Star. — London, England, 1812-02-01 00:00:00

' • 5.. • • =eat, but peculiarly repugnant to the habits and prin "iplea of the person who was his chief adviser on the occasion adverted to. I am persuaded that nothing could be more abhorrent from the nature or feelings - or dispOsition of that person, than to staid between his fellgr-subjects stud the Legislature, and if I had no • other ground for the; conviction ' l feel respecting the purity of the motives which actuate the Noble Duke aithe head of the Irish Government, than his conduct respecting the Catholic claims, I am satisfied that he would be the last person to interfere between a great, ble; and es ccted class of his fellow-subjects respectable; p • and the Sovereign or rho Leftslature. . But, as I have • before stated, in point o f Act no 'such interference 'took place. The construction and application of the ' Convention Act, which the Irish Government • felt itself called upon to adopt and enforce, has been Thorne out by_the concurrent opinions of all the Law 'Officers of that coutory, and sanctioned by the una • nimous deciicn of the Judges of the Court of King's 13ench. The impression of the Irish Government then was, that a Convention, such as that proposed to be assembled by the Catholics, was contrary to law.—Measures were therefore taken to prevent the elections which were on the eve of taking place. If the constitution of ;welt an assembly was il'egal, the act of procuring elections of Al embers; to comprise it mug have been contrary to law, and the Coverement was fully justified in the measures which it re • sorted to with a s sew ro prevent their taking place. For my pert, without feeling it necessary to enter into that part of • the subject at present, I am prepared to say, that, as well as the -circumstances in which the Convention Act was passed, as in those in which it has recently been put in force, the measure was equally wise anil necessary. I remember well the oqasion, and _all the awful characteristics of the moment, when die measure was first brought forward. I remember, too, that at the time, it had th e sanction of th e a pp ro b at i on o f t h e l ate M r. Fox. So strong was my sense of its propriety and urgency at that time, tLat, though I was then in opposition to the Irish Government of that day, I gave the measure my cordial* support, because I con sidered it indispensably necessary to the security and pre servation of the country. The opinion of that great States man, (Mr. Fox), to which I have before alluded, was, that if the People ot Ireland were to be allowed to form a Con vention, such as that which was then in contemplation, consist ing of an assembly so constituted, and growing out of the con certed forms of election, that nothing could he expt end to result from it but an immediate and dangerous heerruptioa to the tran quillity of the country, and a long train of all possible mischiev ous consequences. The Convention Alt was consequently passed, and the efface was that it immediately pit down those danger ous assemblies which threatened so much mischief to the interests of the nation. When similar assemblies were abeat to be formed in Ireland in the recent instance, the Government felt It neces sary to put this Act in force. It did so for the security of the country, and if the Irish Government be to blame in any rerpect, it is that in suffering tome progress to be made in the elections, which it should have prevented; it was, so far from being severe, rasher more lenient titan it ought. Yet it may well be supposed prudent in that Government to have abstained from any etercise of its power, till the evil had increased to such magnitude as to call for its interference. But when this was the case, did the Government resort to the execution of the law without notice or communication to the parties? No such thing. A private ad monition was most properly and decorously sent to the leaders of • 4.he Catholic party, apprizing them of the illegality of the course they were rumble. said, at the same time, intimating the deter . mination of the Government to enforce the law. This admoni tion proved ineffectual, consequently a rroclamadon was issued by the GovernMent, declaring what the law was, aid announcing the intention of Government to.put it in force. What was the consequence ? That the Catholics proceeded with their elections to the proposed assembly ; that they d liberate!) , continued their violations of law ; and thut the Government of Ireland had no al ternative but to lab: the law of the land to he violated with Ms. punity, or to put down the Catholic elections to a Convent ofl, by-enforcing the provisions of the I:.ve. Does any Noble Lord entertain a dout t uron the subject, let him look to what has taken place, to remove every douht—let hint look to those legal proceedings which supply so many brilliant specimens of the pre torynf the Irish Bar, and to the grave and learned opiiiioris pro pounded serialm, but concurrently, by the distinguished pi r eonagi a who fill Vita bench in the Court in which the proceedings took pace. It il.e law then be