to assert, that, taken collectively, the co-operation of their talents was equal to the direction of public affairs in the present perplexing and overwhelming crisis. He concurred with Mr. Fox respecting Ireland, and thought the speech expressed much more of hope, than the state of that country could fully justify. If the insurrection had been so easily quelled in Ire land, the suppression of it was not so much to be attributed to the foresight, the vigilance, or the vigour of ministers, as to the neglect of the enemy to aid the insurrection, or the determination of the insurgents not to avail themselves of their co-operation. With regard to our conquests in the West Indies, Mr. Windham considered them unworthy of triumphant ex. ultation. He exhorted ministers to look to the state in which we might ultimately be placed, and not, according to their usual policy, to bound their views to the present day. For, whatever might have been done, with a view to maintain our character, our dignity, our safety, and our independence, it should be recollected, that little is accomplished, until the cause in which we areengaged be brought to a safe, honourable, and decisive issue. Alluding to some representations he had made, relative to the inadequacy of the preparations for the defence of the coast of Norfolk, he pledged himself, should any misfortunes arise from disregarding his admonitions, to make them the ground of an impeachment of the conduct of ministers.

When Mr. Windham had resumed his seat, the address was read a second time, and agreed to unanimously.

On the 30th of November, lord Castlereagh submitted to the house

a motion on the subject of the East India company's bonds; the object of which was, to enable the com pany to give an interest on their bonds not exceeding the rate of interest, which exchequer bills may bear at any time, in order that, as a circulating medium, they may enjoy, in the market, their just and fair proportion. Another object of the bill he meant to bring forward was, to enable the holders of such property to include the interest due upon it, in the general statement of their income; so that the levying of the provisions of the property tax should not produce the effect of exposing India bonds to a depreciation of value. He stated, that the amount of the bonds issued by the company did not exceed 80,000 or 90,0001., the duty upon which would not be of sufficient importance to induce the house to withhold any facilities to the operations of a great commercial company, particularly as the just amount of the duty would be eventually received by the proposed regulation. In a subsequent debate on this subject, lord Castlereagh denied that the bill would extend an exclusive preference to the East India company, and represented that it was of the first importance to encourage the prosperity of a company, whose interests were so intimately connected with the promotion of the general prosperity of the public. This, he said, would be evident from the annual amount of revenue accruing from the commerce of the company, which might be computed at no less than 3,226,0001. The noble lord then demonstrated the impolicy of crippling the com merce of the East India company, which annually exported nearly two millions of British manufac

tures:

tures: a sum which they could not be enabled to employ in the export trade, if a sudden run were allowed to be made upon their exchequer. The principal object of the bill was to prevent a run of this description from taking place.

On the same day, leave was given, upon the motion of the chancellor of the exchequer, to bring in a bill, to continue, until six months after the conclusion of a definitive treaty of peace, the restriction on the issues of cash by the bank of England. The expediency of this important measure seemed to be so generally recognized, that the motion passed without debate, and unaccompanied by any observations deserving of particular notice.

In the house of lords, a short debate arose on this subject, in which lord King, in the course of a variety of general observations, proposed to restrain the bank directors from a discretionary issue of paper, by requiring of them a monthly return of notes in circulation. Lord Hawkesbury conceiv, ed, that such a regulation might be construed into a reflection upon the directors, who had uniformly discharged the trust reposed in them, with prudence and circumspection. Lord Grenville, with out intending to resist the progress of the bill, stated that he proposed, on the third reading, to offer a few observations. Upon this occasion, his lordship acknowledged that the bill might be necessary, during the alarm of a threatened invasion; but objected to the period of the restriction, which might be continued longer than necessity required. Although the circulating medium would find its level most easily by being left to itself, with out the interference of legislative

