Star. — London, England, 1811-04-05 00:00:00

- - - PARLL HOUSE OF LORDS, APRIL 4. The Royal Musa was given by Commission, to the Exchequrr Bills Funding ein, the Commercial Credit Bill, the Annual IP . detnnlty, the Commissioners of Military Inquiry, Ltd the Militia Officers' Indemnity Bills, together with thirty-one Bills of a pri vate or local description. The Lords Commissioners were the Loan CIIANCZI.LOR, Earl BATUUKST.and LOPII WALpINQRAM. 'Their Lordships then adjourned for some time during pleasure. After the resuming of the House, about five o'clock, the Bills upon the table were forwarded in their respective stages. --. MILITIA ENLISTMENT BILL. On the accession of the Militia Inlistmemt Bill,* short conver sation took place between the Earls of Liv ea toot, Daisy, and RossLy N. The Noble SECRETARY of STATE having stated the expediency of the Bill ill question meeting with no unnecessary delay in it s progress,,suggested the propriety of reading the Bill a second time to morrow, notwithstandiog the notice of a Noble Earl, respecting a discussion on another Bill, stood for that day ; and such Lords as thought proper could deliver their sentiments on the next stage of the Bill, for which it may be understood that the discussion of the measure was fixed. The Earl of DERBY expressed himself greatly dissatisfied with the principle of the Bill in question, at least to the extent to which it was carried ; and should feel it his duty to oppose it in every stage'. It went to perpetuate a new system with respect to the Militia, and mediately to impose additional bur thens on the poorer classes of his Majesty's subjects. His Lordship also noticed the great rise, latterly, in the price of substitutes. The principle of the Bill was one which deserved the greatest attention from that House ; and he thought its discussion should take place at the regular stages, though he did not flatter himself he could persuade their Lordships to vary the proposed arrangement. The Earl of ROSSLYN supported what had fallen from his Noble Friend, and the Earl of LIVER-. POOL spoke in explanation. An understanding appeared to be settled, that the second reading should take place to-morrow. LETTER OF MR. POLE. . The Older of , the Day upon which their Lordships were summoned, being read, • Earl STANHOPE rose to bring forward his pro mised motion on the above subject. He first moved that the Circular Letter of Mr. Pole to the Magis trates, of which a . copy had been laid before the ' House, shduld be void: and it was accordingly read Act the Clerk. 'His. Lordship then moved, That the Act of the Irish Parliament of the 33d of the King, eh. 29, viz. the Convention Act, be also read ; which proceeding accordingly took place. The Noble Earl then observed, that their Lordships had just heard read thetwo documents upon which exclusively he meant to fount his proposition. He said the motion was in itself a very simple one, and which in effect would go to declare, that the letter. of Mr. Secretary Pole, calling upon the Magistrates of Ireland to act as .he required of them, was going beyond the letter of the Act. That was what his motion imported. It certainly went to , reprobate the lettet upon the ee l , count of illegality, and he defied any lawyer what ever to disprove the construction he should put upon the Act. The measure in question was certainly con. trary to the liberties of the people, and tended to ex:, cite hatred and ill blood. Their Lordships should not stiffer such a docume4t to remain on their table un noticed. He would, in the.first instance, state his'mo-1 tion to their Lordshi ps:—lt was to call uponthe House to resolve o That it had taken into its most serious con sideration the Circular Letter of Mr. Secretary Pole" to the Magistrates of Ireland, and also the Act of Parlia. meet therein mentioned, being an' Act of the Irish parliament, of, the 33c1 of his Majesty, chap. 29, and that the House thinks it necessary to declare, that the said Circular Letter required the Magistrates to de and perform certain aets of severity not authorised by the said Act of Parliament, and which if done and performed, would be directly contrary t 6 law ; and that the said letter by so requiring the Magistrates to act, required them to attack the rights of the people of Ireland, and is therefore and thereby an unjust attempt to invade their liberties; and that the s id letter was directly contrary to that spirit of concilia tion which ought to actuate the Government of Ire land towards the people of that country." This was the motion which he meant to submit to their Lord ships. The jet of it was, Mr. Pole's calling upon the Magistrates to perform acts of severity