as I have rated it, ii the Catho hes, by persevt rug in tittle purpose of electing represen tatives to an illegal assembly violated that law—and if the con current opink:ns of the Bar and the Bench, and the unanimous decision of the Judges, be a satisfectory exposition of the state 01 the law what ground Is tatre, I will ask, upon this view of the case , for your Lordships to go into an inquiry into the state of Ireland Why are we to be called upon to institute so solemn and important a Parliamentary proceeding, as if -the Govern ment of Ireland had been guilty of some gross violation of the Law and the Constitution—as if the persons in power in that country, had abt;Sed the authuri y ot office to the oppression ot the subj, ct, and to the extmetion of his legitimate rights, and the suppression of h.s privilege of complaint by petition —as if the Judges, instead of being the impartial administrators of the law, had put arbitrary constructions upon its enactments, with a view to harass individuals, and wrested their obvious meaning, for the purpose ot pandering to the arbitrary passions ot the Government—as it the Irish Admiuistratton Lad really interleted with the great right of the subject to petition, or had tirade any itsiquitous attempt, by the weight of its a uth o rity, to truth the Catholic claims? Unless these charge• can be made out'aga lust the Government of lioao, I cart never bring myself to coos• at to the inquiry now prepeted ; and upon this impris,,too I feel it, wholly impossible to accede to the motion of the Noble Earl. But I cannot conclude what I have to say upon this part of the case without adding, that I cannot conceive any injury that would be greater—r.y preceetling that would be more likely to produce the mischief; which it wes the object of tie Convention Act to prevent, than to buff; r the Catholics to proceed to assertible their Convention contrary to law. And I must always contend, that in the admonition given to them by the Goverument, a course bad been taken which was most salutary to thee- own cause. Could any thing, I will ask, be more likely to effect thb final success of their appli cation to the Legisiature, than the perseverance in a conduct which was hi direct opposition and ht ter vestee to the declared in tentioos of Government expressed in a formal prociam ation, an muunelog the state of the law, and notifying the intention to gels , force it ? The Convention Act, I will admit,vras not passedagalnet Caibolieseoe any other partizubr class of subjects, but against the cowsonwity.gootratly, or such petitions of it as may be shimmed to form suet. couvietions as it was the purview crtlitlawto put 'down and prevent. It applies equally to all elastics, and.Wia • tended altogether for use purpose of preventing any step being taken for the purpose ot forming assemblies injurious to me safety.--Itavitig taken this view of the principle, I come-now to touch upon the effect that might . pessibly.be produced by the adoption of the Notate Earl. if your Lor4ps were to co sir in taus mot:on, who could say that your acquiescence in it would not be construed into an intention, on your part, that it should be considered as admitted by you that the assembly to which I have been alluding was and would be legal? Will any one of your Lordships say that such an assembly would be an excellent institution ? Is that your opinion? Do you think so? Can you believe that such a convention, so - elected and so constituted, mould be legal, or could be harmless ? Is there an individual, whether hind or opponent of the Catholic claims, who can think that such a meeting would not be dangerous ? Does any men believe in the latrutiessness of such an institution, whether he be a person who fees that the Pr o t estant E sta bli s h ment should be matntained with all their ascendancy and Ire-eminence, or that the Catholics should be adntttttd, without Feet rve, to a part - cipat'on of all tit. rights, inimunitiee, and privileges enjoyed by any other class of his ;Weirs , y's subjects ? Let me see the man who goes not think that a convention so formed and constituted ought not to be condemned and stigmatised by every 'Hold to law and order, and would not be likely to prove more injurious than any occurrence in the whole history of the country.— With ;agent to the abstract subject of the precise limits of the distinction between toleration and the nneouragement of the Catholic pretensions, it may perhaps, be difficult to state any accurate definition; and I shall not, therefore trouble your Lord hips with any attempt to ascertain the exact boundary. It appears to me, that rio precise line of distinction can at any time be drawn without a full aad comprehensive consideration of all the existing circumstances ot the period. The case reenecting the Catholics is not now, nor has it ever been, a qu:stion respecting Merely the restraining of any panicular religious principles or epi- , nions. Every State is perfectly justified io restraining any principles or any setts, which are likely to prove injurious to its interests or dangerous to its security. If