this if the law should pass; or how a subject could have less protection, or ministers more despotic power. This system was justified only on a supposed necessity. The virtues of lord Cornwallis, instead of those of the constitution, were to be relied on; and we were to derive our security from believing that he was not better than his successor. But in this system injuries must be silently borne, because complaint were treason: a more iniquitous one was never framed; and if it should ever be in his pow. er to assist in bringing those ministers to justice, who had abused the public confidence, and the influence of the crown to the destruction of the rights of the subject, he would eagerly and zealously exercise it. The constitution was torn from its basis; its principles set afloat; we were as much as France under a revolutionary government, and ignorant where it would setle. No man more venerated the limited monarchical constitution than himself, or would sacrifice more to preserve it. Ten years ago, what noble lord would not have died in resisting what we were now forging for Ireland? What was then his duty remained equally coercive on his mind now. Both the people and the crown had fundamental rights; but their principles had been undermined by the promoters of this act, which advanced the sovereign's by the extinction of the people's rights: but they had even shaken the security of the crown: for, if the assertions of ministers were true, the present state of the country did not admit a Limited monarchy; and absolute power was necessary. In the future revolution of circumstances, the very reverse of the present Just take place, and then mon.

archy must yield to a pure democracy: it would then be our duty: (for the former reasons) to have recourse to it as the best nostrum for the secret malady of that day: and the sovereign, then on the throne, would find that democracy tended to preserve monarchy. He knew not what a secret committee might decide when monarchy was to be overturned; but from the present precedent it must not be chosen from the king's ministers. Hu-: man wisdom could not foretell whither the present revolutionary. principles might lead; but the argumonts at present proved that no government had an immutable basis; but must yield not only to force, but even to such reasoning as might rashly be admitted as sound by their lordships.

Lord Hay said he felt that the measure trenched upon the constitution; but having heard, from almost every noble lord who knew the situation of Ireland, of its absolute necessity, he must assent to it.

The secretary of state rose to reply, saying, that it was in vain for him to try to justify the bill, since the noble earl did not believe a word of the report on which it was founded.

The earl of Caernarvon said, that he took for granted that the facts: were fully proved; but what he said was, that he did not believe. the inferences deduced from them.

The secretary of state resumed his speech, saying, that even after the noble earl's explanation a jus-> tification of the bill from him would be of no consequence. Another noble earl had complained, that he had not argued to prove the neces sity of passing the bill; which was, because the report proved the necessity, and that the arguments therein would be more impressive

than

than any of his own. The same noble earl had diverted himself with the jesting term of a substitute administration. He said no man more lamented the loss of the great talents of his predecessors; but if public affairs were lately so much mended, as was asserted, this was no unfavourable comment on the conduct of the present administration, in whose hands the happy change had been wrought. He read passages from the two reports to convince the house, that if another noble lord (Fitzwilliam) had proceeded into the statement of the magistrate's opinion, which he had quoted, he would have been found a strong advocate for martial law in Ireland. He also read an extract from Mr. Ormsby's evidence (who had acted at courtsmartial as judge-advocate, at Limerick), and the oath of the United Irishmen, when he was interrupted by

The earl of Caernarvon, who desired, that if it was thought right to read a part of Mr. Ormsby's evidence, the whole of it might be read. The secretary of state declined the noble lord's request, not choosing to fatigue the house.

The earl of Caernarvon said he had no fear that the house would be fatigued with hearing what was necessary on so important a subject; and therefore willingly undertook the task of reading the passage prudently omitted by the noble secretary: but which was due to Mr. Ormsby's veracity, to show that he concealed nothing from the management of courts martial. He had said, "That those who he thought must have been acquitted for deficiency of eridence, he took on himself the merit of admitting to bail; so that, there being na acquittals, the court be

came a real object of terror to all offenders: he could take on himself to say, that if the judges kad come into the town, and stayed the usual time (a week), not a single trial, concluded by him, could have gone on for want of evidence." The earl then left the house to judge, from this statement of Mr. Ormsby, whether the constitution was im proved by its change in judicature.

The secretary of state resumed his speech, and read the oath, in which the United Irish swore so lemnly to assist the French to the utmost, in subverting the governs ment and constitution, and de throning the monarch. A noble duke had stated, that at one of the assizes in Ireland many had been tried and convicted; which was merely owing to the protection of martial law; without which wit nesses would not give their evi dence, nor juries do their duty, since they were sure to be murdered or driven from their coun try. Conciliatory means had been recommended instead of acts of this kind; but the oath proved, that the Irish were solemnly bound to drive every protestant from the country, and support the French invaders. What measures would satisfy such men? As to the exercise of this power in Ireland, it would appear that the prisoners tried by courtsmartial had all advantages; copies of the charge, and from one to three counsel.

