would consider it as a measure not of oppression, but of protection; not of unconstitutional rigour, but of wise precaution. Upon the second reading of the bill, Mr. W. Elliot, col. Craufurd, and Mr. Francis, founded their these causes, that it became requisite to have recourse to military decisions. No such circumstances, he said, existed at this period. Jurors could discharge their duty with safety. Witnesses could give testimony without danger. He also conceived it proper, that the objections to the measure upon Irish members, whose attendance at that time was not considerable in point of numbers, should be consulted, before any suspension took place of the constitutional privileges of their constituents. Upon this point, Mr. John Claudius Beresford took occasion to remark, that he had been very recently in Ire land, and had had an opportunity of ascertaining what were the sentiments of at least three-fourths of the Irish members resident in that He requested the house to be assured, on his veracity, that they were all convinced the re-enactment of the bill was indispensably necessary to the preservation of tranquillity, and the protection of all loyal subjects. Mr. Corry corrected the statement made by Mr. Burroughs, relative to the existence of rebellion at the time martial law had formerly been enacted, and observed, that in the year 1801 it had been renewed in the course of the session, although no rebellion, nor any appearance of rebellion, existed in any part of Ireland. It was not unknown, he said, to the hon. member, that, till the bill was passed, the system of intimidation was universally prevalent, and the courts of common law were necessarily shut, not against rebels alone, but against the loyal and patriotic part of the community, So far from viewing the re-enactment of martial law as an act of oppressive severity, all loyal and well-disposed persons, he affirmed, the absence of such facts as were necessary to establish the necessity of its adoption. Mr. Elliot reminded the house, that, at other periods, the reports of two secret committees had been produced to justify such extraordinary powers. In the course of the session of 1800, the bill was renewed on the specific grounds of these reports. In 1801, the first session of the imperial parliament, the bill was renewed at an early period of the session, and, subsequently, its duration was prolonged. But it would be in the recollection of the house, he said, that this second renewal did not take place, till it was declared, on the report of a committee specially appointed, to be indispensably necessary to the tran→ quillity of Ireland. On a subject of such magnitude and importance, he could never consent to act on the principle of implicit confidence in any government. As a conscientious representative of the people, he must be guided by facts in acceding to, or opposing, any legislative measure. At present the house had no facts to guide their judgment, and the only information before them was contained in the king's speech from the throne. He regarded an application to parliament for extraordinary powers, without stating any grounds whatever for the measure, as unwarrantable and unconstitutional. For the sake of justice, for the sake of policy, from regard to the dignity of the house, he conjured ministers not to precipitate the passing of the bill. The great benefit resulting from the union, he observed, had been described to be the freedom of the imperial parliament from the prejudices of a local legislature; but if the Irish were to experience only measures of coercion, if their interests were not to be gravely and impartially brought under the consideration of the legislature, they could never be expected to feel for this country that cordial attachment which was so infinitely desirable. Upon this occasion, lord Castle reagh entered more fully into the discussion of the question than on the former reading of the bills, and replied to colonel Craufurd and Mr. Francis at considerable length. His lordship admitted that, when martial law was reenacted in 1799, two reports of a secret committee had been adduced, to prove the necessity of the measure. But the expediency of such reports depended, in a great degree, upon circumstances. This mode of presenting information to the legislature, and to the public, might often be advantage. ous. Occasions, however, might occur, when to resort to it might be highly impolitic, and even dangerous. In such circumstances, he thought, his majesty's ministers were now placed. Government, he said, was, at that moment, actively and successfully engaged in tracing out the remotest ramifications of the insurrection. While such inquiries were being pursued, it would be extremely difficult to frame such a report as would disclose facts, without defeating the object of the investigation. He admitted there was at present less visible danger, because the cause of loyalty had received a vast aug mentation; but there were still many traitorous and malignant spirits, in Ireland, bent on projects of the most atrocious nature. To counteract their views, to defeat their designs, the present bill, as a wise measure of precautionary power, appeared to him both expedient and politic. Mr. Windham observed, that ministers were proceeding to renew martial law in