down to the last communication between | ferent instances in which the Habeas the Executive Directory of England, and Corpus act had been suspended, but only the Executive Directory of France. Let call to their recollection one of those it be considered of what description of events which proved that the best gopersons these sects were composed. They vernment, administered by the best men, were of two classes: first, of those who might be endangered by the weakest of from their birth, habits, and situation, its subjects. He alluded to the conspimust be ever ignorant of these subjects on racy against the life of king William; for which they are called to decide, but were which some persons were brought to trial, deluded by the art and knavery of others, and many others imprisoned. The Haof whom they become the blind and ser- beas Corpus act was suspended; but that vile instruments. Secondly, of the indi- was not enough: a power was given to gent and ambitious, seeking property his majesty to continue those who had which they did not possess, and power not been tried, in custody, at first from which they did not enjoy, without being year to year, at length during his pleavery scrupulous as to the means by which sure. That pleasure continued during either might be obtained. On which of his majesty's life. On his demise the these was it that the last revolution was danger arising from a conspiracy against to have a beneficial effect? Not surely on his person was not considered as extinct, the ignorant, who were unable to judge and the same power was given to queen of its tendency, and acted in obedience Anne. Their imprisonment continued to their leaders-not surely on the ambi- during the whole of her reign; and on tious, unless the acquisition of unbounded the accession of the present illustrious power, by revolutionary means, be a dis- House a similar act was passed, which couragement to rebellion, and successful was again renewed on the accession of usurpation the best antidote to treason. George 2nd, and the last survivor of The hon. gentleman had stated that these unfortunate persons (whose name Buonaparté had suppressed Jacobinism, was Fernardi) died in Newgate, in the and renounced the system of conquest year 1736, at the age of 82, after an imwhich made it formidable. He would only prisonment of 40 years, without any alremind the House, that in the many coun-lowance from government. * He mentries which he had conquered, he had imposed, in the true spirit of these principles, that very constitution to which he had himself sworn allegiance, but which he had afterwards destroyed.-The hon. gentleman had objected to the degree of confidence which was to be given to ministers. That confidence undoubtedly was considerable, and it would be given with more or less caution, in proportion as it was more or less likely to be abused. Of this they were enabled to judge from the past conduct of government. If the list on the table were referred to, it would be impossible for malignity itself, to attribute the commitment of those in custody to any other motive than the public security. The power given by the bill had been used with a degree of moderation, that proved, in the hon. gentleman's opinion, the measure to be unnecessary. It did, however, afford the most satisfactory as surance that the power would not be abused if it were still reposed in the same hands. It was said, that the confinement of persons for eighteen months without trial, was new, and contrary to the practice of the constitution. He would not trouble the House by detailing the dif tioned this case, not to applaud it, far from it, but for the purpose of showing what was the practice which had been referred to in the best times, from the period when the seals were in the hands of lord Somers, till they were placed in those of lord Hardwicke. It was not such power which was now solicited, and thinking the cause had not ceased to operate which made this measure of precaution unnecessary, that the power given had not been abused, and that it had produced the security we enjoyed, he should vote for the bill. Sir Francis Burdett said, that much declamation was used against the Jacobin principles of France; and, if it was on account of the injustice and atrocities which they had caused to be committed, he opposed ministers on the same grounds, as it was their Jacobinical principles that he held in abhorrence; for never was there greater injustice than they had dis played in their conduct. The principles of government were common to all coun tries; if injustice constituted Jacobinism * For the case of Major John Bernardi, see Howell's State Trials, Vol. 13, p. 759. in France, it also constituted Jacobinism in England. It would be better to repeal the Habeas Corpus act altogether, than thus continually to vote its suspension. The repeal would not change the law of the land, the suspension did. The Habeas Corpus in common law would still remain, which it did not now do. There was no part of the constitution which ministers had not violated. They had left to the country nothing of the constitution but its corruptions. was no evidence of a change having taken place since the report was made: with those who thought it false, he would not attempt to reason. The second question was, whether such power might be safely entrusted in the hands of ministers? The list of the persons in confinement, would show that they had not abused it. The only apprehension which could be formed on this point was, that they should exercise this power against the adversaries of their measures. But the character of the men in confinement was very different from that of any of these classes. Since the act now in force was passed, only two, or at most three, have been apprehended, and kept in custody. The first of these was a