security; and the moment in

Lord Grenville said, that if the debate on this bill had depended on the opinion he gentlemen of the opposition entertained of administration, he should have no hope, perhaps no ambition, to convince the noble lord of the propriety of any of their measures. But although they had not been favoured with his approbation, they had repeatedly received the support of the house. On some minds, indeed, prejudice had so strong an effect, that even facts could not alter them; but there were also others on whom reasoning and evidence made considerable impression. As to the trials of persons acquitted at the Old Bailey, were we now to learn that the acquittal was a proof of innocence? So far was acquittal from negativing the reports of conspiracy, that it tended to confirm it. Was it not proved that there had existed, in this country, a certain description of people called the Corresponding Society? the object of which was, to pull down our government, to destroy our property, to introduce a new sys tem of power on the model of the French republic, under the specious mask of parliamentary reform. With respect to another point brought forward against ministers, namely, their representing every man as a jacobin who did not agree with them; for his own part, he denied the charge; but, had it been founded, had it been the desire of ministers to stigmatise them as being attached to French principles, he knew of no opposition who had, at any time, afforded them better opportunity. But on what evidence was the necessity of the bill maintained? (here lord Grenville quoted the proclamation in April last, which stated, that our enemies were aided and abetted

by persons in this country) this evidence last year was deemed (he said) so satisfactory, that a similar bill to the present passed unanimously. Had not the fact corroborated exactly the minister's prognostic tion? Was it not confirmed by the person so honourably acquitted at Maidstone? The house needed not to be informed that he alluded to O'Connor. Had not that traitor, since his bonourable acquittal, thrown himself on the mercy of that gracious sovereign whom he basely had attempted to de throne? Had he not detailed, upon his oath, a series of the deepest designs against Ireland, which were afterwards confirmed by a rebellion? Nor was this all; O'Coigly, one of his confederates, had also been convicted of treason; and it appeared, beyond a doubt, that a communication was to be made to the directory, not from any society in Ireland, but in England. All these things proved the assertion, that there had existed a conspiracy in this country-that it also existed in Ireland-and a design had long been conceived of separating the kingdoms from each other. As to the idea of the English conceivingthemselves calumniated by this bill, it was as absurd to suppose it, as that they would think they were all called murderers, because a law had been made against murder. If the discontent of the people had been general against their government, he would not propose this measure; because, in such circumstances, little could be done by the imprison ment of a few. But he was persuaded the public would view the bill as ministers intended to use it, not for the destruction of their li berty, but its protection; a measure which was not to bring them into misery, but adopted, in ten

derness,

derness, for their future happiness and present security.

Lord Holland affirmed that he had not said absolutely, the verdict of a jury disproved a conspiracy; but it had proved that, when ministers came to parliament, and asked for extraordinary powers, they had taken up persons who were not guilty of that conspiracy, or that there was none at all existing. This point the noble secretary had been very ready to debate, but he had carefully avoided saying one word on the main subject-the state of the country. The reason recited in the preamble last year was, that the enemy was about to invade us. This was not now pretended; nor, had it been true, was it a reason for justifying the suspension of the habeas-corpus. As io the Maidstone trials, it was not yet evident that the conspirators, in England, were either numerous or powerful: it never had been signed, and the French go vernment would not have been so absurd as to act upon such a document as the proof of meeting with Co-operation. Of Mr. O'Connor he

saw no cause for being ashamed to repeat, that he had been bonourably acquitted at Maidstone; this did not infer that he had been so of a previous charge. His lordship had alluded to the disturbances of Ireland; were these any reasons for suspending the habeas-corpus here? The system pursued in Ireland had not produced effects to induce as to think that severe laws were the best remedy. Under all the attempts to repress evils by legislative severity, the rebellion had increased there; and if it were now checked, it was by the valour of our troops.

He conceived the object of this bill was to enable government to put off the trials of persons apprehended, lest those trials should be attended with disadvantage to the whole community. But government had much better consult (in his opinion) the tranquillity of the country, and the safety of the constitution, by removing grievances, and taking away colourable pretexts for rebellion. The house then divided. Contents Non-contents

26

1