The fecond reading of this bill was oppofed at greater length, but by much the fame arguments, as had fo often been ufed before, by Mr. Jolliff, Mr. Hobhouse, fir Francis Burdett, Mr. Tierney, Mr. Sheridan, and fir W. Milner. The moft eloquent and impreffive fpeech that was made, in the courfe of this night's very long debate, against the fufpenfion of the greateft palladium of our liberty, was that of Mr. Hob houfe.

Mr. Windham, it will readily be recollected in the laft debate on the prefent fubject, obferved, that the danger of treafon was confiderably diminished, and that the prefent tranquillity was to be afcribed to the fufpenfion of the habeas corpus act. That argument of the fecretary's-at-war had been alfo urged in favour of the fufpenfion, by Mr. Lafcelies.

Mr. Hobhoufe obferved, that both thefe gentlemen had faid, that if the fufpenfion were not continued, the traitors, fhould France once more become fuccefsful, would fhew themselves in full force, and with renewed activity; and in the language of one of them, a revolution might burft forth as fuddenly, as characters infcribed with lemonjuice upon paper, ftarted into appearance upon being applied to the fire. This argument, Mr. Hobhoufe obferved, was a little at varience with the former: that, fuppofed the ground for alarm to be as ftrong, as when the panic-ftruck committee made their report. This gave a more favourable reprefentation of the prefent times; but, it was curious to contemplate both thofe modes of reafoning in a connected point of view. Upon ap pearance of danger, the liberties of the fubject must be fufpended;

upon difappearance of the peril, the fame arbitrary powers must be placed in the hands of minifters; and thus, whether the ftate were, or were not, expofed to risk, an individual might be committed, under a warrant from the privy council or fecretary of ftate, and denied the privilege of demanding his trial within a given time. "Farewell then, an eternal farewell, to the bleffings of that great charter of our perfonal freedom, the habeas corpus act." It should also be remarked, that this argument was not quite confiftent with itfelf. It affumed that the danger was diminished, and yet fuppofed that it was only concealed, which, in fact, rendered it more formidable. Traitors, but for the meafure now recommended, it was faid, would no longer lurk in their hiding places, but, on the firft favourable opportunity, make the moft daring exertions to accomplith the ruin of their country.— What was this, but to contend that the fufpenfion of the habeas corpus at had produced only a hollow and delufive quiet, which was rather the fuppreffion of murmur and complaint, than a proof of content and happinefs? Was not this a ftrange method of demonftrating its effica cy? As to the argument made ule of by Mr. Wilberforce on the prefent fubject, on a former night, "That it was our duty to confide in adminiftration," Mr. Hobhouse obferved, that this doctrine of confidence was extremely convenient, and of univerfal application. If a ftrong meafure, like the prefent, were propofed, no evidence of its neceflity was to be given, because the communication might be dangerous. But, fuppofing that, in fome inftances, fuch communication might be attended with detriment either

to

te individuals or the public, ftill it was unneceflary to refort to this doctrine of confidence. A fecret committee, fairly and impartially chofen out of gentlemen on both fides of the houfe, might be appointed to examine into the grounds for fufpecting that a confpiracy against the ftate was in existence, and their report would prove completely fatisfactory, though any part of their information were withheld from the houfe. On the question being put, that the fufpenfion of the habeas corpus till the firft of February, 1801, be read a fecond time, it was carried by 98 voices againft 12. It was afterwards read a third time, on the twenty-fifth of February, and carried up to the houfe of lords, where it was read a first time.

On a motion that it should then be read a fecond time, lord Holland exclaimed againft the indecency of hurrying a bill of fuch importance, fo rapidly through the houfe.

Lord King faid, that before their lordthips could judge of the propriety of vefting fuch powers again in the hands of his majefty's minifters, it would be necellary to know how they had been formerly exercifed. He therefore moved that there fhould be laid before the houfe a list of all perfons confined by virtue of the fufpenfion of the habeas corpus act, with the places of their confinement, and dates of their commitment; which was ordered. And a list of the perfons, confined on treafonable charges, was, on the twenty-feventh of February, laid before the lords, when the third reading of the bill was oppofed by

Lord King, who had always been taught to look up to the habeas corpus as one of the ftrongeft and moft facred barriers of the conftitution. It was the opinion, he ob

6

ferved, of all the most celebrated political writers, that the habcas corpus act ought never to be fulpended, but upon occafions of the moft urgent and imminent neceffity. Thofe occafions had been pointed out in 1798 and 1799. They were an apprehenfion of foreign invafion, of internal infurrection. But now, their lordthips were defired to continue it ftill farther, without any fhadow of reafon whatever being adduced as an argument for fo doing. The prefent mode of proceeding, by his majesty's minifters, he had began to confider as a preJude to making the fufpenfion perpetual. When was there a likelihood of putting an end to it? If their lordihips might believe what had been faid in another place, not till jacobinifin was extinguified. If, however, there were really eighty thousand of thofe incorrigibles, as had been afferted by a great mafier of that kind of political arithmetic, [Mr. Burke] and, if what had been allo faid on another occafion, were alfo true that thofe principles of jacobinifm, once in bibed, never to be eradicated: long indeed he feared it would be before this great bulwark of liberty and fecurity would be reflored. His lordfhip highly condemned the great length of time which had elapfed fince the imprisonment of the twenty-nine perfons now immured in different jails, fome upwards of two years, without being brought to a trial. He allowed that perfons fo taken up ought, if there were just caufe to fufpect them, and not fufficient evidence to convict, to be confined a reafonable time, in order to procure the neceflary evidence. But he thought eighteen months more than reafonable time, and fome time ought to be fixed, in

were

which,

which, if they were not brought to trial, they fhould be difcharged. His lordship faid, that he was the more ftrenuous in oppofing the prefent bill, that the power of the crown had been immenfely increafed, and the privileges of the people proportionally diminished by the paffing of feveral ftrong reftrictive acts. The whole property of the kingdom alfo was armed and in array, and at the difpofal of the crown, for the defence of the country. Vefted, therefore, as minif ters were, with fuch extraordinary power, he thought it improper to increafe them at the expenfe of the liberties of the people.