Swedish baron. The other two were, one an American, the other an Irishman, in situations the most obscure. Mr. Tierney asked, whether there ever was an occasion before on which parliament had been called, without any reasons being stated, to vote for a bill which implied such a large suspension of our liberties? If there was such a precedent, let it be produced. The report which had been referred to contained a direct argument against the present measure, for, after stating all the circumstances, it added, that it would be expedient to sus pend the Habeas Corpus till the 1st of March 1800. But there was no mention that this suspension ought to be continued for a longer time; on the contrary, from The Attorney General said, it had been imputed to him that he considered the passing of this bill as a matter of course. He certainly did not consider it in any such light. When he introduced the bill, he stated the reasons which he conceived justified him in proposing it, namely, that a secret committee of the House, after a most laborious inquiry, had given in a report on the 15th of March last, which he did not detail, indeed, because he thought it unnecessary to detail what was fresh in every one's memory. That report the House had formerly thought sufficient to authorize the suspension of the Habeas Corpus act; and he had only thought it necessary farther to state, that subsequent to that report being given in, and to the act which was passed in May last, for the suspension of that act, there was no evidence of a change having taken place sufficient to authorize its now being admitted to be in force. The present act would expire on the 1st of March. It was therefore necessary that a new one specified time being mentioned, it was should be passed as soon as possible, or fair to infer, that, in the opinion of the the delay would have the effect of libe- committee, no longer suspension would rating persons whom he was convinced be necessary. But, without supposing any no gentleman wished to see liberated; it designed abuse of this power, might not would have the effect of liberating those ministers have been deceived into an immen who had been brought from Ireland, proper exercise of it? How could they and were now in confinement in Scotland. prove that some of these unfortunate men, There were only two points to be con- whom they have in custody, were not sidered in the present question; first, falsely accused by some under-strapper of whether the suspension is necessary? and the same rank with themselves? Had not second, whether it is safe to entrust such some of these men been committed withadditional power to ministers? The ne- out an information on oath? If they nad, cessity was proved by the report above ministers had grossly abused the powers referred to. In the very first page of entrusted to them. These men had been that report, it was stated by the com- kept in custody, some of them two years. mittee, that in the whole course of the Would an opportunity rever be granted inquiry they had found the clearest proof them to stand their trial before their counof a systematic design and plan to over- try? If the House, in such circumstances, throw the constitution and laws of the should vote the suspension, he washed his country, and to dissolve the connexion hands of the transaction, and should conbetween Great Britain and Ireland. Was sole himself with the reflexion that he had this true or false? Those who believed itborne his testimony against it. to be true, would act upon it; for there Lord Belgrave said, that the question of this night rested, first, on the necessity of the measure, both external and internal, and then on the opinion the House enter tained of the persons in power: if the House entertained any doubts as to the conduct of ministers, they should petition his majesty to remove them. The committee of last year was of opinion, that the dangers were great; and no man could say that those dangers had so far disappeared as to render precaution unnecessary even if we had not the proof, it could not be supposed that Ireland, which had been in a state of insurrection from one end to the other, could have been so, without the infection, in some degree, reaching this country. But let gentlemen look to an address of the London Corresponding Society of 1798, inserted in the report of last year, in which they will find these expressions, "we have not yet ceased from our exertions; we have persevered, and we will persevere." Now, I ask against such threats, ought we not to be upon our guard? The present situation of France was a strong argument for the continuance of the suspension. France was the thermometer of disaffection; as she was victorious it rose, as she was unsuccessful it fell in this country. From the relative situation of the two countries, the danger to be apprehended from the mischievous effects of Jacobinism was the greater. To reason with an hon. baronet (sir F. Burdett), who saw nothing but liberty in Jacobinism, and nothing but slavery in the British constitution, would be fruitless; but an hon. gentleman who preceded him, seemed to think that Jacobinism was destroyed by Buonaparté. Happily Jacobinism had lost much of its power to do mischief. But though shorn of its honours, it was not destroyed. It had been asked what Jacobinism was? It was every thing vile, base, degrading, and cruel; and if he were asked what a Jacobin was, he would say, a man who had renounced his religion, and with it, as a necessary consequence, his moral probity. He would turn, then, to Buonaparté, and ask whether, from all his public recorded acts, he was the man likely to have put down Jacobinism. If he had dismissed certain Jacobins at St. Cloud, he had dismissed them, not because they were Jacobins, but because they opposed his power; for he had