Mr. Hobhouse said, he could conceive no stronger proof of the necesity of the clause than the speech of the hon. gentleman. He had openly confessed, that torture had been inflicted for the purpose of extorting confessions; and he had as openly asserted, that circumstances were such as to justify it. He (Mr. H.) would, on the other hand, assert, that no circumstances could justify a conduct, which was equally inconsistent with sound policy, common sense, and the feelings of justice and humanity.

The Solicitor General (Mr. Perceval) said, that upon the same principle on which it was alleged to be necessary to add this clause to the bill it would be necessary to add a similar clause to every act or bill empowering the infliction of a discretionary punishment; for the words "by death or otherwise," on which the clause, and the supposed necessity for it, were founded, could signify only, "by death, or any other lighter punishment than death," not any other punishment unknown to the law. As to the severities which had been exercised in some cases in Ireland, he lamented them as much as any man; but after hearing the statement of the circumstances in which alone they were exercised, gentlemen ought to pause before they passed any very harsh censure on those who were the authors of them. He did not pretend to justify them; but what a person deliberating coolly must condemn, was, he might, without incurring a very high degree of blame, when the dagger was almost at his breast when all that was dear to him was at stake, be led himself to do. What, there fore, in principle he could not justify, in feeling he could, in a great measure, excuse. At all events, it had never been hinted, that any such severities had been exercised since this act had been in force. The present clause he therefore conceived to be an unjust attempt to throw on the bill the odium of severities, exercised before it was in force, but which it had been effectual in putting an end to.

Mr. Dawson said, it was never imagined

Mr. M. A. Taylor said, that whether or not the conduct of those who had perpetrated these cruelties could be palliated, that of those who coolly defended them certainly could not. Yet this had been done by a noble lord holding one of the highest offices under the crown. The behaviour of the judge was very different, who, when he was applied to set aside a verdict awarding damages to a man who had been tortured, said he should not have slept in his bed if he had not affirmed it.

The Attorney General said, that, in his opinion, all the debate which had taken place on this clause, was merely combating phantoms, and fighting with shadows. No person in the least acquainted with law could possibly interpret the expres sion by death or otherwise," to signify that a power was given to inflict punishments unknown to the law, either to the civil, municipal, or military law. There was no such thing authorized by the bill as torture to extort confession.

Mr. Grey said, that upon the grounds on which this bill had been urged to be necessary, he could not see how this clause. could be objected to. The bill was alleged to be necessary, because jurors could not be found to do their duty. How, then, could those who urged this necessity, and held out this plea for passing the bill, professing at the same time attachment to the common law, reconcile this principle with opposing a clause which went merely to confirm courts-martial sitting on the trial of civil offences, and sentencing to the punishments authorized by the common law? As to the sufferings of one class, and the severities inflicted on another, in the course of the rebellion, he wished that both could be buried in utter oblivion; but he confessed he had been not a little surprised at the justification of these severities by one gentleman, and the exculpation of them by another. He was shocked to think that such an idea could be for one moment entertained by the House.

The clause was negatived by 84 against 8. The bill then passed the committee.

March 20. After a short debate, the bill was read a third time and passed; as was also the bill for Suspending the Habeas Corpus act in Ireland.

Debate on Mr. Grey's Motion for a Committee on the State of the Nation.] March 25. Mr. Grey rose and spoke nearly as follows:-I rise, Sir, in conformity to the notice that I have so often given, to move for a Committee of the whole House to take into consideration the State of the Nation. I am sensible that, in the present circumstances of this unhappy country, I impose upon myself a task arduous in the extreme. In submitting motions of this nature to the House, either when any great danger threatened us from without, or upon any alarming emergency at home, it has been usual to take a general view of our situation and our prospects. I therefore feel that it will be incumbent upon me, on this occasion, to call your attention to a great variety of important subjects; to consider the conduct of the war, our relations with foreign powers, the internal state of the country, and those other circumstances which at the present moment combine to make our situation so difficult, so dangerous, and so alarming. Wherever we turn ourselves, things wear a menacing aspect; we see nothing but danger and difficulty; and every part of our situation urgently presses upon us for discussion. The field is indeed wide, and I tremble to enter upon it. But I am animated by sentiments of public duty, and a firm conviction that it is only by an inquiry of this nature that the country can be saved. These animate my courage, and these I hope will supply my deficiencies. If ever inquiry was necessary, it is necessary now. If, in the best times of our constitution, when the principles of freedom and sound policy were well understood and uniformly acted upon, as often as the country was in perilous circumstances, parliament has instituted an investigation into the causes of our misfortunes, and the best means to remove them; will that investigation now be rejected? I know, Sir, that of late a different line of conduct has been pursued; and that during the present war, for the first time since the Revolution, inquiries have been uniformly opposed. Sir, I should be sorry to say any thing which might offend the members of this House; but I must observe, that the present is the first war in