The earl of Carlile paid a complement to lord King for the very handfome and moderate manner in which, at his years, he had conducted the whole of his argument; but, he differed from him in opinion, and attributed the tranquillity we now poffeffed to the pafling of this very act, now to be continued. The horrid principles which had occafioned the pailing of the fufpenfion of habeas corpus had been weakened, but not wholly eradicated. He faw no danger in intrufting fuch a power as this in the hands of minifiers who had always ufed it fo mildly and leniently. That fuch was the cafe was evident, from the opinion of the people, who felt ro apprehenfions, nor had expreffed the finalleft dilcontent at fuch a power being to intrufted. Lord Holand faid, that of the feven years of the war, the habeas corpus act had been fufpended five; and, that of the multitudes who had been imprifoned in virtue of that fufpenfion, few had been brought to trial, and only one convicted. Neither was that perfon guilty of treafon against this coun

try, or connected with any focie ties, or any individuals of confequence in this kingdom. None of his machinations could ever have brought about a rebellion or infurrection. What harm would have followed from his going over to the enemy with a paper figned by no body? Should the conftitution be fufpended for years, because O'Coigley was condemned? It was faid, that the fufpenfion of the habeas corpus act was ufed merely as a meature of precaution, to protect the conftitution from the evil defigns of the many turbulent men who longed for its overthrow.— He confefled it not improbable, that the rational principles on which the French revolution was commenced; the plaufible, though permitious doctrine whh had been profefled in its later ftages; and the fplendid fuccefs which had attended the arms of the republic; might have dazzled many in every country in Europe, and made fome in this country long to fee the vifionary theories of freedom reduced to practice. But was it not likewife probable, that the dreadful atrocities which had been perpetrated during the revolution, the horrid crimes which had been comimitted in the name of liberty, and the final fubjugation of France to a military government, had made many incline to arbitrary power, and adopt tory and high-church principles, who were formerly, anim ted with a hatred to flavery? It was one of the great evils of the French revolution, that it had brought the caufe of rational freedom into difcredit; and there could be no doubt that the ancient fpirit of Britons had been nearly abandoned, fince they had patiently borne the moft alarming abridgment

of

of their privileges, and the moft flagrant infringement of their rights. If one fet of caufes had operated, why.might not another? The prerogative had lefs to fear at prefent than at any former periods. As to the mildness of minifters, granting that their conduct had been mild and lenient, yet, to keep up a notion that fecurity is owing not to the protection of the law, but to the mercy of a few individuals, must he attended with the most unhappy confequences. Men, owing no obligations to the conftitution, muft ceale to admire, muft lofe all affection for it, and fee, without regret, ano her erected in its fead. Thele were his reafons for oppofing the bill.

Lord Mulgrave defended the bill. Was it not wife and lenient, by prudent precautions, to preclude the neceflity of other and more vigorous meafures? The circumftances of the country had not been fo changed as to preclude the neceflity of the prefent meature. Pofitive proofs of confpiracies were actually on their lordihips table, The noble lord, who fpoke laft, might, if he pleased, talk of the French revolution as the effects of rational freedom; but this rational liberty had fhewn ittelf in the murder of the fovereign, in the bloody and deteftable tyranny of Robespierre! The five directors had trodden the fame ground with the bloody Robefpierre, with this difference, that their tyranny was more veiled, his more avowed. And were there no proofs, even in this country, of a predilection in favour of this rational liberty? Ha not a noble lord (Stanhope) within thefe walls, in his place, difclaimed his quality, and, in preference, affumed a title, which, as it had been applied in

France, ought to be held in juft difgrace? Could that noble earl have arrogated to himself the term citizen, unlefs there were, at the fame time, a difpofition in the country to flatter fuch freaks and prejudices? He wished that citizen Stanhope, fince that was the title in which he gloried, had been prefent in his place, to hear of his exprefs difapprobation of his conduct.

Lord Eldon faid, he could have wifhed to have given a filent vote, if he had not felt it inconfiftent with his duty, as a member of that houfe, and, in a peculiar degree, as being a member of a profeffion, which was connected with the laws of the country. He could not avoid, therefore, taking notice of fome of the topics which had been touched upon by the noble lords who had oppofed the motion, especially as it had fallen to his lot to difcharge his duty to his country at a critical period. The noble lord (Holland) had argued, that there was only one folitary conviction, and that, in that perfon's cafe, there was no treafon produced againft this country. But the fact was, that the perfon convicted was proved to have been planning with difaffected bodies of men in this country, with certain afiliated and correfponding focieties in Ireland; and furely the noble lord needed not to be told, that a perfon attempting to fever the crown of Ireland from that of England is guilty of an overt act of treafon against the king of this country? The noble lord had reprefented that man, Coigley, as an unconvicted traitor; but fubfequent events had proved, that, though the law of evidence would not permit perfons to be convicted on the record, yet, in point of prudence, they might

be