which they were not authorised by the Act, and that was the , true question before them. The Act in qUestion was •undeniably a penal statute, and it was a fixed princi ple in law that every penal statute should be con. strued strictly. His Lordship then proceeded to an examination of the letter, and provisions of the Act in question, contending that a plain and obvious con structien- thereof amply -bore out the conclusions. couched in.his motion,. The Act did not in the least degree trench upon the right of meeting to petition . for the redress of grievances ; this vats expressly men. tiooedln the proviso at the end of the Act : " that 'asiothingtherein should be construed to. prevent the ' undoubted right of his Majesty"s subjects to petition Parliament or his Majesty for the redress of public or primate grievances." They...should attend partieu. • lady to the circumstances of the' case, to know whe. • ther they came within the mtaning_of the Act. These Were publicly notorious. The Meetings contemplat. :Aid. by the Act were not lei ti 4 dispersed, only in case •if resistance. Their Lordships were not now to be told of the essential dlfferiee between delegates and representatives, and inanageos of petition. ,Witli re. . • spect to the real elefsoition of the word delegate, he entirely coincided • f. Dunning. that of his very Learned Friend, the late; Dunning. A delegate was, by his appointmept,4oveste4arith some right which he did not before possess, the right pf acting for and in the name or behalf of . another ; as in the case of de legation of power to an Agent to sell out Stock, or any second perspn to do that for another which it was • not convenient or pnecticable for the principal to do. How was it possible, he would ask, that threeenilli .. ons of any descri tion of people could petition, but by means of del -. ation? Each individual 'could not p ers onally sign • t petition. - His Lordship then en . tered into a detailed description of a popialArmeeting o' .some years since itt the county of Kent, at which'he was particularly active; where, by means of delega . tien, and dividing the county into districts, fic p i e purpose of more easily soliciting and obtaining sig natures to a petition, appointing managers of petition, -• I t a. a rititioa was preeentad to the Serseign, at rfART PROCEEDINGS. ... . ~ .. . - • . • . .a• . . • nested r by no fewer than seventeen thousand, a greater therefore, t doubt could not be entertained, but that. I Lord GRENVILLE was willing to acknowledge number than was ever known on any former occasion. ' the Catholic Commit,tie .under such circumstances, I the candour and fairness with which the Noble and This was dot 4 principally by the expedient of -ap- became an illegal meeting, within the meaning of the Learned Lord bad spoken of Mr. Secretary Pol e ' s Pointing Managers of Petition for the several districts Act. ' The Irish Government, evidently sheaved a 1 l e tt er, but he could notconcur in the inferences which in the county. This was the mode which the Catho- disposition to act with every degree of patience and that Noble and Learned Lord had drawn from the lics.appeered to adopt, and he censured the language forbearance, and even indulgence, that could possibly statement laid down by him. He should not now go of the document in question as unnecessarily often- be expected ; but when the mask was thiowa off, into any defbil of the arguments which might b e s i ve to t h e Catholic body. Their Meeting at Dublin, when they proceeded to the assembling a convention,. le ged on the present ocre.,ion. He vo t ed cement \ was characterized as an unlawful assembly ; yet upequivoreally within the meaning of the Act, it was himself - with asking whether, by the mere act 11 being what was the result? Some civil compliments passed deemed, under such circumstances, inconsistent with present at such an assembly, without voting, or other ' between them and the Magistratei employed by the the peace of Ireland, to have delayed interfering any wise concurring in the business of suds a met ' ieg, Government, which was a confirmation of his aver- longer. The Government proceeded to the exercise could subject a person, to the penalties of the Act P ment that the meeting was not illegal, if they were of its duty in the most lenient manner, and framed I The Noble and Learned Lord would n o t surety tare so the Right Honot Gentleman did not do his its measures for a prospective operation: Under these e! the affi any man, rm ilnert tive. . Y t et, the by virtue of simplMr. P e ole's l etter , duty ;.but so it endek. and Mr. Pole took himself . circumstances and considerations, he saw nn grounly or cr beitee pi