replaced them with others as bad. Gentlemen, then, must not relax their efforts in combating Jacobinism, which was nothing but the evil spirit personi fied under various shapes and transformations. He who was not, therefore, a thorough hater of Jacobinism, in all its forms, could be no credit to human nature. The contest must not be continued one day, and relinquished another; to be successful, it must be constant, persevering, unremitting, eternal. Mr. Sheridan said, that in reasoning on the principles of government, it was not fair to conclude, because a corrupt people, debased under a despotic state, had broken and then dashed about the chains that held them, that the people of England, accustomed to a mild and beneficent government, should be so restrained that their liberties should be ripped up and curtailed from mere unfounded suspicion. It could not be inferred, because a wolf had committed depredations on the fold, that a man should take down his dwelling, when the remedy would be to chain up this animal; nor, because the fire had burnt down a wooden bridge, that we should take down one built of solid stone. Nor should it be inferred, because the licentiousness of France had demolished all that was excellent in human institutions, that the freedom of Englishmen would do the same mischief. The people of England were not slaves broke loose from their chains, nor rushing from despotism into anarchy and disorder. For the votes of the House, he always had a due deference; but from committees selected from among the minister's friends, it was hardly possible that a just decision could be obtained. Such was his opinion on the perusal of the reports of the select committees. The attorney-general seemed to pay little attention to the verdict of a jury. This jury had negatived the report of a secret committee, and he preferred that verdict to the reports. The opinion of the chief justice Eyre on that occasion, was, that this mighty conspiracy turned out to be a conspiracy perfectly insignificant, a conspiracy without men, money, leaders, or even design in their schemes; their rendevous a backgarret, their arms two rusty muskets, and their exchequer about 10l. 15s. Such was its formidable appearance, and so inactive, that the learned judge said they even wanted zeal in the undertaking. The precedent from the reign of king William, was inapplicable to the present period. The majority of the nation at that period were Jacobites. The Jacobites were com. posed of the nobility and the landed in believed that the people wished it to pass into a law; not, indeed, to enable ministers to carry on the war for the restoration of the Bourbons; but to bring about a safe and honourable peace. terest, and were formidable from their principles and opposition to William. The act was made at the time of the conspiracy against his life. It was a specific act to confine those whose moral guilt was ascertained; but the present shut up every man upon vague suspicion. Mr. Sheridan then reviewed the state of Ireland under lord Fitzwilliam, and attributed the outrages, cruelties, and atrocities, not to French principles, but British councils. The effects of such councils were predicted by earl Fitzwilliam. He then entered on the abuse of the power lodged in the hands of ministers, evidenced in the case of colonel Despard, and the infamous conduct of Aris, the keeper of the prison. Another abuse of power was under the Alien bill. This bill, said to be for political purposes, was perverted into an instrument of family protection; as persons who had paid their addresses to the daughters of gentlemen had been on that account taken up under this bill, and sent out of the kingdom. No new reason had been given why this act should be continued. Mr. Ellison said, he supported the ad ministration, because he was convinced, that by so doing he was rendering his country essential service. He considered the Habeas Corpus act, as one of the bulwarks of our constitution; it stood between the king and his people, and was a great security for both in ordinary times; but in extraordinary times there might be reasons for suspending the operation of that great law for the safety of the body politic. The present, in his opinion, was that time. The people, if they thought fit, had a right to suspend that law; and the people spoke their sentiments in that House; for the people were fairly represented in that House, at least he thought so. Was there any material change in the contest in which we were engaged since parliament had determined that this act should be suspended? He took neither the opinions nor the wills of others for his guide, while he had experience and the evidence of facts. By that evidence he was led to think, that the common enemy still aimed at the destruction of this country. After what we had all seen, it was to him a matter of astonishment, that any gentleman should say, that this measure was not necessary for the safety of the country. He believed it was a measure that would do, as it had done, much good to the country; and he Mr. Canning said, that the fallacy of Mr. Sheridan, throughout the whole of his speech was this-he had confounded the mass of the people of England with the objects of this bill; and he had, under that fallacy, argued, that the bill was a coercion on the people of England. There was no such coercion intended-thank God, there was no need; but because there was no disposition in the people to render such coercion necessary, it did not thence follow that there should be no such bill as this; for the objects of this bill, although few, were nevertheless fit objects for the coercion of it, and the House would be remiss if they did not provide a remedy for the evil, which would be felt if such persons were under no restraint. The manner in which his