The earl of Carlisle rose to ex plain, saying, that by a substitute administration he meant no ill-na-` tured personality. He however lamented when, in critical times, he saw a new administration substituting weakness for strength. He allowed the noble secretary and his colleagues as much merit as they were entitled to; but their predecessors

large and extensive, and its operation to apply to all who were liable to be impleaded by executing the act, that they might then be able to stay proceeding, and if judgment were given against them they might apply to stay execution.— After some more observations, he wished that the bill should be read a first time the next day, and, after printing, a second time on Tuesday, and its principles and provisions fully canvassed.

Mr. Grey could not consent to the bill's introduction on the explanation then given. The honourable and learned mover seemed to think it enough to say it was an act of immediate justice; but it might be extremely oppressive to many individuals. In former times, it had been necessary to suspend the habeas-corpus act; and those who exercised the powers then granted had as much responsibility and claims to immediate justice as the present ministers. But he did not recollect that a legislative provision was had in such a case; therefore that should be shown to be necessary now which was not considered so formerly. He said that the principle of the bill was more hostile to the constitution and the system of English jurisprudence than any other measure of the late admini stration. Therefore he could not consent even to its introduction.

The attorney-general, in explanation, referred the honourable gentleman to two precedents, in 1746 and 1780, when such bills were adopted.

Mr. Archdall quoted lord Somers's authority, that such a bill

was not unconstitutional.

Sir F. Burdett thought the bill quite of a piece with all the other measures of the late ministers, who, conscious of their own criminality,

were for screening their inferior agents.

Mr. Tierney strongly objected to the mode of bringing in the bill, saying that the committee had no power to examine the subject of it. The papers referred to them regarded the plans of the disaffected here and in Ireland, and formed the only ground of their inquiry; but they had taken up a subject quite distinct, and founded a measure on it wholly irrelative to the great ob ject oftheir inquiries. This proceeding was dishonourable to the house, and only intended to screen the late ministers by an ex post facto law. He allowed that indemnities might be necessary in some cases, but this was a very peculiar case. Ministers had formerly asserted their conduct to be legal in this matter; and when he and his friends wished to know the extent of their responsibility, theyhad been told by lord Eldon,now raised to the highest legal honours, that a bill of indemnity was unnecessary. No dreadful consequences to ministers for want of such a bill were then insinuated. But if they had doubts for forming the present bill, why were they not stated for six years, but brought forward with a demand of general indemnity? He asked the chancellor of the exchequer, Whether a bili so introduced deserved his support? was reported that the change of administration was only a juggle e this he would not now discuss; but bad men might argue in support of this notion from the mode of the bill's introduction, and say that the late ministers had gone out to get a committee for screening them from punishment. He ended by reconmending the appointment of another committee, on whose report, it needful, the bill might be grounded.

It

Mr. Pitt said he would not detain

.the

the house in this stage of the business, but the bill ought to be rightly understood. It was not to justify certain individual measures, but to protect persons from punishment for acts conformable to their public duty, whose legality they could not defend without endangering the lives of others. The most important information had been derived from sources which could not be disclosed but with danger to their lives who gave it. To prevent this the measure was designed;-that evidence should not come before the house, that the safety of disclosing might be judged of. He owned his responsibility deeply implicated, and trusted that when the independence of the committee was considered, their impartiality would not be disputed.

Mr. Bragge spoke to order, and said, that though select committees had no power to form resolutions, they might suggest what might arise from the subject of papers before them.

Dr. Laurence would accede to a bill of indemnity under proper modifications, but resolved to watch over the bill with constitutional jealousy.

The chancellor of the exchequer hoped what had been stated by his honourable friend would remove doubts as to the committee's power. They might advise what measures seemed expedient. Mr. Tierney had said the bill now proposed did not fairly arise from the papers.It was impossible that persons wishing for indemnity could be defended without sacrificing public and private duty, and therefore the bill was necessary. As to what Mr. Tierney had said of a juggle between his majesty's ministers, it was unworthy of him. No such expression should ever deter him

from his public duty. He had often differed from those ministers, but never in those measures which had saved the country; and he would protect those who had protected it. He now asked for others what perhaps he might have to ask for himself. But he supported the bill from no selfish emotion. Each who did his duty claimed protection; and, whilst he performed his own, he hoped to experience the same.

Mr. Tierney explained, profess ing, that though he suspected a connexion between the late and present ministers, he would not hazard an opinion till he had better materials for judging.

Sir R. Buxton defended the lafe ministers.

Mr. Jones never spoke of the change of administration as a juggle, differing herein from his best friends: but were he asked on his honour whom he thought first minister, he could not tell.

Leave was then granted to bring in the bill.

On Friday, June 5th, the order of the day being read, sir Francis Burdett presented a petition from Jasper Moore against the bill, stating, that he had been confined three years under the suspension of the habeas-corpus, when he had had the severest treatment, chiefly from the jailor of Cold-Bath-Fields' prison: he was arrested in April 1798, and sent to a damp stone cell, where he remained twenty-three hours without any food, or even water. He was examined on the 5th day before the privy council, answered every question, and prayed an immediate trial, which was refused, and he locked up in Newgate in a stone cell, where he was suffered to walk out only a few hours in the day; but Mr. Kirby's treatment was humane, contrary to that of