Ireland, without urging a single word, or adducing a single reason, in justification of the measure. He wished to hear some parliamentary ground, on which a suspension of some of the most important privileges of the subject could be justified. If the statement were correct, that the people of Ireland were sensible of the superiority of the blessings which they enjoy under the British constitution, and were in a condition of material improvement they should be restored to the situation in which they stood previously to the rebellion. If this statement were true, the necessity of the measure in contemplation would by no means be established. The war, in which we are engaged, afforded, in his opinion, no kind of pretext for it. This plea would be equally resorted to in all succeeding wars; and hence it would follow, as a necessary consequence, that the habeas corpus act should be suspended, and military law established in Ireland, whenever the country happened to be at war. His knowledge, however, of the situation of Ireland, and his reliance upon the information of gentlemen well acquainted with the state of that country, led him to conceive, that the necessity of the present measure rested on far more solid grounds than any which had been advanced to de B 3 monstrate monstrate the necessity and expediency of its adoption. The chancellor of the exchequer maintained that the expression in his majesty's speech, relative to the restoration of tranquillity in Ireland, was perfectly just; but it did not at all impair the force of the arguments advanced to prove the necessity of the re-enactment of martial law. It was known that the rebellion was suppressed, that the greater part of its principal agents had been brought to justice, and that, although much of disaffection was understood to prevail in Ireland, yet tranquillity existed. The existence of that tranquillity, he affirmed, was to be secured by precisely the same means to which the country was indebted for its attainment. The extraordinary powers of the bill before the house were, therefore, deemed essentially necessary effectually to repel an invading enemy, and to repress domestic treason. With respect to the necessity of arming government with these powers, he declared, that notoriety, connected with the enemy's plans and avowed objects, furnished sufficient grounds to sustain the assertion, that circumstances imperiously demanded those measures which ministers had submitted to the consideration of parliament. It is almost unnecessary to observe, that the bills passed through all their respective stages without any division of the house. Nearly the same course of argument having been pursued in the house of lords, we shall only notice, and within as small a compass as possible, a few of the most forcible arguments advanced by those who took a distinguished part in this very important discussion, Lord their lordships. The unfortunate state of Ireland, he said, had com, pelled ministers to resort to mea sures, which every friend to the constitution would adopt,only when he viewed them as essential to the preservation of the state from the greatest miseries with which a nation could be afflicted. He appealed to the candour and fair judgment of their lordships, whether the notoriety of the abortive attempt of the 23d of July, and of the objects. of that rebellion, did not furnish a fair parliamentary ground of necessity for the renewal of the bills. Although tranquillity, so far as the efforts of general rebellion were suppressed, had been restored, it was not in the nature of things, that all the evil passions which the insurrection had inflamed should at once subside. It was, therefore, necessary to have recourse to measures of precaution. Their lordships, he said, would recollect that his majesty, by the exercise of his prerogative, had the power of proclaiming martial law, when it appeared to him to be necessary for the safety of the empire. All the ordinary forms of law were then, for the time being, suspended. In fact, the com mon mon law was, in the interval, considered to be extinct. But the present bills were designed to repress the views of the disaffected, without interfering with the civil and criminal proceedings of the ordinary tribunals. The earl of Suffolk, lord King, and lord Grenville, without intending to oppose the passing of the bills, complained that ministers were proceeding to deprive a large proportion of his majesty's subjects of the most important privileges of the constitution, without having supplied the house with any information respecting the state of Ireland, or proved the necessity of a renewal of these extraordinary measures. Lord Grenville took a comprehensive view of the subject under discussion. He admitted that there were times and circumstances, when, in conformity to the principles of the constitution, extraordinary powers were to be granted to meet extraordinary danger. But it was always to be recollected, that the existence of this danger was to be clearly and unequivocally established. When martial law was first introduced into Ireland, a rebellion of a most formidable nature raged with the utmost violence. By the valour of the king's troops, and by the spirit and zeal of the loyal inhabitants, that rebellion was suppressed. But a system of murder