hon. friend had quoted the language of the learned judge before whom the state trials took place, was not intended to have any effect, except as a pleasant sally; in truth, he had put into his mouth words which that great lawyer never uttered-and yet these were the facts, as they were called, on which matured sentiments were to be set aside, and the good sense of the people carried away. They were to believe that a formal acquittal of a person charged with a specific crime could not, in the nature of things, possibly leave behind it any suspicion of moral guilt; and all this while we recollected that we had but narrowly escaped destruction, from the machinations of those very persons and their associates. His hon. friend proceeded to observe, that there was now no danger, because what had happened in France had opened the eyes of all mankind. If this conviction had taken place, how happened it that it did not take place sooner? We all knew the pre-eminence of Buonaparté-few doubted the superiority of his talents-none questioned that his power was at this hour as great, if not greater, than that possessed by any other man; and yet gentlemen who said that the eyes of all mankind were now opened by what had happened in France, seemed to have forgotten the progress of the French revolution. What was the great evil of the French revolution ?-The facility with which ambition might gratify itself at the expense of millions of the human race. Were he to define what ambition was, he would say it was that quality in the human mind that altered its colour as circumstances might alter, but whose nature was invariably the same, and led to good or to evil according to the temper and pursuits of the person who possessed it. The ambition in his right hon. friend, for instance, led him forward in a career of virtue-the ambition of a Jacobin was to procure and preserve power by proscription, by plunder, by confiscation, and by death; or by the utter destruction of all establishments, civil or religious; and by the erection of that hideous anarchy in which order was buried, and confusion triumphed in the ruins. Such had been, with various shades of difference, the ruling principle of all the prime actors in the French revolution from La Fayette to Buonaparté. Here Mr. Canning went over all the leading actors in the French revolution, as Mirabeau, Condorcet, Brissot, Robespierre, Carnot, Reubel, Barras, &c. giving to each appropriate epithets to describe the leading features of their character; and observed, that all their peculiar qualities were met and blended in Buonaparté. Why did he mention those things? He mentioned them, to show how very slowly the admirers of French principles could be brought to see their error-how much time it took to convince men of the hideous form of what they had originally admired as a beauty. He then passed on to the observation of Mr. Sheridan, that there was a great difference between the people of England and the people of France. He admitted there was much, but he objected to the argument, because it proved too much; for it proved that no provision should be made against the wicked if they were few: and to show what the contagion of an evil example might be, he called the attention of the House to the situation of Switzerland, where those men who were proverbial for mildness, candour, simplicity, and an attachment to that system of protection to persons and property which elevated them in the opinion of all who knew them, had been made to change, as it were, their very nature, and reduce their country to a scene of plunder, confiscation, proscription, and bloodshed. Such were the effects of listening to a system of Jacobinical reformation, which was another name for the destruction of all the establishments of the world. But his hon. friend had observed, that we had in this country a large volunteer force for the protection of our liberties. He admitted we had such a force, and he rejoiced in it; nor had he the least doubt of its effi. cacy, should the season arrive for calling it into action; but he hoped the day was far off when this country would be obliged to military force for the preservation of its liberties. For the preservation of our civil liberties, the constitution was provided with civil arms. He knew it was a common parlance that the liberties of this country had been sealed with the blood of our ancestors. This was not true to any considerable extent; for the liberties of this country had been secured with less bloodshed than that of any other country on the face of the globe. It was not upon the plain of battle, but upon this plain, the floor of that House, that the constitution of England had triumphed. And the question being put, That the said bill be now read a second time, the House divided: Debate in the Lords on the Habeas Corpus Suspension Bill.] Feb. 27. On the order of the day for the third reading of the bill, Lord King said, that he had always been taught to look upon the Habeas Corpus act as one of the most material safeguards of the liberties of the people. It was the opinion of the most celebrated writers, that it ought never to be suspended but upon occasions of the most imminent necessity: those occasions had been pointed out, and were, internal insurrection, or an apprehension of foreign invasion. In 1798, when the suspension was moved for, ministers had laid before the House his majesty's message, which stated the great preparations making by the enemy for the invasion of this country, and a variety of reasons as to the state of the country were then brought forward, a shadow of which did not appear to exist at present. When the act was moved to be suspended, it was upon the report of a special committee of each House, which directly stated that an actual conspiracy was then carrying on within the |