therestraints be limited to the extent of the necessity that calls for ihem,they are c o mpletely justifi a bl e and ' justified; but no community can, with propriety, carry restraints beyond the limit which the expediency and necessity for their enactment require. The question, therefore, now, as it applies to the case of the Catholics of Ireland, is, to what degree are we justified in continuing restraints upon them, and what are the instances of restriction which we may, without risk or danger, relinquisi.? For my own part, I have no hesitation to declare to your Lorelehlis that I hold all restraints to be in themselves pmitive evils. Whether I am right or in error in holding this opinion, anti these erinciples, it is not for me to decide. This I know, that I have been born with them, been educated with them, that they have grown up with my years, and will accompany me to my grave, that they are interwove% in my political creed, and too firnaly established to be ever era dicated. Upon these principles it is that I hold ahy restraints upon any class of subjects, which preclude them from the pos crime and enjoyment of any rights or immuniti,s' accessible to any other class of subjects, arc in themselves evils, and only tolerable when the amount of the danger from their removal exceeds the mischiefs of their continuance. The danger, I will admit, may be greater, if so, I say hold to your restraints: but, if the contrary be the case, then, there is no principle of prudent policy or a sound discretion that will justify the con tinuanee of restraints beyond the actual necessity. I have heard that an opinion has been urged in other places, though I base never heard it stated in this House, nor has it that I know of been stated in the other House of Parliament, that these re straints are in themselves a positive good, (Hear!) that they have been rt presented as the means not of protecting the establishment or defending the altar, but as the rel•gion and the altar for which _ _ they were originally intended as guards—not as the defence of the sanctuary, but as the sanctuary and the ark itself—(Hear, hear !f But no man seriously, in my opinion, defends these re ' *tractions upon any such grounds—no mat can reconcile to him self the absurdity of considering such measures of security for the Altar, as that altar which they were intended to secure. With respect to the question brought forward by the Noble Earl this day, and that ultimate one to which it points, I must say, that, in order to Insure any agreement, much n ust be conceded on either side. If we wish to insure concord we must take down much of the vehemence on both parts ; we must take down the pomp anl parade aid ostentation of the claim of right on one hand, and from the violence and fury of intemperate zeal on the other. But upon the general ground, I will ask whether it is not expedient that the restrictions should be taken off the Catholics? In my opinion, an opinion formed upon the best and most deli berate consideration which I have been able to give the subject, the removal of those restrictions would be not only not dangerous, bin would afford an additional security to the Protestant Estab li,hments of the Empire, and more particularly in Ireland ( I am not now disposed or prepared to state what may be the pr,e'se extent or measures of security which may be necessary in order to pros ide for the future safety of these establish ments. It has always been my opinion, that the best mode of providing for the real interests of the mpire, would be to dis array the distinct'ons rctpecting political rights of that rancour .which embodies the 'lit contents of the country—to remove that prinSple of seporstion of the people, which bolds the divatis fied and disaffected connected against the com. - no ainterest, and prevents that union of heart and sentiment which is tits best tone& ion of a nation's welfare. Upon the closest and best con sideration which I have given the question, therefore, I amper suaded that every restriction ought to be removed—bet re moved in such a manner, that the Legislature might have the portunity of discussing the pr . .iicipie and terms of the'remoial in every stage °idle business, and be thereby enabled to combine, with the release of the Catholics from their disabilities, the enacimert of adequate securities for the protection of the Pro testant Establishments. By such a measure, we should get rid of that principle that arrays and embodies the whole force of the country against the k.'stablishments. By removing the dis qualifications, and giving to the BulividuaL, a personal inte rest in the support of the Establishments, we shall embody that force for their preservation, which in the present state of things •must be arrayed for their overthrow. I know it may be said, as it has been said, that if we were to grant the present claims of the Catholics, they would nut be satisfied, but would demand something more. Much, it is ur g ed, has been granted to them, and it Is asked whether they pave rested satisfied 1 But this, I contend, affords nu just ground of objection