e . back again to this country. He contended that not whatever for the statement made by-the Noble Earl, sent at such an assembly, was liable to be arretwd only the meetings of the Catholics were not contrary and therefore held it his duty to give the proposition and imprismied. Their Lnrdships livroold no doubt to law, bet that the letter was not warranted by the a decided negative. feel themselves bound to record on their journdls their provisions of the Act. There were other reasons for Lord HOLLAND observed, that even if he as- marked disapprobation of such an interpretation of forming this conclusion. In the debates which took seined to every proposition leid e down by the Noble the law, and of the dangerous measure which ! els place on the introduction of the Bill into the Irish Earl who spoke last, which he was far from doing, I been grounded oil it. He could'not help cousieereg Parliament, the then Atto rne y -General in answer to still Mould feel it his duty to suppprt the motion such a stretch of power as resorted to in Ireland, ass an objection from Major Doyle, that the Bill would of his Illbble Friend. The question before them, be ' fresh preof of a disposition hostile to every measure operate against the frequent practice of the Quakers insisted, was one not respecting the exercise of the dis- and demonstration of conciliation towards that wane sending delegates to represent them in meetings for cretinnary power vested in the Irish Government, but ' try. When duly considered, how monstrous m eet it particular purposes, expressed his opinion that the upon the legality of those Acts which Mr. Pole re. not appear ! What, make three millions of the- fel. Bill would not affect such delegation. Well, then, quired the Magistrates of Ireland to do, whether the low subjects liable to be arrested and impreee h e , 1 said his Lordship, there are delegates who were ex- circumstances were such as to justify, within the the will of a Secretary of Government! How w rpld empted. A Noble Earl, then present, who was at meaning of the Act, that Gentleman in the steps he such a doctrine sound in the ears of Englielure. the time a Member of the Irish Parliament, as Mr. bid taken ; whether, in fact, he had called upon the . How would they relish such a prectice ? Wiles ..a. Hobart (the Earl of Buckinghamshire) also expressed Magistrates to do that which by the Convention Act, mours would be raised in England, if not dues nub a s imilar opinion. He hoped, therefore, his Lord. or any other law they were entitled to do ? It was lions, but three mtated, nay, &thirty persons w oe , o ship would act upon that opinion by his vote this necessary for every Noble Lord who should vote for be arrested, and thrown into p r ison—such :,, 1:1, Jul night. The Noble Earl is concluding, strongly con- ` the motion to make up his mind to two distinct pro.. ference of opinion between the inhabitants wt: ,e tmded for the illegality of the Circular Letter in positions—first, that the conduct of Mr. Pole with re- two parts of .the Empire—such the different trailer question, and adverted to some instances wherein its spect to the letter in question was not justifieble ; of the law as administered respecting them ! b e ing acted upon might be attended with lamentable and , secondly , that it wa s necessar y for the House to ".The LORD CHANCELLOR and Lord GRENV,A . c . effects, and where the parties so interfering.may, in come to some declaration upon it. His objection to verally explained. • . the event of loss of lives, be found guilty respectively the proceedings of the letter now, in considering the' The. Earl of 'BUCKINGHAMSHIRE thonela of murder, according to the construction of the Act. question before them, respected its legality, and had that Mr. Pole had been dealt miter harshly by chine, His Lordship then concluded, by moving a Resolu- nothing to do with the concerns of its prudence. And the course of the debate. He was, however, eotind,n4 tic n for the adoption of the House, as above stated, here he felt not a little while expressing his senti- that nomeasure had been adopted by that Gentlemen, in the commencement of his speech. The resolution ments as a Member of that House, in being obliged nor the letter in question written by him, w:thnui ~e being read, and the question put , to s p eak, of a part at least, .of the Administration of advice and approbation of the Law Officers of tra m & The Earl of LIVERPOOL said, that what had the Duke of Richmond, one to whom he had the ho- It was therefore hard to impute to him Only eb e t e e ee fallen from the Noble Mover applied almost entirely nour V being nearly related, though he had never blame-might beethought