The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1805-02-22 00:00:00

The question was put, and Lord Gessaritt s's
Motion was negatived without a division.
Lord fiAWICESBURY then moved the second
reading of the Irish tabus Corpus Ad Suspension
Bili, which was accordingly read a second time.
His Lordship then, pursuant to his notice of Tues-
day night, moved the Order of the pay for the con-
sideration of the Standing Orders, No. 26 and 155,
with a view to the suspension of`the same, as tar as
related to the Irish Habeas Corpus Ad Suspension
Bill.
Before. the question on this Motion was put, his
Lordship stated, that, under the special circumstanced
of the case, he should have to propnie that the 8.11 be
forthwith committed. He trusteu the House would
immediately concur in the oily isais expediency sif
such a proceeding. and perceive, irons a glance at
the preamble of the Bill, that no delay in the pro-
gress of the measure should take place. With re-
spect to the ground for passing it, he considered,
under the present circumstances, that of public no-
toriety was a sufficient reason; and which had
been acted upon by Parliament, when, in fact, less.
grounds existed than at present. Since the year
1793, the Habeas Corpus act had been nine times
suspended, and of these, six times, without any
previous enquiry whatever having been instituted. He
was fully aware of the importance o; the liabeasCorpui
Ad, it was one of the bulwarks of our constitutional
liberties ; but the continuance of these liberties was
owing to the circumstance of that being done upon
great and extraordinary occasions, which, far a time,
cut tailed them. Of this the occasional suspension of
the Habeas Corpus Ad was a striking instance. His
Lordship then generally adverted to the peculiar
circumstances in which Ireland at present stood,
which, he satisfactorily argued, were such as to call
upon their Lordships to pass the Bill in question,
which had been sent up from the Commons.
The Earl of CARLISLE made some observations
upon what had fallen from the Noble Secietary of
State; but his objections seemed principally to apply
to the mode pursued by Ministers with respect to
the Bill.
The Marquis of Sctoo spoke warmly in support
of the measure.
Earl SPENCER. said, the Bill could nut receive
the Royal assent sooner than Saturday, and, conse-
quently, could nut be known as a law in Donlin
until after the expiration, of the present Ad, wh:ch
will take place on Tuesday. It had been urged in
support of the Motion, that the Habeas Corpus Act
had been suspended ainetiMes in the course of the last
war. He did not. however, recoiled any instance,
without a particular case macie out, or a previous
enquiry. It was only said, that Irish traitors in
France were corresponding with disaffeded persons
in Ireland. If that were sufficient, died, as long as
there was a disaffeded man in Ireland, and an
Irish traitor in France, the French Government
might make a case whenever it pleased, to deprive
us of the best security of our liberties.
The Earl of LONGFORD lamented the system
e( d •solation that had prevailed in Ireland for ten
years past. " You have heard of it." said his
Lordship, " but we have felt it. You would
.give
much to avoid the experience of such calamities
We should give much more to prevent their repeti-
tion. The people of Ireland looked with confidence
to a firm and vigorous Government, and they are
ready to make sacrifices to deserve it. It is be a
matter of notoriety that a corrusaossdence is now
carrying on between traitor: in France, and disaf-
feded persons in Ireland, I cannot conc...ive a
stronger ground for the Suspension of the Habeas
Corpus Ad."
The Duke of bIONTROSE was confident, that

if the Habeas Corpus AR had been suspe:.ded in
Ireland, in 1803, the iqsurrettion in Dublin would
not have taken dace. lie also thought, that if the
Bill received the Royal Assent on Saturday, it might
reach Dublin on Monday.
Lord SOMERVILLE urged, upon the experi-
ence of fourteen months residence in Ireland, the
necessity of arming the Executive Government with
strong powers.
The Duke of CLARENCE said, if the case were
so urgent, Ministers were to blame for not bringing
it forward sooner. The Noble Secretary had said
that the South of Ireland only was disturbed, and
a Noble Marquis had added, that the state of that
country was excellent. Where then was the neces-
sity for taking away the benefit of the Habeas
Corpus Act ? He conceived it utterly impossible,
that the Bill, if passed, should, reach Dublin on
Monday. and consequently, that the reason for
such extraordinary baste fell to the ground. •
The /Auld LIMERICK alluded to she expe-
rience of ten years pasts the arrival of the French in
Bantry Bay, and the Rebellion in 1803, and eon-
tended, that if the Bill were not passed, there would
be French emissaries in every part of Ireland.
The Lail of DARNLEY did not objet to the
Bill, but to the mode of procedure, and urged se-
veral arguments against such precipitancy.
Lord AUCKLAND said, if it were necessary the
, Bill should reach I)ublir on Monday, those who de-
layed it only made that event more unprobable.
Lord GRENVILLE said, every lover of the con-
stitution must love the independence of Parliament ;
but what regard would there be abeam for that in-
dependence, if the orders and usage of Parliament
were to he violated without cause, and a me.uure
thus precipitated through the House? If the saftty
of Ireland depended upon the measure, Nlinisters
ought not to have placed it in such a critical situa-
tion, but to have brought it forward sooner. The
rules of that House were not vain and empty forms.
but made toensure to ever/ measure mature &Lire-
_

ration. In the present instance, no case was made to
justify a departure tram them, there w* nn sudden
emergency, no extraordinary accurrenee to justify
it. He did not see the atoolute necevity that the
Bill should reach Ireland on Monday. The govern-
ment of that country surely could not be afraid to set
for aahsy or two, which was all that wai necessary fur
passing it, without this CLIO/MOUS ViOlai; a, of the
orders of the House. As to the Bill itself, he gave
no opinion, not being sufficiently acquainted with
the state of Ireland; but certainly he must say, so far
as any information was given, no constitutional
ground was made out for the. measure.
Lord MU LG RAVE said, it was strange that a
Noble Lord Should advise the Irish Government to
violate the laws of the country, and place themselves
in the situation to require an of indemnity, rattler
than that the House should dispen.e, at; it had 4
right to do, of any of its standing orders.

.'~-~