ers, as he never solicited them.- observations applied; but Mr. Tooke said he would not try. The bill was then read a first time without a division. On the motion that it be read a second time, a discussion took place; and the house divided— Ayes 189-Noes 42.-Maj. 147. On the motion that the word "now" do stand part of the motion, the house again dividedAyes 190-Noes 34.-Maj. 156. The bill then went through its other stages, was passed, and ordered to be carried to the lords for their concurrence. In the house of lords, on Friday April 17, lord Loughborough moved the order of the day for the second reading of the habeas-corpus suspension bill. Earl Moira owned that a proper occasion for passing such a bill might occur, but affirmed that no proof of its present propriety had been adduced. The report of the committee was vague, and no intimation of the grounds on which it was founded had been given. Necessity might justify the measure; but this did not exist. He highly respected the lords who composed the committee, and did not doubt their belief of all they had stated; but they all thought, and had been used to act, together. If they wished credit to their statements, they should have given up the authors of their information. This measure was brought forward in an unprecedented manner. No such bill had ever been proposed, without a previous communication from the throne. This was the right method of proceeding; for, then, those who advised his majesty to send a message were responsible, and might be called to account incase of imposition on the house. But now, if the reports of the lords' committees were incorrect, they might all say, “ We advised to the best of our judgment; you were not bound to follow our advice but as you thought prudent." He praised the habcas-corpus act, and condemned this infringement on the best privileges of the people. He said that their lordships were sent to guard the interests of the people; and, if these were neglected, they violated their trust. They represented the people as much as the other house; and, although not periodically chosen, by being hereditary they were free from biases by which they might otherwise be actuated. He praised the patience of the people under their present great sufferings; and concluded by hoping to give his sentiments more largely, upon the bill at a future opportunity. Lord Boringdon said, that whenever the suspension of the habeas-corpus act was proposed, it had always been contended that the necessity of it was not proved. But its necessity had been shown on several occasions; and, if the committee were considered as men of honour and truth, it was absolutely necessary now. He said that the part of the country where he resided was disturbed, and he firmly believed this a lenient rather than a severe measure. Whatever he might think of the new ministry, he should support any measure conducive to the public good. Lord Hobart said that a-com, munication from the crown was impossible (in answer to earl Moira). The papers had been sent down to the house of commons, and then referred to a committee. They were afterwards sent to the lords, with the king's permission; which he thought just the same as by a message from the throne. The bill was so necessary, in his opinion, that he should propose its being carried through all its stages that night he therefore begged noble lords to debate it, under the impression that it would be debated that night for the last time. Lord Holland defended earl Moira's arguments against the bill, as the only line of reasoning admissible. When the necessity of such a measure as the present did not appear, it was natural to agree that the grounds of its adoption were inadequate and unsatisfactory. The onus probandi lay, therefore, on the proposers of the measure; and they ought to present a specific case of necessity. He censured severely the conduct of ministers for calling on the house to agree to a bill, involving the suspension of the constitution on the unsubstantiated report of a committee, and without any message from the throne. He knew not what was their object, unless to get rid of all responsibility by degrees, and establish a system of absolute controul: The grounds in the report did not satisfy him; nor could he renounce the firmest support of the people's liberties from mere general assertions that a conspiracy existed: If such statements were to justify the house in such measures, how far was this principle to be carried, and so very dangerous a doctrine to be extended On this bill, it was the duty of the house to consider, that the power given thereby to ministers was liable to great abuse, and had been grossly abused by the late ministers. It had been said, that individual inconvenience was comparatively small to the consideration of general happiness and security. This was true, if the bill could be proved to have produced such an effect; but surely it was the first duty of the house to prevent the oppression of a single individual: that the power might be so abused was undeniable; and therefore the grounds for renewing the measure ought to be examined again and again. He proceeded to show, that in the example of Ireland coercion had produced no good consequences; strongly recommended conciliatory measures; and concluded by giving his negative to the bill. The earl of Westmoreland warmly supported the bill, which, he said, no noble lord in the house would propose but from conviction of its necessity; which fully appeared from the facts stated by the committee, and from the experience of its beneficial effects both here and in Ireland. It would doubtless produce the happiest consequences, in defeating the plans of the disaffected, and supporting the loyal part of the community. He conceived it calculated to operate leniently, by enabling government to restrain the wild schemes of those who, in meditating the destruction of the 'public peace, were pursuing plans which must ultimately involve their own. Earl Moira rose again, and, in an animated speech, pressed their lordships not to proceed precipitately on the bill, conjuring them by the duty they owed the country, and the liberties of the people, not to agree to a measure so trenching on the constitution, without the strongest evidence of its necessity. The statements of the committee were neither sufficiently circumstantial nor specific to found the passing of so violent an act. When proved necessary, he should not oppose it; but, from the present evidence, he could not conscientiously support it. The earl of Westmoreland explained. Lord Grenville said, that the best proof of the bill's utility was, that the conspirators themselves regarded it as a measure destructive of their rebellious endeavours, and had owned that the sedition bill, and that to suspend the habeas-corpus act, had frustrated all their. schemes. Since he had had the honour to sit in that house, he never gave a vote with more satisfaction, or more consonant with the conscientious discharge of his duty, than that which he should give on this occasion. Lord Hobart moved that the bill be committed. Lord Holland desired the clerk to read the orders of 24, 26, and 104, which directed that no bill