against their claims. If we are now to open a new field of concession—if we had not previously made any arrang,ment for their relief—if we hid not admitted client upon any terms to a pat ticipation of political power, we might, I will admit, very reasonably, exercise our judgment upon the subject. But wha:, I will ask, is the snuatiou of the Catholics of Ireland What is the view that any States• man would be bound to tike of it? Do the Catholics not possess political power t Every man who knows any thing of the situa tion of that country, must be sensible that th-y do. If we give them an individual interest in the support of tits! establshments, by granting their claims, there will be no danger in the grant. — Any thing that is to be apprehended, mu t elite trom the presets situat'ota of things, which di►sociates them from .any interest in the permanent support of the estabitshinents. 1 his is no prin.- ciple novel to the Constitution ef this country. The whole frame and existence of the Constitution itself depend upon this principle of the individual interest that all the parts have in the general presenration of the whole. It is absurd to suppose that the balance of King, lords, and Commons, is preserved by their mutual check• and interference. This House has many points of connection with the people, so also has the other House of Parliament in a greater degree :--both Houses have. also bonds of connexion with the-Crown, and it is by the common nose of a common interest in maintaining the Cousti tution,that that Constitution is presetv,d, rather than by any sys tem of mutual restraint or interference. Let us then give the Catholics the Individual interest in the State—let us fill up those interstices occasioned by their exclueion from civil I•rtvdeges in the Constitution, and we shall bind them to the support of our establishments. But it is paid, that when they seek the admission to the higher offices of the different professiwn 4 , their wishes are unreasonable. Is it theta unteasonable, if a gallant officer distinguishes himself, that he should wish for the natu ral reward of valour ? These wishes we have ourselves caused intilein:rbeq;;; foundetiuPohthe truest , the aoundeat and the best principles. But it is said now that the PopiAismcces j.sion is extinct now, that the Catholics according to the deci i Won of the six principal of their Universities in Europe, abjure the dangerous doctrines which formerly formed a part of their ; tenets, that they have a right to be admitted into the possession Of every prhrilego enjoyed by any other subject; 1 hey have removed, Us doubt, many objections to the grant of their claims. But it was not against the dangers of a Popish succession, I or the consequences of their exceptionable doctrines, so much as against the possible danger of the introduction of arbitrary power in o this country that the rectictlons were imposed. Having said thus Mach as to the claims, the Noble Earl will do me the justle to behave that 1 am substantially with them, though I cannot con ceive any time more unfavourable for pressing them than the pre. sent, when the objections enter ta'ned by many. very w.1.-meaning persons eget• st them are increased by the Catholics themselves in theirsleteintimd violation of the law. I trust that the Catholics, and those well disposed to their claims, will employ themselves in devrsi4 proper means to provide securities for the Protestant este- Wilma:is whenever it may be the w.ll of the Legislature to grant their clainis—thatthey cast off the intemperate spirit with which they are at present aternstrd, and present themselves be fare Parliament in the modest geese of suit r.ring and petitioner.— that they will not think to make the Protestant Sceptre of this empire bow to claims preferred from any quarter, however re spectable—that they shall not seek to attain their objects by means likely to overthrow the bulwarks of that Constitution, which is to them, equally with the Protestants, the surest pledges of their rights end libel ties—and that, with a due submission to the au thority of Parliament, and a just veneration for the principles of the Constitui ion, they will present their claims to a participation of all the rights enjoyed by any other class of his ISlaj.,sty's still, cis." Lord CARY sFORT supported the motion, end particularly insisted on the bad moral effect which the penal laws had on the civilisation, the habits, and the feelings of the people or Ireland. The Earl of IA ESTMORLANL) entered at large into the history of the efforts which, he sa.d, a party in Ireland had been for ever making to separate the two countries. Whatever spe cious pretences the discontented in Ireland professed to act upon, their ultimate and grand object was re/tar-at/6s. It was the same sprit which pervaded and inflamed the conventiouists of the se venteenth century, those of Dungannon, and those of the present day. 