The National Register. — London, England, 1812-02-02 00:00:00

FEB 2. .... . House would pay every atientiontO thin-CmportaiitAluestiOn, and- heiter lose sight of theinterests of Ireland. The Earl of Ross lamentkl, in'eommon with the Noble Lord, the state in which the Catholics oflrelandarenow. ThatiHouse,howeier, would he cautions how tar it deptivedarlyter of meit-cif their cOnititue tional privileges,- and it would even extend-' tlttn ask-far as prudence would allow. That House had always been reatly-tc; rereive petitions Constitutionally drawn up and presenliedi andislaerestlwaycinost happy to contribtite to the interests of Ireland -,-- belt he considered:aris subject at being •britancht forward ato peculiarly i rim:lroner' timei Tfielir>t• cbject of thcNtible Earl (Fitswilliani) he Aw,waotci-colitiiiate the CathOlics of Ireland by concessions ; and the tieifiiiiiiftO-Cast"i-ilur On the-present Government. That Noble Earl had hiaid a report *that sornethintwas wrong among a Jury in Ireland;-but he warnet certain of the truth of it. Was that a reason forgoing into the proposed Curnmittee ;or were the imperfect reports in the Newspipers Of the day, 'sufficient reasons for a grave proceedingof such an assembly ? The NobleEirthadtahen a review of the situation of Ireland ;- and from' thence he inferretVthat the resent danger was-so.great as -to warrant thiepiroceeding. ..Ni)w. his Lord R.'s) opinion was, that no danger - Wiwi() be apprehended - by the rich Government, which stood firm' td its duty-. Ifthe House chose to do any thing in this- affair, it should be done from munificence and liberality, not with the- slightest-symptom of fear. lint the Catholics of Ireland had assumed-such atone of arrogance and hostility, 'and had to the Proclamations of Government- with so much, contempt, that any concessions which might now be made to them would be con sidered as mean § temporising, and pusillanimous:' Instead, therefore, of being tranquiliized by their success, they would be stimulated to - new demands. He agreed, that the Catholics had the right efpetitiuning as welias the rest of his-Majesty's subjects; but what he' Winne& on was, that the Government of Ireland had never interfered when they eierted "! that right in a constitutional - manner.. They tever attempted to impede them, when petitioning, in any thing ,that would'have been alloweckto the Protestants of Ireland, or even of England. Surely the. Catholics could not justly complain in that respect, when the Protestants were so. 4-kt treated in the same way. - In Ireland there exists' an expreis Act .. against electing Delegates for the 'purpose of . petitioningi and he wonld • ask, if in this country, where no- such Act-exists, the. people hada 'rigle, to assemble and choo4e Delegates, as in Ireland ? He maintain . id'that they had net. ' The House of Commons . are alone - the Representatives' of the People; -nor could there -be, at . one time, two sets Of persons re presenting thepettple. If those Delegates had a right to aft' for half an. hour, that right-wmild enable thein to th for months, petitioning Parlia ment, without end; While the financial;; commercial, and warlike affairs of .the nation must stand still, to allow their petitions 'to be discussed.— Whenever such a Convention was endeavoured to be established, it should Instantly be crushed, to prevent it frdin menacing the Legislattjre in its proceedings. He spoke not of such a Convention as that at fhe Revolution was established,When no,Parliament wassitting; but he hoped that no such thing would•be tolerated b/ Government while both Houses vvere.ln the full and ictive exertions of their powers. Whether they looked at the - general principles of the Constitution, or the usages of their ancestors, they woultl see such a proceeding was highly iniproper .. ,but particularly in Ireland, where there is an express Statute against it. He contended that it was absurd to attempt to attach blame to a Govern ment who maintains and enforces the laws. and not to those who break and contemn them. 'The Noble Duke at the head of the Irish Govern bad always deserved the highest praise for his forbearance towards the Catholics. -What, he would ask, was the conduct of America when she determined to shake off the power of the mother country ? The first proceeding was a Convention of Representatives. And what was that of France, when she overturned her Government—murdered her King— and banished her Nobles I The first proceeding was the establishment of an Assembly of Delegates. Would the House then blame the Go vernment of Ireland for preserving the . country from' such,dangers ; or would it rather stand by Wit Government, and support it in the exer cise of its just power ? His opinion was, that there might be alarms there, and alarms here, but as long as the Government acted as it had done, there was no real-danger. He,therefore, opposed the motion. The Duke of BEDFORD felt himself. called upon to express, in a few words, his opinion on this impbttant.questitm. - "He had not heard a sin gle word in refutation of the able2speech Which his Noble Friend (Fitz willism) -had delivered.' 'He joined in the eulogium which the Noble Earl (Ross) had delivered on the Noble Duke at the head of the Irish Government, but he must be allowed' (making; a di -tinction .bet Ween that -Nobleman's private and public conduct) to reprobate the mistaken-• policy which bad been pursued with regard to Ireland.' The 'Catholics had frequently petitioned the Throne and that House in the most re spectful manner, and had.been ' frequently disappointed. Their hopes were nearly destroyed, arid they lid adopted the proceeding complained of to give dignity and Weight t' their Petition; not from a spirit of dip. loyalty, .far they had.always tnain-ained and deserved a loyal character,• and it was unfair to say ti - 6iihipir object, in this case, was a disloyal one. If it were possible, as Utz doubt it was, what a desirable thing it would be to conciliate so large a body of his' Majesty's subjects ' ? He implored - their Lordships to consider well the situation& the Catholic s of Ireland, and that could.only be 'done by g'oi'ng into the Committyp t ; and, when their wrongs should be redressed, all hands and all heirA would then be exerted in defence of a really free country." ~ . Lord AMMO tEN Considered the present motion to - be most.injudici ous, and he could not avoid condemning the general conduct of We Ca- ' , 1,. Y • I t. :67 tholics•of irelaud ; at the sense time that to -meliorate Jitstineuri vas not fiecomjeatihle with;the Government. He denied tire position kid down.that the Catholics; had a right to what they claimed. - He would not enter into any speculative discUssiourelative to tharellgion iif , any set of geoplee but if any religlon waelsoatile . to the COnstitution, it. was the duty of Gdvernment to controul and restrain it. • Were' the chitin§ in question granted;the grant weitildnotadvknee the pr'ciapitity •of:Jrelarid-one stestfurther than It vias itspreeent. He defied the-*ble etiuk - e• to pendiseia single instance .of e a -Catholic whose person bad en "less saeredecti"whose property had seen less secure, than that of a Pro testant.