and during the continuance of the rebellion was conftitutionally exercifed, but only in that cafe: in any other, it was a practice unknown in the ufage of any country when the common operations of law could be rendered effective.

The chancellor of the exche quer, after having animadverted on fome of Mr. Grey's obfervations with confiderable afperity, proceeded to fay, that in former times, when martial law was found to be neceffary, the contefts were foon decided in the field but now, though the adherents to rebellion might be disbanded and difperfed, the fame flagitious fpirit continued; though with diminished means, yet with equal rancour. The prerogative of martial law, which was adequate to a fudden attack and a preffing danger, was unequal to contend with a rebellion founded on principles fo fecret, diffeminated, powerful, and perfevering. To obviate the defects of martial law, it was neceffary to improve and enforce it by legiflative provifions.

It had been afked, What was the call for the measure? The answer was, the public fafety, the defence of the government and lives and properties of his majefty's fubjects. If the operation of martial law, maintained by prerogative alone, had been trufted in order to meet the defigns of the difaffected, we should have been compelled to withdraw the benefits of the law from the whole of his majesty's peaceable fubjects in Ireland. Which courfe was then prefer able? Should government permit rebellion to rally, and re-unite its fcattered parts? or fhould that fyftem of martial law be adopted which would deprive the unoffending of its protection? Was it

not wifer to prefer that fyftem which combined the benefits of law with the vigour of precaution; obtaining the fafety of the ftate, and yet leaving the ordinary adminiftration of juftice? which left untouched all that it was fafe to leave, and in no inftance over-stepped the immediate neceffity.

The honourable gentleman had faid, that nothing was rebellion but what was armed in the field; but would either law or policy authorife fuch an affertion? Was it mercy to the loyal inhabitant to allow the growth of the danger till it threatened his deftruction? or humane to thofe feduced into rebellion, to facilitate the execution of their defperate enterprifes? A court-martial was not without forms

judges fworn, and witneffes examined. He had been asked, whether courts-martial were fuperior to courts of common law? As a general propofition, he thought not. But the queftion was, whe ther there might not be cafes where a court-martial would be preferable? why elfe was an annual mutiny-bill paffed? If the ordinary adminiftration of juftice was impollible, if protection of the innocent and punishment of the guilty could not be attained by the ordinary procefs, might not even the admirers of the trial by jury prefer that by court-martial in cafes where nothing fhould remain of the trial by jury but the name?

As to the queftion of what ought to be confidered a rebellion, he faid there were many better qualified than he to difcufs it; but whether it confifted in collecting five or five thousand men in arms, or in overturning the ettablished government; whether it purfued its object by burglary or murder, in

driving

driving the rich from their homes, or in feducing and threatening the poor from their allegiance; it was no lefs rebellion in its attributes and defign. If there were no protection for innocence in civil law, and no punishment for guilt in criminal procefs, it was all one, whether rebellion kulked with the affaffin's dagger, or affumed the “pride, pomp, and circumftance" of flagitious infurrection; for both aimed alike at the fuperfeding of all law, and the total deftruction of the government. Would then the houfe agree to deprive Ireland, in its critical fituation, of that mitigated, corrected, and improved fyftem of martial law, formerly exercifed upon prerogative, with out any limitation to its exercife, or fubftitute for its defects?

Since the rebellion, lord Cornwallis had iffued many warrants for courts-martial, which had tried and condemned perfons for various offences; not only for furtherance of rebellion, but for actual murder and rebellion.

It had been faid, that the courts of law were open. True; because the wife measures which had been adopted, and the very measure now in difcuffion, had afforded that protection and fecurity which otherwife could not have been obtained. He concluded by observing, that if, amidft fuch perilous circunftances, the laws had kept their courfe, as in time of peace; if the people had been protected, and the conftitution defended; it was only by a continuance of the fame well-ordered fyftem that Ireland could enjoy tranquillity, and be fecured from a recurrence of thofe difaftrous fcenes which muft be fresh in every man's remembrance.

