could only be accounted for upon a determination to abandon all continental operations. Lord H. Petty observed, that it now appeared that general promises had been first alledged; then a particular charge of a breach of engagement was made; and lastly, the matter came round again to general promises. This was the dance that ministers led, the House, all the while refusing the documents. The right honourable gentleman had said, that he had a right to retort on the late government. The best way, however, of answering charges, was to refute them, instead of retorting on others. But granting his claim of retorting, he still contended, that when the right honourable gentleman alledged that the late ministers had adopted a particular line of policy, and had not acted up to it, he ought to be prepared with proof to make good his charge. When charges were against ministers, they had the means in their hands of refuting them if they could. When charges were brought against them, they could only call upon the ministers to produce the documents on which they were founded. He himself was certainly of opinion, that the Russian loan ought not to be negotiated after the experience of the Austrian loan, though certainly there might be circumstances in which the Austrian loan ought not to be considered as a bar to any such loan in future. He hoped no more would be heard of the charge against the late ministers, or if it should again be insisted on, he hoped the documents would be produced. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said, that it had been admitted that an expectation of cavalry had been held out on a certain contingency. In the opinion of the power to which the expectation had been held out the contin gency had occurred. A friend of his also thought that it had occurred. But suppose that to have been matter of opinion. Suppose the late government to have bee 1 of one opinion, and the present government of another, they 'surely might insist upon the bad policy, and accuse the late ministers of having acted wrong, without being bound to impeach them. Lord Folkestone observed, that the question was, whether a crime had been alledged, and whether the docu ments to prove it were produced. Minis ers stated the crime, and refused to produce, the documents. This was the ground of complaint. They alledged a clear fact, that that expectations had been raised. The right honourable gentleman (Mr. Canning) was of opinion, that the con-` tingency had happened. In such a case it was neither honest nor candid to refuse to bring the matter to the proof. Dr. Laurence said a few words, after which the title of the bill was read and airreed to. Lord Castlereagh then moved for accounts of the num ber of transports of different descriptions in the service of government at the time the late ministers came into office, and at the time they went out. Ordered. The Irish salt bill was read a third time and passed. The election writs bill was read a second time, and committed for the next day. IRISH ARMS BILL On the motion for the third reading of the Irish arms. bill, Lord Milton reprobated such a measure as this, without any previous parliamentary inquiry. When the union was extracted from the people of Ireland, they were promised the benefits of British subjects. He was sorry that so little had been done since to conciliate them. He denied that the disarming the Highlands formed any ground for this bill. He hoped that measures of conciliation would be soon adopted, and as a step to that, that the catholics should be put in possession of those just rights of which they had been so long debarred. He could not conceive where the danger to the church existed, that was so much talked of. He protested against maintaining party distinctions in Ireland, and against insulting the feelings of the catholics by the restoration of those magistrates, who had proved themselves unfit for the situation. These restrictive laws had been tried in the cases of Wales and America, and their effect in these instances ought to be a warning to us. For these reasons, he expressed his decided opposition to the bill in the present state of our information on the subject. Mr. Lushington insisted that there ought to be an inquiry into the state of Ireland, and that the most objec tionable parts of the bill ought to be done away, but could not refuse his assent to it, from the information that he had been able to collect, and particularly considering the impression impression which seemed to have been made on the mind of one of the best friends of Ireland (Mr. Grattan). Mr. P. Moore opposed the bill. There was no parliamentary grounds laid for it, and such a bill as this ought to be regarded with peculiar jealousy in a free country, among the representatives of the people. These corroding measures could never reconcile to us the minds of the Irish, and if they were adopted, the clearest case of necessity ought to be made out. He concluded by moving, that the bill be read a third time that day three months. Mr. Whitbread apologized to the House for his again stating to them what were his opinions upon this measure. The importance of the subject, however, made it his duty to state in this, as well as in former stages, what was the result of his inquiry and deliberation upon a question of such magnitude. In the first place then, deferring as he did to the opinion of a right honourable gentleman (Mr. Grattan), whose sentiments he always held in the highest estimation, he must confess that there was very high authority indeed in favour of the proposition, that some such measure ought to be adopted. But even then there was Some hing which operated in his favour. That right hon. gentleman, whose opinion, it was admitted on all sides, carried such great weight and influence with it, did not say that he agreed to the bill with all its deformities; he objected to many parts of it; he only said, that rather than lose the measure altogether, he would agree to