'I o say that toe peasantry of Ireland would be bettered by emancipation, was just as fine a thing as to predict, that the frame-breaking riots at Nottingham would be put an end to by a reform in Parliament. Lord IViOIRA said that there wa; an obvious distinct on be tween natural and iolltical ights, ha unt species were nut to -.. . be refused to any hutnan being ; the other might. The Trish called for political rights, not without a perfect acknowledgment that they might he limited by the donors. The call was to be resisted, under the pretence that they were hostile to the Church of England : but this was refuted by the terms of the application, they came as Britons to ask their rights of Britons, and offering all the security that that could be asked for their giving up all idea of injury to the Established Church. They had no idea of succeeding by menace. Their petitions were in the language of humility ; and they entreated of the bounty of the .Legislatcre, what they had a right to demand of its jwitice. The great bulk of the landed interest of Ireland ca'led distinctly for Catholic Emancipation, and was it at this hour that the just demand of thF Irish nation was to be refused ? If the inertness of Ireland was complained of, what would be the effect of its total alienation, and in this hour, too,when we engaged in a struggle with the greatest power f the Con tinent, with a man at its head, whose sagacity, skill, and fore sight were sharpened by personal hatred to England. Why re. fuse Catholic Emancipation? It was answered, because the Church would be in danger: tut was all the danger of the Church to come from the Catholics ? Was there to be none from Bonapatte ? Wai not this voluntary abandonment of our great strength like throwing off our breastplate when we were about to descend into the lists ? No; but Catholic depression might bring over converts. Quite the contrary. It had ope rated as a bar. ft was a landmark which no man would at tempt to pass wi , hout incurring the imputation of baser mo tives. A Noble Lord had hinted something about the connec tion between the Church and the Stste. He (Lord Moira) wished to be distinctly understood in speaking of this. If it meant that connection by which the State rrovided for the existence of a Chureh, wish its natural objects of ellimiing the people, teaching them religious feeling, and administetirg consolation to the sufferer on the death-bed, ht was, and would always be, among the first In applauding and support: ng that connexion—but if it meant u.ing the power of religious opinien to assist the State in infringing civil Lberty, that, in turn, the ; State might assist it in eurta ling regions freedom, he was not merely strong in reprobating, but thinking those worthy of pu- 1 nishment who supported that guilty canines on. Eut it was not the spirit of the Church of England to be perstentmg. It never forced opinion—it desired all men to exert their rim n joilgment-e give them the institute of religion, and bid them read for them selves. It had not xperience in the connexion with e use of temporal power. It it began once, it must undergo tit., fate of all the Churches that had leaned on temporal power. That was the evil of the very Church whose claims the House were discus sing on that night. It leaned on the States of Europe, and strorgly connected as it was with them, it was ruined by the connexion. Something ought to be done. Procrastination was a favourite word with the Noble Lord (Westmorland), but it was a dange rous rule of action. Concijiation ought to be the spirit of what ever measure they were to adopt. .1 hey were not to suffer the question to run into a system of pe..wlsb constructions and exas perating misrepresentations. They were to meet it In a liberal and friendly spirit. Not to feel their fall Imminent, and that, too, with the consciousness that it was hastened by themselves. Lord MULG RAVE could not see how four mil lions of people, men, women, and children, were to be all discontented, because they could not be Gene rals, Admirals, and Jades. There was, besides, no specific object proposed in the motion for a Commit. tee. He should therefore oppose the motion. Lord ERSKINE reminded the last Noble Speaker that Catholic Petitions, were preparing, and that to allow of the effect of those, was one of the declared objects of a Committee. He had heard the speech of the Noble Marquis (Wellesley) with admiration. He had heard him state his acquiescence with the principle of the Catholic claims,, but refuse the claims en the ground of tumultuous and menacing conduct in bringing them forward. But when was the evidence for this before the House ? He (Lord Erskine) disliked observing on the Courts of Law, but he must say, he could see but a very faint colour for the charge against the Catholics. Whatever their errpr might be, it was obviously nsore that of ignorance, than of disobedience. He must, in speaking of this, state principles, which were with him not the princi ples of an hour. He saw an eternal distinction be tween the Common and Statute Law. The Com. mon was interpreted by decisions, by long opinion, by the general sense. The Statute was itst own in ' terpreter. He could not think that the Catholics had offended against the statute. If their meetings had