The Sun. — London, England, 1812-02-01 00:00:00

1:•nd %-onld alone be a sufneient ground for adopt er; tire motion of his Noble Friend.. But the most lie Tole inducement to the motion existed in the ,e,eeeral condo& of the Irish Government, and parti eel :rly in their conduel during the last year. He appealed to the ,Noble Marquis and to the Noble Earl who spoke early in the debate, whether it was lair to accuse the•Catholies of an attempt to form a Convention• Net) the View of thereby obtaining their objects; and whether they thought a Convention for a general, or a delegation for a particular pur pose, ought to be treated in the same-manner ? If the spirit of the Convention Act was not meant to operate against a delegation, then the Irish Govern ment was unjustifiable in the course which they had persued. Let Noble Lords refer to the history of the Convention Att. They would find, that in te9g, a year before the Ael was brought itito the Irish Par l:ament, there existed a delegation in DeWitt for the purpose of representing the Irish Catholics, which • delegation negociated with the Irish Government, and also with the English Governments—Was it creditable that the same Government which had so recently found a delegation useful for the 'pur poses of negociatirm, would pass 2 Bill to over turn the whole system ? In the debate on the Bill, in the Irish Parliament, not one of those who spoke contended that it referred to Catholic dele gation. Nay, whee the Attorney-General Wolfe, afterwards Lord Kil warden, - was questioned on the inebiea, he said, God forbid! that it would prevent any delegation, where there was a preconceived purpose. It etei . ;s a considerable time indeed before the Govern ment of Ireland discoVered, 'or 'nutlet, thought they discovered, that delegation was within the meaning of the Convention A&. 'The Cathol;c Committee • sat unmolestedly as delegates, from May, I 809, to February 1811. h was contended that at length their excessive violence rendered inter ference necessary; and yet that very moment When interference was deemed necessary, the Catholic Committee were endeavouring to pro cure from the country an accession of members of such a charatier as would give additional respeela bility to their body. After the circular letter of the Chief Secretary, calling on the Magistrates to disperse what that letter termed an allegal assembly., the Ca tholic Committee were again allowed to meet, in Fe bruary, in March, and in June, without any inter ference on the part of that Government by which it bad been announced as illegal.. At length the procla mation was issued. No sooner had that taken place than there came out what a N e bie.Eart had been pleased to call a. counter-proclamation, from Earl Fingal. This counter-proclamation, as it was termed, was merely a declaration on the part of the Catholic Committee, that . their conduet was Conformable to law ; that they would therefore persevere in that conduct, and that the Proelama- Con was not applicable to them, since they were trot persons going to disturb the peace of the State. On their Proclamation, however, Government acted, arid let the mode be attended to. Whatever diffe rence might exist among Noble Lords on the other parts of the subject, he was sure they would all agree, that it Government thought it necessary tone, at feast they ought to have acted in a manner strielly conformable to justice. What did- they do ? A warrant was issued under a Proclamation. By whom. was that warrant signed ? By the Chief. Justice of the Court of sings Bench ; before stehom the prisoners, apprehended by the warrant, must necessarily be tried, and who was only one of 3000 M , g,istrates, any one of w'eom might have signed the warrant to which the Lord Chief Justice thought proper to affix his name. He dis claitned the least intention of throwing any imputa tion on the Lord Chief Justice in this transac tion, but referred for support in his opinion of the impropriety to a pamphlet published under the au !fierily of the Chief Secretary himself, in Which the Rt. Hon. Gent: at - ter vindicating the circular letter, observed, that he had consulted Lord C. Manners arid the Attorney-General, but that he bad not con sulted Lord Chief Justice Downs, because if any of , the individuals implicated had been brought to trial, Lord Chief Justice Downs most have presided in the Court, and that he (the Chief Secretary) di chained any step which might cast a stain on the purity of a Court of Justice. Yet,, strange as it was, this very Chief Secretary had the itsformations Icelged before this very Chief Jus tice, end procured the warrant to be signed by him ! they were manifestly introduced into the warrant for the sole purpose of giving to that Ad a meaning, which, if allowed, most have been fatal to the pri soners. Without going further into detail, he was convinced that the conduct of the Irish Govern ment, through the w hole of the transaction, was ; s •cli as to call for the fullest and most serious in quiry. A great change had of late taken place in the sentiments of the people of both Itelarid and England on the subjeat of the Catholic Claims.