take it with these objectionable parts. However, when he Jooked at the consequences that were likely to result from the adoption of such a measure, he felt that it was his duty as a member of Parliament in such a case, and without any specific evidence before him in support of the measure, to think for himself, and oppose the measure. This differed materially from the other bill; the other was to operate in a particular part only, and that under peculiar circumstances; but this was to act universally throughout the whole country, and under any circumstances. What is that in effect but stating that, generally speaking, you cannot trust the whole of the population of Ireland, and proclaiming to the enemy, that in that place there is to be found a large portion of his majesty's subjects who are ready to accept of their arms if they will send them there? But, above all, he objected to the measure, because it was seen that even that most objectionable, most useless clause was was not allowed to be altered, that which empowers con stables or men of any description, with a warrant founded on suspicion only, to break into men's houses, alarm and terrify their families in the dead hour of the night. If the search was only to be made in the presence of a justice, there might have been some responsibility;, but, when even that amendment was refused, when it was known, that whatever disaffection did exist, the arms were used by night, and that it was in the day time that they were mostly secreted, he could not be so prodigal of this insulting power, he could not bring himself to wanton thus uns necessarily with the feelings of the people. If he was not of opinion, that the people of Ireland were better secured without than with the bill, he most certainly should vote in favour of it; but thinking as he did, that the measure was both unjust and unnecessary, he was impelled by a sense of duty to support the amendment of his honourable friend (Mr. Moore).., Sir A. Pigot deprecated the idea of thus legislating for a large portion of his majesty's subjects, exposing their persons and property, together with the persons of their dearest and most tender connections (their wives, and children), to insult and outrage; in fact, it was leaving each man's property, his principles, and perhaps his life, at the discretion of those persons who were to be authoris ed to pay other domiciliary visits in the unguarded hour of rest. On what authority was this to be done? Not on the authority of a sessions of the peace, and with the re sponsibility of the representative of his majesty, and the privy council of the country; no. Does it depend on the proofs before this House? No, no such thing has been attempted. Then in the absence of authority, as to the necessity of the measure, and, in the absence of any proper responsibility as to its execution, he could not conscientiously think of voting in support of such a law as this; it was passing a law for, but against our fellow subjects in Ireland. During the administration of Lord Hardwicke, the utmost tranquillity prevailed throughout the country, and, notwithstanding some application was made to his grace the Duke of Bedford to proclaim a particular district, which was said to be in a state of disturbance; he refused to do so; he let the regular course of the established law of the land alone take place: there were seven convictions, and tranquillity was restored. It was not with respect to VOL. I.-1807. 4 N namss names only that they should legislate; it was not to be thought of seriously by any conscientious man, that a difference so important in legislation was to be observed, with respect to one part of the kingdom as contrasted with the other, that we were to deprive them of the rights of the Constitution without any proof before us, that they were more unfit to be trusted, or less capable of enjoying the benefits of the constitution, than the subjects of this part of the empire. To admit the maxim, that they were not capable of being governed by the same rules as the other subjects of the united kingdom; that we could not rule then without periodically renewed suspensions of the constitution; to say that the difference of the small channel that divided us made so material a difference in the dispo sitions and habits of the people, notwithstanding the length of the connexion between us; that we could not both be governed by the same laws, was to stigmatise the act of union. Then as to the extraordinary length of time allow ed for the existence of this power, it was assigned as a reason in support of it, that the agitation of such a question might irritate the people. A mote unparliamentary ground, he declared, he never heard than this. What, that Ireland was in such a disordered state, that it was not safe for parliamentary interference to touch her; that her case must not even be mentioned for three years to come. He really confessed that they were men of boldness who could in Parliament advance such a proposition, as that the state of Ireland was such that it was not fitting that Parliament should intermeddle in her affairs for three years to come, and that they were only to be looked into by the honourable gentlemen opposite, and entrusted to the management of them only, or to such persons as they might think fit to appoint. If these are the gifts that are kept in store for Ireland, if these are the boons which are to be bestowed upon her, he could not say that Ireland might not obtain such benefits elsewhere. He would, however, call to the recollection of these generous persona❤ ges, the declaration of an illustrious statesman, who said that, when the state required an accession of force or taJent, he would look for merit wherever he could find it; that illustrious person to whom he alluded declared, that he gained a more considerable accession of strength by conciliating the good wishes of that intrepid and ingenuous people. From the most minute observation that be could |