Mr. Whitbread faid, that the

queftion was, whether the confideration of the meature propoled fhould be deferred till due information were obtained: whether the ftate of Ireland required its continuance. Did it appear that, without this meature, the people could not enjoy the benefits of law, or the lord-lieutenant challenge any right to exercife martial law? By his own fpeech to the Irish parliament this was plainly impoffible; in which he afferted, that there was not even a tendency to rebellion. So violent a proceeding, then, as the prefent one propofed, could not be juftifiable. If the nature of the two acts in queftion were attended to, it would appear that a power was conferred of inflicting not merely ancient punishments, but even new ones; for the bill exprefsly granted to courts-martial the power of inflicting death, or any other punishment: fo that there might be torture exercised in various forms, of flogging, halfhanging, and the reft. By the second act, three perfons were made fufficient to conftitute a court-martial, to determine on the lives and property of British fubjects. By the mutiny-act thirteen perfons were required for a court-martial; then ought three to be thought adequate to decide on cafes of much greater importance? He hoped that the houfe would adjourn the confideration of the subject till a communication fhould come from the throne; and that. the friends of the union would not commence their deliberations by fo harsh an act as putting Ireland under the dominion of martial law, instead of communicating to her the advantages of a beneficent fyftem of policy.

Colonel Wefterman conceived martial law abfolutely neceflary in

the

the prefent ftate of Ireland. After the ftrong statements of the noble lord and the chancellor of the exchequer, it would be prefumptuous, he faid, for him to enter into detail. His knowledge enabled him to controvert the honourable baTonet's affertion, that martial law was odious to Ireland. He faid, that in feveral parts of the country quantities of arms, and many of French manufacture, had been depofited, and afterwards found by perfons employed to fearch for them.

Mr. Canning defired to know what other fecurity could be had against the continuance of hoftilities and midnight maffacres than that of enforcing the meafure of martial law, and accordingly fupported the noble lord's motion.

Mr. French faid, that the ftate of Ireland rendered delay dangerous. The honourable baronet had afferted, that during the latt two years law bufinefs had been regularly conducted. True; but this was under the operation of this very obnoxious act. He concluded by fupporting its revival for a limited period.

Mr. Taylor, an Irish member, faid that the falvation of Ireland depended on the revival of the act.

Mr. Fitzgerald obferved, that, by the ingenuity of thofe men who had ftirred up the rebellion, the common law had been turned into an engine of deftruction. Witneffes were intimidated into the grofleft perjuries; and when reproached for them, faid to their reprovers, "What would you have had us do? Was there not a wall around us?" Thefe were notorious facts, fufficient to prove the inefficacy of the common forms of law at prefent. The moft zealous fupporters of the common law in Ireland had

been the first victims of the rebels lion. The Irish did not wish for martial law, but that the common law might be restored as foon as it were confiftent with the common fafety.

Mr. J. C. Beresford conjured the houfe not to delay the adoption of a measure neceffary for the fafety of Ireland. He then confirmed the statements of other Irish members, that the courts of law had been enabled to exercise their functions merely by the falu tary effects of courts-martial. He adduced an inftance at the Tyrone aflizes, where a jury offered to compromife with the judge, by offering to condemn the prifoner if it thould be agreed that his punishment fhould not be death; and, on the judge refufing, they acquitted him. He likewife mentioned the dangers to which witneffes and perfons giving information concerning the rebels were exposed. One, who had acquainted government with fome important news, was followed from Ireland to this country, and ftabbed to death in the streets of London.

Mr. Ogle faid, that, if the bill did not pafs, the lives and properties of the inhabitants would not be fafe. In Wexford, the county where he lived, the principle of the rebels was to deftroy every loyal and proteftant fubject; to pull down the proteftant afeendancy in church and state; and to erect on its ruins a popish hierarchy, and republican government united with that of France. The rebels were headed by their pricfts, who were their generals; and, under their guidance, the finest part of Ireland had been defolated. The people began with the murder of their clergy; they burned the houfes of the men of property, as

alfe

also their prisoners; and, when they could not find places wherein to burn them, they massacred them in cold blood. On one occasion 185 men, women, and children, were burnt in one barn. At another time, 185 had been massacred; and, just before the entry of the king's troops into Wexford, ninety-five were murdered on the bridge.

The honourable baronet (sir L. Parsons) had said that all was now safe. Could this be so when the mails could not travel without being robbed, and every packet brought intelligence of some robbery or murder? In his part of the country the people spoke with willing expectation of a French invasion he therefore thought that nothing but martial law could save the country.