should be committed on the day when it was read the second time, and that no bill should pass two stages in any one day. He said, he had not pressed the reading of these to inforce them, but only to show how little attention was paid to the orders of the house by ministers, who were ready enough to take advantage of them, when it suited their purpose, against any proposition from his side of the house. The secretary of state (lord Hobart) appealed to the noble lord, whether he had not given every possible notice of the immediate necessity of passing the bill, by having declared that he should move its passing through all its stages on the same day, before the committee was formed, or the papers were on the table. He had been enabled to give this notice from knowing knowing the contents of the papers referred to the committee, which he possessed by his official situation, and from assuring himself that the committee would report as they had done. Lord Holland said, that no word of the noble secretary had any relation to the standing orders; but he had already explained the reason why he had them read. The committee was negatived, and the bill read a third time and passed; and a message ordered to be sent to the commons, informing them that it had been passed without amendments. For the revival of the bill for preventing seditious meetings, the arguments were more decisive. On the 15th of April, the chancellor of the exchequer undertook to show the propriety of reading the bill to prevent seditious meetings a second time, and of allow ing it to go through a stage each day, that it might be read a third time on the Monday following. The urgency of the bill was extreme, and delay would be danger. ous. There would now be time enough to debate it deliberately; and the objections to this method were quite void of foundation. Mr. Pitt said that the bill was not new. The country well knew its good effects, and the bad consequences attending its cessation. The report stated, that there was a plan for meetings throughout the country at the same day and hour; therefore, it was urgent that the bill should be passed into a law. The house might think it salutary, but the country mischievous. Ought not the public to have time to express their sentiments? The country would not have been in its present wretched state, had not the public's functions been so long suspended. The chancellor of the exchequer said, that he could not agree to any further delay, consistently with his duty to the public. The act had been in force five years, without a single petition for its repeal. (4) (A cry of Hear! from the opposition bench.) Perhaps the honourable gentlemen meant to convey that. the people were cramped in their right to petition; but during that time very many petitions had been presented, some against the war, others for the dismission of ministers, and were as frequent as at any other period of the same duration. Though the measure had been warmly opposed at first, three months after its adoption he had never heard it once disapproved. All were convinced it had operated to preserve tranquillity, and to save the constitution. There was no ground for expecting any petitions. Before Monday, the people in most parts of the country might express their sentiments. He concluded by saying that he hoped the revival of the bill would have been unnecessary, but was disappointed. Mr. Sheridan said, he must tell the right honourable gentleman, that it was unparliamentary to presume that the people would not petition against the bill, and they ought to have an opportunity to declare their sentiments. The report said, that dangerous meetings were apprehended. It was strange that not one of them had happened, into the arguments against the bill. yet the bill had been suspended six Mr. Tierney (who had objected to reading the bill a third time so soon as Monday) said, he was indifferent when the bill was debated; he wished it delayed only to accommodate some members who could not attend. He then entered months. months. The right honourable gentleman (Mr. Pitt) seemed to say, "When I was in office there was no occasion for this bill: my vigilance, foresight, and energy, sufhced to maintain tranquillity: but now you have a weak, flimsy, and rickety administration; and treason and sedition bills are indispensably necessary." He protested against the manner in which the committee was formed. When truth was to be told, committees were formed very differently. What confidence would have been placed in the committee's report during the king's indisposition, had it teen composed of men all thinking alive? The members were then taken alternately from both sides of the house. If this were a case of less interest, it was not of less importance. They were about to find a bill of disloyalty against the people of England. Never were so many petitions against any bill as this, when first proposed. He declared, that the manner in which the people were fettered was the sole reason that petitions had not been presented for its repeal. That the right honourable gentleman had not heard it condemned, might be true; but (to use a popular phrase in that house), he probably kept very amiaole company. He was quite indifferent about the time when the bill should be read again. It had been introduced without necessity, supported without argument, and the house would act most consistently with itself by passing it as precipitately as possible. Lord Hawkesbury contended, that the number of petitions presented, while the late bill was in force, best proved that it did not operate against proper petitions, or prevent any meetings convened for good purposes. Lord licutenants, grand juries, or seven house keepers, could call meetings: this was not depriving the people of their right of petitioning, which he readily admitted, regretting the necessity of placing any restraint upon them, Necessity alone justified it. No real inconvenience had followed from the bill during five years, nor was there ever a measure inore generally popular. He saw no objection to its passing in the manner proposed by his honourable friend. Mr. Wilberforce said, that the bill was regarded through the country with affection and gratitude. It was unpopular at first from misrepresentation, but its utility was now generally acknowledged. He had been told himself, at a meeting where thirty or forty magistrates attended, that such a meeting could not happen after the passing of the bill; but this was found to be erroneous. He defended the committee's conduct; and recommended to the honourable gentleman (Mr. Sheridan) to reflect on the smallness of the number on his side the house, and how few in the country joined with them, before he complained of their not forming a part of the committee. He said, that those who composed the committee could assign sufficient reasons why Mr. Sheridan was not chosen one of its members. He complimented the vigilance of ministers, who had acted vigorously on emergencies, without infringing in the least on the constitution. Mr. Lascelles favoured the second reading of the bill; and stated that, in the county to which he belonged, the present measure was so far from objectionable that it |