to attach to the latter, th ee 1,, to the question of the legality of the letter signed much personal acquaintance with him, in terms other no doubt, Mr. Pole, must take his due share of l e . .. by Mr. Pole. In the little with which he felt it ne- than of respect—of one, to whose administration, in sibility for the measure. As to the intention of ~ t cessary to trouble their Lordships on the present oc- other points of view, he was happy in paying his tri. Convention Act, he could confidently say. that it % . s cation, he should confine himself strictly to that point. bute of gratitude and applause for its moderation, atotievelled against the body of the Roman ands che The Noble Earl, no doubt , had complet el y satis fi ed prudence, and mildness. He felt , therefore , not a ' but was passed at the close of a Session,.hic. himself that the letter was illegal, consideted with little in being thus called upon to express in an un directed against the meetings of the United frieen , reference to the Act ; but he doubted whether the qualified manner his objections to the letter of a Mi- .from which improper proceedings were to be epi,;. 'Noble Earl would succeed in satisfying any other nister so nearly connected with that Noble person— hended at that time. Lord in the House of the truth of his position ; which a letter which certainly called upon the Magistrates Lord GRENVILLE disclaimed any intention was, as he took it, that the meetings which that letter of Ireland to actin a way they were not authorised by treating Mr. Pole with harshness or disrespect. evidently had in contemplation, were not illegal meet. the laws of their country. The Act in question con- ! would be an end to all responsibility, and Parli.ie ings upon a fair construction of the Act of Parlia- tained two clauses—by the first, persons sitting in an itself would be completely useless, it no respon•i: • • ment referred to. This was the true state of the unlawfnl assembly under that Act, may be proceeded were to attach to a person for any measure which - , I question. lii considering this, their Lordships would against in a particular manner. The officers were bore his signature, and thus openly avowed the a, have to consider the objects of the Act in question. authorised to call upon such unlawful meeting to dis- bation and sanction of such measure by the pia , 1 It was framed under very particular circumstances perse, not to commit or hold them to bail ; but, in who adopted it. by the Irish Parliament, and to prevent, in future, case of resistance, and in that case only, they were 1 Lord HOLLAND deelaredhimselftothesameeffst. what took place on fcirmer occasions, namely, a con- authorised to apprehend the person so resisting. The The LORD CHANCELLOR again expialatd, vention, purporting to represent the Irish people, or Noble Lord (Holland) next observed upon the second and said, that surely nothing could be more I..reies any class of them, with a view to obtain alterations clause. Would it be contended, that the mere act of from his mind than to make any unhandsome allesiea in think established in Church and State. The par- attending such an assembly as that referred to in Mr. to the Lord Chancellor of Ireland, for whose estime ocular circumstances which gave rise to the Act were Pole's letter was an offence, for which a man might ble qualities as a man and a judge he had ever enter well known. With respect to the question, how far be held to bail, or arrested ?' Might not the proceed- tained the highest respect. such conventions of delegates would or wou ld n ot be ings against the seven Bishops be justified on the same Lord STANHOPE, in reply, thanked the Noble illegal by the common law of Ireland, without the ground ? This would be a false interpretation of the and Learned Lord on the woolsack, for the canker introduction of such a statute, he would not presume law ; and he would affirm, with Lord Camden, that and fairness which he had displayed that night. It to give an opinion. But, he knew, that by the course the present case would not be law, unless it was made had saved him from the trimming which he (Lor er d of all Parliamentary proceedings , there may be some law by the statute. These positions he had illustra - Stanhope) had prepared or any oth few casual exceptions, from special circumstances, ted and enforced on a recent occasion, when he had Lawyer attempted to hold a different language, he to what he was about to state ; but, by th e general the honour of a dd ress ing t h e ir L or d s hips, on the s ub.; should have given that Laywer a complete basting. course of proceeding, no petitions could be regularly ject of informations Ex O ffi cio. It