been plainly tumultuous,—if they bad . me: de cidedly to overawe the Legislature, they would be guilty of a high misdemeanour without the statute. That was the case of a Noble Lord ( Lord G. Gordon) whom he had defended early in his professional life, and who was brought in peril, ..re rn yas the inciter of - a mob to overawe the legislature. The Convention Act was dot intended to prevent the meeting of assemblies for a legal purpose. The de sir of tit was to prevent the dangerous machinations of those who, professing one purpose, assembled for another ; and made a pretence of a legal object, the better to carry into effect measures dangerous to the security of the Government and the tranquillity of the country. But if Ireland was in such a state of tumult and disorder, was it wise on such grounds to repel the Catholic petition ? Every time jt was re jected, it would come in a more dangerous shape ; and the concession ought to be made, while it could be made in a dignified manner. Earl DARNLEY urged the policy of acceding im mediately, and with a good grace, to claims which, from a sense of justice, must be conceded sooner or later. The Earl of BUCKINGHAMSHIRE was of opinion, that to grant the prayer of the Catholic peti tion would be so far from producing tranquillity in Ireland, that it would be a source of greater discord and contention than before. Earl GREY, with reference to the observations made by the Noble Earl who last spoke as to the in• tervention of the disqualifying Statutes and the Co ronation Oath, asked, how came his Majesty to re commend to the Government, on a former occasion, those concessions which the Noble Earl now conceiv ed would, if granted, lead to the destruction of the kingdom ? With respect to the Act, he challenged the Noble Lord on the Woolsack to prove that it wOuld bear the construction put on it; the Catholics of I his time (in 1793) were received by the Government [ of England with cordiality and approbation —were in -1 trodnced to the King, and promised certain indulge's 'cies which were secured by t h e A ct i n quest i on , w hi c h was by the present Government in Ireland deemed ille gal. The preamble of the Act expressly stated that the indulgencies were_granted on account of ~ the loyal demeanour of the delegates," and therefore it was nt such restraints and disabilities as they were under, should be discontinued." The Legislature of that day never had it in contemplation to prohibit the Meetings; the Act was a declaratory one, so recog nized by Lord Clare, by Mr. Wolfe, afterwards Lord Kilwarden ; and only in the last year, the Noble and Learned Lord on the Woolsack asserted the same. The Noble Earl contended, that on all occasions Meetings for innocent and Constitutional purposes were not disapproved by the Government. It was so with the Society of Delegates for Reform, in 17824 and on all subjects connected with the liberty of the people. He defied any one to shew him, in the history of the country, any Act which was intender' to pr )hi. bit such meeting. The statute of Charles the Second ianledto sni t m ve tut th a t i. . . wed was not to be relied on, because th at was pa i n the very fever of royalty, wh e n un f ortunately too little regard was paid to the ri g h ts o f the subjec t, and ton much cause for corny:Lining of t h e i nvasion * unlawful wasim one, s s It b otlii-ethAe sCsemonsbtliytuwtionas a n proved to bring it within the meaning ortheAct; bar; being so proved, it was a legitimate :noti ng ; and to pretend it was dangerous to the Constitution and the State, and not the principle of the English 1 The lan. Noble Earl argued at very great length upon the coy. struction of the statutes, contending that in the one relied on, there was no allegation that the Assert ) * met for " a pretended purpose," which the Sed;tioir Act of 179 G expressly states to be ground for app re . hension. The misconduct of the Irish Governnieat wts unwise, impolitic, and unjust, in the I;:gi le , t degree. The intemperate letter of Mr. Pol-, rf which so much had been said, w as admitted b) the Noble and Learned Lord on the Woolsack t v % be " slovenly worded ;" and was in his (Lord Grey's) opinion, disgraceful to the Gov e rn mnnt . Ile dal reprobated the conduct of the Law Officers, and t ,y the ChiefJustice,respecting the arrest of; the Delegates. The latter bad issued his warrant for their arrest, a ct under,the words of the Act, but with a view to s'i t the record afterwards to be filed agioinst them, for h e charges them "with meeting for the purpose, and under the pretence of petitioning ;" when,infact,th ey actually met for the regal purpostfpetitioning,and nut under the pretence of so doing. This wasaniode of p ro .. ceeding on the part of the Chief Justice, which wa ; extra judicial. What confidence could the public of Ireland have in the administration of justice in that kingdom — ? The ob j ect of the Ronan Catholics was a laudable one; the meeting, which they had i h a d before, in such large numbers, might be a teason for jealousy in the Government, but not for oversuoinini the Law. Was the. Government