— E.en in England there was at present • a much stronger disposition than formerly to admit•those charms. In Ireland a still stronger disposition of that nature existed. Those very Protestants' in Ire land, who had entertained the most unfavourable view of the objects of the Catholics, were unable to resi-t tee impression prodtteed by a more 'intimate knowle4,e of their virtues. It was a general and a grower - 1g wish among the Protestants, that their Catholic brethren should be admitted to a pat (kip that of equal rights. He trusted that while the Irish Protestants thus cast oil all prejudices . against the Catholics, the English Protestants would nut remain blind to' their value, nor continue to refuse those advantages which would be derived, on corn muuicating to the Catholics a warm interest in the wedare of the Empire. The law, as it at present stood, did not exclude from the enjoyment of rights the abandoned and unprincipled Atheist, or the ignorant and confirmed bigot; but it excluded that honourable class of society,: who, having rerounced every Audrine -dangerous to the State, were too coriscieutious to rencenceahe religion of their fore fathers. Lord Cansroa - r argued at- considerable length in favour of the motion. Lord WESTMOR.LAND said, that he had too much personal respect for the Nettle Earl in whew the motion originated, and for the Noble Lords by whom it bad been supported, to suppose they had been actuated by any but a laudable motive. He Lad ro-doubt that it was their intention to conciliate t he feelinga of the Catholics ; but by some strange • aot•e'rnrilent; off forrher ratasidn, th ose conces sions which the Noble Earl now conceived would, if granted, lead to the destruction of the king dom ? With respect to the Act, he challenged the Noble Lord on the Woolsack -to prove that it would bear the construction put on it ; . —thc-, Catholics of that time (in 1793) were receit,ed by the Government of England with cordiality and approbation ; were introduced to the King, and promised certain indulgencies, which were se cured by the Act in question, which was by the pre sent Government in Ireland deemed illegal. The preamble of the Act expressly stated, that the indul gencies were granted on account of " the loyal de ineanoor of the delegates, and therefore it was fit 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 Kil warde n ; and old) , in the last year, the Noble and Learned Lord on the Woolsack asserted the same. The Noble Earl contended, t hat on all occasions Meet bugs for innocent end Constitutional purposes were not disapproved by the Government. It was so with the Society of Delegates for Reform, in 1782, 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 intended to prohibit such meeting. The statute o( Charles the Second was not to be relied on, because that was passed in the very fever of royalty, when unfortunately too little regard was paid to the rights of the subject, and too much cause for complaining of the invasion of the Constitution. It was impossible to prove that the Assembly was an unlawful one, and so it must he proved to bring it within the meaning of tbe ; but being so proved, it was a legitimate meet ing; and to prevent it was dangerous to the Constitu tion and the State, and not the principle of the En glish law. The Noble Earl argued at very great length upon- the construction of the Statutes, contending that ;n the one relied on, there was no allegatfon that the assembly met for " a pretended purpose," which the Seditious Act of 1796 expressly states to. be ground for apprehension. The misconduct of the Irish Government was unwise, impolitic, and unjust in the highest degree: The intemperate letter of Mr. Pole; of which so much had been said, was admitted by the .Noble and Learned Lord on the Woolsack to b. " slovenly worded;" and was in his (Lord Greys), opinion, disgraceful to the Government. He then reerobated the conduct of the Law Officers, and of t lieCoiefJustice,respecting the arrest of t heDelegates. The latter had issued his warrant for their arrest, not under the words of the Act, but with a view to suit the record afterwards to be filed against them, for he charges them " with meeting for the purpose, and under thepretence of petitioning;" when,in f ac t; th e y. actuallymet for the legalpurpose of petitioning,and not undet the pretence olio doing. This was a mode ofpro ceeded on the part of the Chief Justice, which was . extras judicial. What confidence could the public of Ireland have in the administration of justice in that kingdom ? The objet...l of the Roman Ciitholies.vas' a laudable one; the meeting, which they had done before, in such large numbers, might be a reason tor jealousy in "the Government, but not for over straining the Law. Was the Government afraid of the most respe4able of the Irish population ? He recommended instead of coercive measures, thOse of conciliation, beneficence, and justice, to se cure the hears of a brave and loyal people. To what a state was the country now reduced, with the present aspe& of affairs with America, and with every thing dear at stake with respect tolre land. He would recal to the recollection of the [ - louse the conduct of the Government towards America in the former unhappy struggle ; America . had then sent petitions to the House, and remon strances in the most humble (one, as the Catholics had done since, and they, like those of the Catho lics, were not attended to ; the consequence was a war, and that a war in which,• after a belies of dis graces, we were /defeated. At the period of the Union, the Catholics expected the redress of their grievances, but in this they were disappointed. He was happy to hear from a Noble Viscount, that the Cwholics of England were about to be placed in the same situation with those of Ireland. Lord SIDMOUTH explained. . Earl GREY expressed a hope, that when a mea sure of a more general and comprehensive nature was brought forward, it would be 'successful. With respect to the Veto, he had no objeaion to speak out ; he certainly did propose it, and he thought at the time, indeed he thought so still, that it was calculated to produce the best effeas. Howe% er there was such an irritation at present in the minds of those to whom it was proposed, that he could not expea at present to derive from it _ those • benefits which he had hoped for b:-fore. • The pre sent was irideed the time for conciliation. If they did not conciliate now, they might have Petitions from Ireland for the 'repeal of the Union.. He should give his sincere and zealous 'rite for going into a Committee, though he did not think that meast.ye alone would be sufficient to allay the di•coutents arising from such a series of mistp.