authority, this general principle admitted of an exception when the restriction was originally imposed. The frequent repetition of such acts, he contended, would be productive of serious injury, and could be justified only by the most urgent and pressing necessity. It was true, that, by the accounts on the table, it appeared, the bank had not issued notes to a greater amount than in the preceding year; but it was a well-known fact, that the private paper in circulation had, in consequence of the restriction on the bank, increased in an uncom mon degree. This species of paper, although it did not possess the stability of bank notes, had received a decided preference; because no person could legally claim cash for the notes of the bank, but for private paper he might still legally make such a demand. The only instances which his lordship recollected of restrictions on payments in money, were in the cases of the Mississipi, and the assignats; and these restrictions produced the ruin of the establishments which they were intended to support, Regarding the excessive increase of private paper as arising from the measure before the house, he expressed an opinion that it might become an evil of the greatest magnitude, in the event of the actual landing of the enemy. Such an event would most deeply affect public credit, by the immediate depreciation of the private paper in circulation. His lordship, in opposition to the general opinion on the unpatriotic practice of hoarding specie, employed an argument which, he confessed, might appear paradoxical, but which he asserted to be true: the desire of hoarding money would naturally produce a demand for it; demand would raise its value, and an in

creased

creased value would as naturally procure a supply. He concluded by stating, that he wished to suggest to their lordships the appointment of a committee, formed of members of both houses, to act in conjunction, if that should be deemed regular, to inquire into the state of the paper circulation of the country; and recommended, in order to remedy the existing evil, that the bank directors should try the effect of a limited circulation of specie.

Lord Hawkesbury regarded the increased circulation of private paper as arising from the extended commerce, agriculture, and prosperity of the country, and not, as lord Grenville had asserted, from the restriction on the bank. He said, however, that he did not mean to object to a committee of inquiry, as suggested by the noble lord, but conceived it proper to reserve that subject for future consideration. In reply to an observation made by lord Hawkesbury, that the bank had not increased their circulation of paper,

Lord King stated, that it appeared from the accounts delivered in up to the 25th of November, that their out-standing notes were upwards of 17,900,0007.; and that in the year 1797 they were short of 14,000,000l. Their issue of paper, therefore, had increased about four millions.

After these observations, the bill was read a third time, and passed.

It will be in the recollection of our readers, that, in the course of the preceding year, Sir W. Scott brought in a bill to encourage the residence of stipendiary curates. It passed through the commons, but was rejected by the house of lords, in consequence of a money

1804.

provision having been annexed to it, which rendered it improper to be entertained by their lordships. Sir W. Scott, therefore, proposed to omit this clause, and to introduce into the bill another which would facilitate its operation. But as the enforcing of the residence of the beneficed clergy would deprive many of the curates of their respective cures, the sum of 80007. was granted later in the session, upon the motion of the chancellor of the exchequer, in order to provide relief for this meritorious class of men. For this purpose a se parate bill was introduced, as a provision in the former to relieve curates of this description had been the cause of its rejection.

The next subject of material importance, which engaged the attention of parliament, was Mr. secretary Yorke's motion for leave to bring in two bills to continue the acts of the preceding session, for the suspension of the habeas corpus act, and for the re-enactment of martial law, in Ireland. Long and animated debates arose upon these bills through all their respective stages. It will be our duty to exhibit a correct, but condensed, sketch of the chief argu ments employed, by the advocates and opposers of this important motion. The debates upon this occasion embraced a variety of topics, which in some degree branched out of the original subject of discussion. The conduct of the government in Ireland previous to, and during the suppression of the rebellion, underwent a full investigation. As these proceedings have, through various channels, been so frequently submitted to the consideration and judgment of the public, and later in the session became a distinct subject

B

ot

of parliamentary discussion, it is unnecessary that we should go through a long detail of circumstances, either to justify or to arraign, the conduct of the Irish government. It will, perhaps, be now sufficient, upon a subject of so much notoriety, to observe, that the measures of that government were justified, and condemn ed, with nearly an equal degree of confidence. The immediate suppression of the rebellion seems, however, strongly to indicate, that government were not taken by surprise, and that judicious measures had been pre-concerted to quell the insurrection. The constitution of courts martial, having an immediate relation to the subject of debate, gave rise to considerable discussion; without, however, leading to any change in their formation, with respect either to the number, or the age, of the members of these tribunals.