afraid of the molt respectable of the Irish population;? He recon n , a . deal, instead of coercive measures, those of concilii. Lion, beneficence, and justice, to secure the hearts of a brave and loyal people. To what a state was thi l country now reduced, with the present aspect c affairs with America, and with every thing dear at stake with respect to Ireland? He would recall to the recollection of the House the conduct of the GO. vernment towards America in the former unhappy struggle; America had then sent petitions to the House, and remonstrated in the most humble tone ? as the Catholics had 'done since, and tL ky, . like tho u of the Catholics, were not attended to: the cone. quence of that was a war, and that a war in which, after a series of digraces, we were defeated. At the period of the Union, the Catholics expected the re. dress of their grievances, but in this they were disap. pointed. He was happy to hear from a Noble yin count that the Catholics of England were about tobe placed in the same situation wth those of Ireland. Lord SI DMOUTH, in exp!anatien, said he had stated no such thing—the object of the Bill which hc should introduce would go no farther than to place them on the same footing with respect to military commiss'ons alone. Lord LIVERPOOL said, his sentiments upon the question were known, and he should be ready to re. t them when it was brought properly before then. Util the securities could be proposed, he did not ap. prove (inciting the expectations and passions of the people. Lord GRENVILLE regretted that the Noble Lord had not acted upon this principle some year; ago, and disdained to excite the passions of the pea ple,instead of being one of an Administration, oar had excited the diabolical cry of " No Popery Vi— to serve their own purposes. Were they now to ash what part of the conduct of Government WAS oda. vourable to the Catholics, when it was ev:deat dust every part was m riled with hostilit y and malignity? He then entered into a long . discussion to prose the I lepliry of the Catholic Meetings, and concluded with an exhortation to adopt the course of Conciliation. The House then divided, when there app red Contents,42—Pmxies,37-79--WonConterts,BG—PTonrg, 76-162-.4—Majority aearnst the Motion, 93. Adjourned at HALF-PAST SIX. Mr. &toot!, one of the Pollee Magistrates bellemging to Mad. borough-street Office, died suddenly in hfariburuugh•urar,oa Wednesday night. Gawler was on the 2sth at Newcastle. fir bad kft LAI• don for that place in a collier, the Cap a n of srat'ch Sul veing him, save information to the Mayor, who isstneamly ditensti bins to be secured. SWIFT'S is the only Office that sold a Prize of 130,000 is Shares, in the last Loam. BRITISH CALLER[ or Pscrcats.—The Subset.then to do above Work are respectfn!ly informed, that Number V. of the FIR sr Stitiz 9, and IV. of the'Stcoun Stairs, are this day rob., lhhed.—The Exhibition continues open. Admiolo4l to 11 P Subscribtrk, One Qhilling.—No. 54, Ncw Bood•gereet. OFFICE OF ORDNANCE, Jaw. IS, Int THE PRINCIPAL. OFFICERS of HIS MA .INS 77". ORDNANCE, d. Arrth ewe Nogirrt That Proposals will be received at their Me in ihn•hfi l, on or before Monday, the 3d of Febrnary nett, from such pewolo as may be trilling to undertake the supply of BEDDING& service of•this Department, for a period of three Years,dW' at the expiration of one yeat, at the option fit' defter pot?. Pitterlis of the Articles may be vievred upon apPitad" the prineipal Storekeeper's Office, in the Tower; and farther Particallars, together with the Terms and Condition el* Contract, may be known at the Seeretar,'s Office, in PIP* aforesaid, any day between the hours of Ten and Font o'Ciocks where the eroposals must be delivered, sealed up, and eedersta " Proposals for Bedding;" but no Proposal can be admitted thy the said 34 day of February, at Twelve e'Clork at nom d same day; neither will any Tender be noticed unless doe PM making it, or an Agent in his behalf shall attend. By Order of the board, IL H. CAM, Ewer* OFFICE OF ORDMINCE, Jesuitry 15, NM THE PRINCIPAL OFFICERS OF XQ Nit JESTrs ORDNANCi, ds Away ewe airits. • That Proposals will be received at dmir Oct,fs Palt on or before Monday, the Sd day of February oen,.. im such persons as may be willing to undertake the saFPIT " Ir.. BAGS for Strike of tbis Department , for a p e riod d years, determinable at t he e xp i r at ion of one year/ at th el O ili° of earlier party. • Patterns of the Articles may be viewed upon Principal Storekeeper's Oflice at the Tower, aed lan, together with the Terms sad Condition of the may be known at the Secretary's Olice, in Pall. Niall 110 0 1 0 any day between the hours of tea and four o'clock, wbe rs , Proposals must be delivered, sealed up, aad codararal: posala for Sand Bags;" but no Proposal can be a dsitlgged—.6 mafs said Sd day of February, at twelve o'clock at Woe el file day, neither will any fender be noticed umbels the party it or an agent in his behalf, shall aucud. By Order of the Board, R. H. CLAW, ii*„. LONDON s Priatad by Levet. K stir Picketalasa• rebigied itott at tie • 1 P i -di