Mr. M'Naghton contended, that martial law alone had repressed the atrocities committed in the counties of Wexford, Tyrone, &c.; and that, in a country where the assassin's dagger was perpetually promoting the cause of rebellion, common applications must be insufficient.

Mr. Bouverie thought that the proper mode for a proceeding of the house upon this measure would have been a communication from the throne, however necessary martial law in Ireland might be. Mr. Summers Cox thought martial law necessary.

Dr. Lawrence strenuously op posed the measure, which, he said, superseded all the principles and forms of what was properly called martial law; that law established by the mutiny-bill, where all possible checks were to be found, and where the spirit of liberty was always struggling against force. But here three officers were sufficient

to form a tribunal in a country where there were 100,000 troops. All classes' were to be subject to this tribunal, while the soldier enjoyed the benefit of the mutiny act.

The danger could not be so great as was represented, when, out of thirty-two counties, the noble lord could name only three that were disturbed: nor could the evil be very serious, when only thirtyseven persons had been convicted by courts-martial within the last twelve months.

He disapproved the measure, because it went to permit the most unconstitutional power to be exercised over a country on which it had been said that the union would confer the blessings of the constitution.

Colonel Martin said, that the proposal for martial law must always be reluctantly received in a British senate; but his particular knowledge of the state of the case justified a member in voting for it. He said, that juries had been too forward, as well as too fearful, to condemn. Before one judge, the jury had condemned thirty in one day whom the judge recommended to mercy. In comparison with such a trial, courts-martial could present nothing alarming, to the prisoner.

On the other hand, jurors and witnesses had, in many cases, failed to do their duty. With respect to only three members on a court-martial, he thought it of no very great consequence. The court-martial only examined evidence, as the lord-lieutenant revised all their proceedings, and confirmed the sentences agreeably to the evidence.

Mr. Leigh (an Irish member) spoke in favour of the proposition. He shewed from the Irish statutebook the number of strong laws

enacted

enacted against the progress of rebellion. Conspiring to murder had been made as criminal as the commision of the act. He showed how the disaffected spread themselves. Ten formed a meeting: they were sworn to be secret, and to be faithful to the French and the e ten were sworn to initiate ten more The acts for sending on board the fleet or to the army persons found from their home after a certain hour, upon the sentence of two justices of the peace, proved the danger; and that some deviation from the common course of law had become necessary. The rebellion was, under its Jacobinical character, a rebellion of the poor against the rich: they looked forward to a division of land; and it frequently happened that they quarrelled and fought about the division of the spoil. From these quarrels important discoveries had been made to the government. As to the courts-martial, they were conducted in a regular manner, and directed by a judge-advocate. He concluded with begging the opposition not to make Ireland a stalking-horse for their debates and party questions. She had suffered too much already. The union had drawn off a hundred commoners and thirty peers from Ireland. Loyalty was a commodity of which there was little to spare for exportation; and, when so much had been brought away, it was the duty of members here to exert themselves for the security and protection of those left behind, weakened by those called to attend the inperial parliament. He strenuously recommended the adoption of the measure.

Mr. Horne Tooke begged, as both parties were equally anxious for the preservation of the trial

It was

by jury, to suggest an expedi-cnt to gain that object. said that jurors, &c. could not do their duty. It appeared however, that only four districts out of thirty-two were much disturbed. Might not then the trials be removed from the turbulent to the tranquil district, in imitation of a legal proceeding when a fair trial could not be expected in a particular place?

Mr. Sheridan and the chancellor of the exchequer explained.-Na division took place, and leave was given to bring in the bill

In the house of lords no debate on the bill took place till the 23d of March, when after the order of the day for the third reading,

Earl Fitzwilliam rose. He complained of the indecent manner in which the bill had been hurried through the house. On Friday night it had not come down from the commons.

A measure which was to suspend the constitution ought to have been taken with more deliberation. The bill was to renew two acts of the Irish parliament: these acts were not even before the house; and they were called upon to renew acts which they had neither read nor seen. But why should they be passed at all? A strong proof of their necessity ought to have been adduced; but they had received no information whatever upon the subject.

The earl of Westmorland asserted the urgency of the measure. The present act would expire on March 25; and, if the act were not passed immediately, fatal consequences might follow. He thought no information, no communication, had been made even to the Irish parliament, and the house ought to follow their example.

Instead