co uld not be de. He rejoiced in having brought forward the Kesel received in Parliament, except from the individuals vied that there was much rashness and temerity in i motion. It bad drawn from the Noble and Leered signing them, except in cases where the petitions came issuing the letter signed'by the Secretary for Ireland;i motel many useful confessions ; and it had dome from Corporate Bodies. A striking instance of this and it the bad consequences had resulted from iteo ; from his two Noble and distinguished Friends (Lords occurred not long since in their Lordships' Ho use, which, under the circumstances of the case and of the!, Grenville4nd Holland) the -soundest d was, octri neref o es, eel from a body of not less importance t han the Liver y moment, ell- m i g h t h ave given e k e , ee r . p o l e would, the most appropriate observati. thr; of London. The petition he adverted to, purported to have been responsible for those consequences. He determined to take the sense of the House upon the be signed by the Lord Mayor, Aldermen. and others, had no hesitation in declaring that his conduct on , motion.. It was to etrength of argument lie 100 p.. , in behalf of themselves and the Livery of London, that occasion was improper and culpable. It was a and not to strength of numbers. when the House was of opinion it was not competent conduct which if it did not stir up the people, it at 1 The House then divided—Contents 6—Non-Cee. to be received, but as the petitions of individuals sign- least tendedto stir up the Magistrates, to a degree of • teats 21—Majority against it 15.—Adjourned at 9. ink', and no others. The object of the Bill in ques- mischievous and dangerous activity. While, bow. HOUSE OF COMMONS. _—,- lion, Was to declare by an Act , that such meetin g s ever, he condemned the spirit which dictated, and were illegal ; and he believed, that were they to ran- the lan g ua g e in which the letter was drawn up, he Mr. Sorrow (Dublin) presented a Neutron front the Debt u rt is i the Four Courts Marshahea, Dublin, praying reuet.—Orc....l sack the collection of Statutes to find an Act that en- would not thereby involve the whole of the Irish Go- to lie on the table. deavoured to include every possible case, he did not vernment in an indiscriminate censure. He must do ! The Depaiy Usher of the Black Rod required the atten.lir:e think that any act could be found so effectual as the justice to the moderation and impartiality which has ! of the lioiee ie the House of Lord% to bear the Lloyd Awn& one before them. None of their Lordships could uniformly marked the conduct of his Noble relative , , given to certain Bills. i O n his return, the SPEAKER informed tke Hew, tz.! be think that the obvious meaning of the Act cou l d b e ( the Duke of Richmond) since he has been placed at 1 bad heard the Royal Assent given by Commi.sion to tar C.. 6.-• got rid of by a mere change of name, or that such the head of that Government ; but their Lordships , stercial Credit 111111,4r.c. (for which see the Lor,b.) would in the least alter the view of the question.— would do well, while they made this just exception, I From the language express of the Act, it must be not to pass unnoticed and uncensored the inconside. Mr. LOCKHART obtained leave to bring in a Bill to enillt the Governors of th e . Royal Naval Asylum to put chase Lari.'. li. the benefit of that institution. .considered that all persons under whatever name ap- rate and dangerous interpretation of the Iwhichl daw la : pointed, acting as delegates, were the purposes con- that night been set up as a justification of the conduct The Committee en the Parish Practice Bill wu postiion.ii It tbe.Sd cf May. templated in the Act ; that would fbrm a Conven- of the Secretary of the Irish Government, in issuing , ,lion under its fair and obvious meaning. If so, could such a letter as that to which the attention and repro- On the motion of Sir SAMUEL RON:ILLY, die third t th!. ing of the Bill for preeentin,g robbery In a dwelling-La-e:e 1,3 there remain a doubt that when a circular letter was bation of that House had been so properly directed . furfiice d pr f r o v r enting Monday, p ; ‘ and : a y the Report of the Coconut:en on t ii .. I sent round from Dublin, avowedly to a certain des- by his Noble Friend. • 1 canals, and to bleachirz grounds in England, and in irzl.tatl,e - crc stealing in situps, stealing ro nay ~ e .cription of persons in the different counties, calling The LORD CHANCELLOR entered into a va- Postponed till r to. preve mo nting Deenntesling was read a *mind init, rrow. upon them to elect or appoint persons t o act f o r t hem riet y of atgumts en to justify the general tenor of the Bill fo ' and committed toe Monday. - ' in the Committee in Dublin, that it was in every view letter ; though he was willing to confess that in some : Al\ isb.l.l.oß of the EXCHEVERporponel •!