We now return to the discussion immediately before us, and shall confine ourselves to a concise statement of the arguments for, and against, a measure which so materially affects the liberty of the subject. The arguments of Mr. secretary Yorke chiefly rested on the establishment of the fact, that the suspension of the habeas corpus act, and the re-enactment of martial law, in Ireland, were absolutely necessary, from the peculiar circumstaces of the country. He considered it the misfortune of the present times, that we were not permitted to enjoy liberty or property, without sacrificing a part to preserve the remainder. That baneful event, the French revolution, had obliged us to resort, much oftener of late years than at any former period of our history, to a semporary abridgment of abridgment of our

rights. There was no alternativę

In

our security required it. times of extraordinary difficulty and danger, new and extraordinary remedies must be employed. He proceeded to state a variety of grounds, in order to demonstrate the necessity of adopting these measures. The insurrection in Dublin, in the month of July; the manner in which it was conducted; the atrocities which accompanied it; the intelligence of which government was in possession, which afforded every reason to believe, notwithstanding the declaration of many of the rebels, and particularly of Emmett, their principal leader, that there did exist a connexion between the conspirators in Ireland and the French government, through the medium of Irish traitors resident in France, who had been pardoned by the Irish government, although deeply implicated in the rebellion of 1798, supplied abundant materials to prove the necessity of adopting the measures proposed for the sanction of parliament. He conceived it of the highest national importance, that government should not be left destitute of powers adequate to meet any emergency; and measures of precaution, he observed, were indispensably necessary, more especially when it was remembered, that the enemy had avowed his determination to avail himself of the disaffected, to aid his designs of invasion both against this country and Ireland. He took occasion' to declare, that there could be no foundation for an opinion that the Irish government would abuse the extensive powers granted by the bills submitted to the consideration of the house, since, upon a former delegation of similar powers, the trial by martial law had been re

sorted

sorted to in only one instance; in the case of a man who had been detected in endeavouring to seduce soldiers from their allegiance.

Mr. Yorke was succeeded by colonel Hutchinson, who dwelt with much feeling and eloquence on the state of Ireland; and, at the same time that he supported the motion, acknowledged that he should have voted for the adoption of these strong measures with more satisfaction, if ministers had shown a disposition to change the present government of the Irish people, for a system more congenial to their wishes, and more conducive to their interests. Such a system alone was calculated to prevent the recurrence of those calamities, which had rendered it necessary to have recourse to these coercive means of prevention.

In reply to an observation made by several members, that, however desirable a change might be in the system pursued with respect to Ireland, the present time was unfavourable to the discussion of so critical a subject, lord Temple observed, that the great question of the union had been discussed and carried into effect during a period of hostility. A doubt having arisen, whether or not it was intended to carry both bills through the house at the same time, Mr. Burroughs, upon receiving information to that effect, said he hould not withhold his support from the suspension of the habeas corpus act, but objected to the reenactment of martial law, since, in the numerous trials which had taken place, it had not been found necessary to resort to it.

Lord Castlereagh, on the contrary, declared, that the very circumstance of government being vested with these powers, was the

means of enabling them to resort only to the civil tribunals of the country. No measure, he asserted, had so materially contributed to obviate the extension of the mischief which had originated in the rebellion. The adoption of this measure had facilitated the suppression of the rebellion in 1798, and had since been attended with the most beneficial effects. His lordship observed, that a principle of precaution was the great principle upon which a wise legislature should act. Its object should be to prevent, rather than to punish, crimes. By vesting government with these extraordinary powers, the rebellious would be convinced of the impracticability of their treasonable designs, and nothing would more contribute to encottrage the loyal part of the community, which had such powerful claims to support. To refuse to invest government with powers, which would in no instance be misapplied, would, he affirmed, elate the spirits of the deluded victims of rebellion, while it would paralyse the exertions, and augment the fears, of those firm and patriotic friends of the constitution whom it was the peculiar duty of parlia ment to support and protect.

Mr. Burroughs opposed the motion upon the ground, that when martial law was formerly enacted, a rebellion actually raged in Ireland, and ample documents were produced to prove its necessity. This measure was on that occasion defended upon the principle, that jurors were overawed in the discharge of their duty, and that witnesses could not come forward to give their testimony without great personal danger. It was because the ordinary tribunals of justice were necessarily closed from

B 2

these