and intimida tion was afterwards introduced, and a regular conspiracy framed to interrupt the ordinary proceedings of the courts of common law. It was necessary that some strong measure should be adopted. Martial law was enacted, tranquillity was immediately restored, and the ordinary tribunals reverted to their natural course. According to the admission of his majesty's ministers, the state of Ireland, his lordship said, was, at the present moment, perfectly tranquil: the proceedings of the civil and criminal courts experienced no interruption; no system of intimidation now prevailed:-and yet, notwithstanding this generally favourable state of things, the necessity of establishing martial law was gravely asserted. Lord Grenville said, he felt no hesitation to concede, that in the case of actual rebellion, the proceedings of the ordinary tribunals must necessarily be suspended. Common law, in that interval, was virtually extinct. He was far from wishing to dispute so obvious a position; but he objected to any system which attempted to reconcile the existence of martial law, and com mon law, at the same period. If the courts of common law could go on with their functions, martial law was dangerous and unneces sary. On the other hand, if martial law was necessary, the com. mon law, however much the event might be lamented, must, for a period, lose its application and efficiency. The renewal of the suspension of the habeas corpus act, his lordship contended, stood on a footing very different from that of the re-enactment of martial law. In forming a judgment of measures of such magnitude, it appeared to him, that the cha racter of those by whom extraordinary powers were to be exercised, was a matter of the first impor. tance. The powers granted by the suspension of the habeas corpus act were exercised by persons of the highest rank in the state. Every step they took was open to future censure, and they were liable to the most severe responsibility. Very different was the situation of those who were to carry the provisions of the martial law bill into effect. They might be misled by local prepossessions, and by the influence of prejudice and passion. To them, however, no such high reponsibility attached. Upon these principles his lordship disapproved of the re-establishment of martial law; but as it had been declared to be necessary, he should withhold his opposition to the measure. The earl of Limerick, lord Hobart, lord Darnley, and the lord chancellor supported the motion. The lord chancellor stated, that the notoriety of the recent outrages in Ireland, and the uncertainty whether the spirit of insurrection was extinguished, furnished, in his opinion, sufficient grounds to establish the necessity of the measure. His lordship affirmed, that it was difficult to ascertain what might be the effects of any rebellion. An inconsiderable riot might rapidly swell into a formidable insurrection; and, within a short period, brand the regular government which it opposed, with the aspersion of rebellion. To the suspension of the habeas corpus act in this country, at a period when the exigency of the case demanded it, he expressed his conviction, that their lordships were indebted for their present tranquillity and safety, and for the privilege, which they now enjoyed, of deliberating how far they should submit to a temporary relinquish, ment of part of their rights, for the permanent preservation of the whole. The bills for the suspension of the habeas corpus act, and the reenactment of martial law in Ire land, passed through the house of lords without any division, and without, in their last stage, leading to any further discussion. As any subject which affects the enjoyment of the best privileges of the constitution, cannot fail to excite a considerable degree of interest, we have thought it necessary, upon this occasion, to depart from our principle of exhibiting a very concise analysis of the proceedings of parliament. When, however, subjects of less importance arise, we shall occasionally give only a short, but faithful sketch, of the arguments on both sides, without fatiguing the reader's attention with a statement disproportioned to the topic of discussion. The debates which arose on the 9th of December, on the motion of the secretary at war, to refer the army estimates to a committee of supply, embraced a very extensive view of the general defence of the country. As the estimates for the whole military establishment of the year could not then be ascertained with accuracy, it will not be necessary to enter into any circumstantial detail of the items which he submitted to the consideration of the committee. A few of the leading points will be a sufficient introduction to the defence of the empire, which formed the prominent feature of this discussion. The force proposed to be voted for the public service amounted, for guards and garrisons in the united kingdom, to 167,669. This number exceeded the force voted in the preceding year by an addition of 58,768. The embodied militia for Great Britain and Ireland amounted to 109,947, and the volunteer corps to about 450,000. But from the statement of lord Castlereagh it appears, that the volunteer force in Great Britain, accepted and arrayed, amounted to 340,000, and in Ireland to 70,000, making a total |