•e The CH ' • a convention, as contemplated by the Act? It was parts of it, the words were somewhat slovenly got Committee in tbe 011 the r Dibtillery Bonnecteill till Moway, dthist ere kin, • • , therefore justly conceived that such a species of Par- together. The Contention Bill , to wh i c h such ire- alterationsregulations cd with D, i.i,• Fitment should not be suffered to be held ; he must quent reference had been made, had not in it s view was bis wash to introduce. ons that t' rr A Message (rain the Lords !Armed the Comm . 4,t ,„. then say, with respect to the circumstances under the Catholics of Ireland. It' had in contemplation ~ ./-erdsluils bee ag read to the No.wieli Rand BlU,audsever l' . • 1 which the affair took place, there could not in effect the assembling of any description of persons oho 1. Mr. Russell, iron the Stamp Mice, produced swot nt , • i arise any other difference of opinion than what arose met together for the purpose of electing others who ,the exemptions of t oFram:es, from the duties on. ,t.0.., - .-s respecting the exercise of the discretionary power with were to interfere in Matters of Church and State. It ! which were "clue d ° tie ( " le table ' which the Government of Ireland was invested.— was the nature and intention of such meetings that IRISU TONTINE ACT. • 'From what fell from the Noble Earl, it may be in. made them legal or illegal. It mattered not under el Sir J. SMITH, a t lreeibly ta the intimation ferret! that any illegal body may go very near the what denomination they were known ; whether dole- he yesterday gave, moved for Lists of Survivors ee der the Irish Tontine Acts of Geo. 111, for 177 e wind, when by artifice or contrivance it kept out of gates, managers, or any other. They would take • the letter of the lase. . A question might also arise (their character from their mode of proceeding. Tithe • 1774; 1775, and the Accounts of the last two yet. . as to the extent to which an evil should be suffered to 1 assembly which these delegates or managers proposed I M e ' FOSTER said, the .present motion ;N. '. •:. such a broad field of discussion, that he' deohtea run, as to its existence in a small degree, or its pro- to elect was an unlawful assembly, so would the as- encroach on the aof the House, I :^m ., ceeding to an alarming length, with reference to the sembly he which should elect them. The elected or the number of minute p a tience e and particular st :vie:. period when it became the duty of Government to appointed, according to the nature of the object for interfere, in order to preserve the tranquillity of the which they should have been chosen, communicated letlica the elucidation of it would r equire. rev e w:, • i 'country. It was a question of prudence on the part i the legality or illegality of their meeting to the body many nit the annuitants of the same name e ! l ;. ''of the Government of Ireland, how far, as well as !electing them. Such was the interpretation of the another, which would create a confusion above t he c . At what period it should put the law in force ? whe- ' law upon which the letter proceeded ; and he could \ pecity of the House to remedy. The onlyvvey wh .f . appeared to him that s ic'i a motion cou.o ..• .1.7. titer it might be preferable to let the matter die away, not consider it as. improper, much less . as rash and upon, would be to ten I: T all the o ffi cers, well 1 . .. I-too - that the parties were left in a situation that no min. dangerous. When he applied the term slovenly to chief tOtild be done. But that question was at an end the letter of Mr. Pole, he by books and regulations, and examine the-whole it 1 no means 'tittle • Jed to the moment it was proposed further to extend the , impute any blame to that Ge n tleman. T he fault was Select Committee. - body, by a county representation, by delegates sent i not with him: Perhaps little - • a more core ane caution Mr. THOMPSON s aid, so loosely *Was -* from every county in Ireland, to do that under the \ in the drawing of ithave removedall up might circumstances of a petition which had been previously !for cavil ; at least it might have saved many of the wheth to five the c rsiticetes or not, a , • agreed to; therefore the only legitimate purpose of ,observations which had d Pt °tram unnecessar il y the Os pain was over. Upon this pit of the subject, present discussion. the existence of those p ople wh o were, 1e• .: years sof age in 1775, It would be tuoic ;...., I I I i ' 1 F 1 1 1 I 1 I 1 l