- The ConVention Act was riot Isisied .Catholicse for it applied eqtrally to all personsinthe country. He wished to ask any .No hie Loiskwhet inii4 be the consequence of a Convention-ofesoo Repre seretiqiites* sitting in a separate Assembly in Dublin ? Was 'noedanger likely-to result from such a meeting ? He was.confident that the Duke of Riclitticerd had been uniformly impiftial in every part of his conduct iespecitnethetieluilics, and that he was justified in suppressing 'such • Convention. He wished to know why all concessions of the kind in question should net he conceded to the Catholics or England ? Wliat was there in ille• conduct of Catholics in this country, which should make Parliament . leils attentive, to . ` thern than any other class of dissen ters r On the whole hi should oppose the present motion. The Marquis of Dower [MIR Z began by pointing out the losses. which Ireland sustained by the Union. • She had lost her Legislature, mkt a great portion of her revenue, by having so much of her wealth trans ferred every year, in consequence of losing the domestic residence of the greater portion of her Nobility. These advantages had been parted with under an expectation, on the part of the population in Ireland, the their condition would be materially altered. As matters now stood, there would still he a nominal union between Great Britain and Ireland ; but a union of hearts and hands would always be wanting. It Was es sential to the prosperity of the whole kingdom } that the expectations, long ago held out to Or Catholics; should he realized, The Fad of Haittowieci called the attention of the . House to the re peal of severarpenal laws in Ireland; in order to showethat Government had, in modern times, been uniformly disposed to great concessions to -the Catholics. In the year 1793, in particular, most important Privi leges were granted ; such as the elective franchise, the power of Masts ' tracy, &c.; and it was at that time the feeling of the Government, that they had gone the full length of concession; and that it would be ; dan gerous to have gone one step further. He could not therefore see in what grounds fresh claims were now put fornrard; and he mustlesist any motion to that effect. , Lord SID MOUTH differed from the Noble Mover and Supporters of this Motion, in most of their statements, and particularlyin that Where they asserted that the prosperity of Ireland and the redress of her griev ances depended on the grabOng of those claims. The great distresses and miseries of Ireland arose out of the wretched condition of the pea santry. (Hear, hear ! ) 'The Catholics, who were now preferring claims, laboured Under no distress . ; and, to grant them what they asked, would give no relief to the peasants. What their Miseries were owing to it was not easy tncletermine; but if penal statutes were the causes, it mast be recollected that those were passed out of necessity, against men who, when in power , had done acts of greater severity towards people of a different religion from their own. He was happy that moat of these penal laws were now done away; the system ofenelioration was, how ever, still incomplete. He wished to see the lower orders impreved and relieved; but the remedy now offered was, the least of all others, adapted to the evil. l'he motion went to establish a presumption of blame against the Irish Government. On this point he must remark, that he had • had the happiness of many years acquaintance with the Duke of Richmond; and he could declare that a more noble-minded, generous, or liberal man never held the government of any country ; and he was incapable of any act to which blame could attach. With respect to the supposed obStaele to the granting. of claims to the Catho• lics, he positively denied that that ‘ was the obstacle. The obstacle arose not from the feeling of apy one individual, but from the general feeling of the people of England. F near, &or ) The opinion of Mr. P.tt had oftenbeeu quote.l as authority in favour of the Catholics; but it was not clear to him that Mr..l•iti would ever have held any such opinion, lead he known that they refused to grant the Veto. But as to the sue posed obstaCle, 'did the'obstac le noweexist. ? and did not the feelings of the • public resist 'the claims iq question as much now as at any former time ? There was not a privilege that could contribute to the security and happiness of Man which the Irish Catholic could net enjoy; and all required of kith watelie oath of supremacy, which he hoped would for ever exist ae,a Oft of our Constitution. He had no hostile sentiments towards the'tatholice, nor di I he think their principles anyway dan gerous to, the Constitution ; but from a certain conscientious scruple, they paid a deference to a foreign authority, who had en effect not only on their religion, but also on their morals • and he would never give up the power of the State to any persons likely to be influenced by forei s n authority. It was upon these grounds he must resist the motion befeee the House. In one respect, the present was strictly a religious gut:s and he saw noeeason why the privileges asked for should not be kended to pereontbf all religious persnasioes. Believing, as he did, I that an indissoluble union oueht to exist between the Church and the State, he would never suffer them to he separated. Lord Souses began to support the Catholic claims, on the ground of the expectation which had been long held out to them ; and then desired ' any Noble Lord to state what harm could arise front suffering Roman II . ', 1 r r,,,0 - I