which no part of the conduct of government has been inquired into, or censured; and it will hardly be said that it is the only war in which no blunder has been com mitted. I do not decide upon the motives of hon. gentlemen; but I would have them to reflect, whether this supineness may not have contributed in a high degree to our present calamities. A new mode of argument, I know, has been adopted; and doubts are thrown out with regard to the propriety of such a motion. It is said, if you have any thing to allege against ministers, bring forward your charge by a distinct specific motion. If you are of opinion that any thing in our situation is particularly alarming, move that a committee may be formed for the express purpose of considering it. I think, Sir, I should say enough against this reasoning, when I say that it is completely at variance with the practice of the House; but I will add, that the practice thus censured is consonant to convenience, and that by following it we can best discharge our duty to the public. I have been told, that, by agreeing to such a motion, the House would express a doubt of the pro priety of the measures of government. Such an argument, I am well assured, I shall not hear this night. If there is any one who will stand up and affirm that he is perfectly satisfied with the economy which ministers have exercised in the expenditure of the public money, with their vigour and foresight in carrying on the war, and with the prudence, firmness, and dignity, that they have displayed in their treatment of foreign powers; if there is any man, Sir, bold enough to assert, that he has no doubt of the propriety of their conduct, I consent to wave my motion, and to abstain from all the observations that I mean to make in support of it. There is another general objection to which I shall advert: it has not been unusual to urge it; and it may not improbably be urged on the present occasion. An ap peal is made to the good sense of the House, and an eloquent panegyric is de livered on unanimity. Retrospects, it is said, are useless; let us not add to our difficulties by discord, but unite our efforts to consider the most effectual means to rescue the country from the dangers which surround it. This common-place advice has about it an air of generosity, but it is miserably deficient in true wisdom, In politics, as in morals, there is no way so sure to prevent the future commission of

said, and said with truth, that there was no shore from the Texel to the Adriatic which had not witnessed the defeat of our forces, and the disgrace of our arms. Recollect the unfortunate attempt upon Dunkirk, and the shameful retreat through Holland the ensuing year. Witness the evacuation of Toulon, the abandonment of Corsica, and the disgraceful expedition to Quiberon. But I shall confine myself to more recent operations. About four years ago it was found necessary to raise a defensive force of 100,000 men. Soon after, things took a new turn, and the confederacy against France was revived. Ministers then, untaught by experience, nor humbled by adversity, entered into all their former projects, and called out for a disposable force. Accordingly, the militia were reduced, and an immense army placed at their disposal. Their first exploit was the expedition to Holland; and one more impolitic in the design, or more disgraceful in the issue, never was attempted. Yet all inquiry into the failure of it was peremptorily refused. If this did not, what ever did demand inquiry? A British army, the greatest that ever left the country, supported by a strong auxiliary force, after many disasters, and one defeat, capitulated-gave a ransom for its safety to a general commanding an army inferior in numbers! I will not decide whether the failure was owing to the plan of the expedition, or the conduct of it; but one or other was faulty, and the committee was bound to declare which. When I said that this expedition was the most disgraceful in our history, I forgot those which succeeded it. The disposable force was augmented by the sacrifice of the remaining part of the supplementary militia, and it was confidently promised that an impression would instantly be made on France. What great exploit was performed? Was France overrun? Did we rescue from her yoke Belgium and the other countries that she had conquered from our allies? In December and January, when the first consul made overtures of peace, Opposition were told that the power of France was at the lowest ebb, and that nothing could save her but unconditional submission, but listening to her proposals. Her armies were ruined, her finances were deranged rebellion raged in her provinces, her in#habitants were incensed against each other, and agreed in nothing but abhorring the existing government: ourselves

and our allies were in the most flourishing circumstances; and that our situation would become worse was quite impossible. When these overtures were haughtily rejected, I think, Sir, ministers should have kept their promise; yet not an attempt was made till the French armies had penetrated into the heart of Germany, and the fate of the House of Austria was decided in the battle of Marengo. Soon after that, sir Ralph Abercrombie arrived off Genoa, and found it in possession of our enemies. Spain next became the object of our enterprises, and an attempt was made against Ferrol. Our failure there was lately under debate; and I must say, notwithstanding the speech of the hon. general, that it still seems to me to have been highly disgraceful to the British arms, and detrimental to the interests of the British nation. Of our attack upon Cadiz, I scarcely know in what terms to speak. To show that they do not deserve the heaviest blame, ministers must prove that they were not informed of the disorder which raged in that city in time to countermand the expedition. Feeling as a man, and as an Englishman, I must say, that I wish the correspondence be tween our commander and the Spanish governor had never been laid before the public. Some steps ought to be taken without delay to efface the impression which this publication must have made to our disadvantage. By submitting tamely to the reproaches which are cast upon us, we acknowledge their truth. These two expeditions have been called reconnoitring parties; but as things stand at present, they must be believed by all to have brought infinite disgrace and dishonour upon the country from which they were sent. This army is now employed against Egypt. What may be the result of the attempt I do not pretend to predict. ! hope it may be successful; but when I consider the obstacles to be surmounted, I confess I am not very sanguine. Here then are fresh proofs of the want of vigour, of indecision, and delay of ministers. The armament at last sailed from Gibral tar on the 3rd of December: and down to the end of January, to which the latest accounts came, sir Ralph Abercrombie had not found himself in a situation to attempt a debarkation.

I have not entered so much into detail as I could wish; but, to establish my point, unfortunately it is not necessary that I should. What can ministers urge