-it roment. Lord I.AVERPOOL said, he would appeal to• the Noble Lord, the House, and the Country, to say whether any thing could be more hostile to the Ca tholic cause than the conduct of the Noble Lords who had pressed it on the present occasion. The question was twofold. Whether the conduct of the Govern ment, regarding the Convention Act,was reprehen sible? and whether the question of the measure it self should be entertained ? The Noble Lord-under -took not only to arraign Ministers, but the Court of King'sßench, and the Chief Judge, who, in learning, in talent, and in all the great qualities which ren der a man estimable and belomed to society, was inferior to none. But there was no argument in the observations of the Noble Lord on this head, nor could any thing be more void of foundation, than his attempt to shew that the Convention Act ,did not apply to the case of the Catholic Committee ? The meaning of the word pretence was clear from our own Act of Charles, and bore that_ interpretamion in law which the law Officers of the Clown had given it on the present occasion. In expatiating on time treat ment which the Catholics had received from Govern ment, he would say, that though there were many instances on record where petitions were ordered to be rejected, yet never once was such a step adopted • towards them. Besides, there were a thousand cir- LONDON : Primed by IIOMAS WOOD, of No. 35, Maiden-lane, Covent-garden t and Published by WI! LIAM ARMIGER SCRIPPS, South M At the SUN 0/FICE, No, 112, Stracid, where illdvertisements, Orders fur the Paper, Letters for the Editor, &e, drror o they bad seleaed every possible topic off' et. - asperation. The themes on which they had di lated were the miseonduEt of the Irish Govern ment--the discontents in Ireland—the causes of those discontents—and, in their opinion, the cure for them. With respect to the conduct of Govern - meet in Ireland, all t hat related to the temper and conciliation which hael been shewn was the•merit of the Irish Government exelusively ; bin in the ge neral conduct,. his Majesty's Government at home -must claim their full share. It was the object of the framers of the Convention Act not to interfere with the right of the subject to petition, .but so-prevent any individuals from speaking for others,- or being the organ. of any class of people. It was possible that the Catholic Committee had for some time, before it was applied to them, come within the meaning of the Convention Act. But surely it was not to be imputed as .a crime to the Irish Government to look too closely_at the proceedings of this Committee until they assumed a more dangerous. charaetm About the end of 1810, it . was discovered that the Catholic p Committee meant to increase their num bers, and to assume a representative shape. As soon as this was known to the L i.rd Lieutenant asd Government of Ireland, they remonstrated with the Committee, and stated to the well-disposed the evils that would arise if they persevered in their (!e -termination. -The Committee resolved. ,to proceed. Nothing considerable, however, was • , 4one, until after the discussion of the Petition of last year. On the oth of July, the Committee thought fit to call an assemblage of a larger extent, and formed in the nature of a Representation of the Catholic body.; and this under the pretence of framing a Petition. He appealed to all ,who now heard him, whether it was not the duty of the Irish Government to con sult :he Law Servants of the Crown on the subject ? 'lle opinion of the Law Servants of the Crown was, that such an assetnbry came within the provisions of the Converaien Act, and that-opinion had since been confirmed by the Court of -King's Bench.. That the Assembly was illegal appeared to him to be evident. It was self-elected; it met when it pleased; it con= tinned assembled at pleasure; it raised money ; it voted thanks. With respect to the cause of the disturbed state of Ireland, at that late boor of the night he would not go into a minute investigation of it. In his opinion it was' owing to ancient feuds and ancient jealousies ; to the mingling of two dif ferent nations ; speaking different languages, .and having differen't habits ; to a double clergy; per haps to an oppressive state of the tubes ; hut roost of all (a cause- which he was surprised the Noble Marquis bad forgotuen)'to the great proportion of ab sentee landlords. He was fully persuaded that th,f residence of great men on their estates in Ireland would do more towards rendering the population of that country tranquil and pbedient to the law, than all the motions and speeches that , could be . brought forward and uttered, even •were !hey as comprehensive, and as eloquent as those which had been heard and spoken that evening. That the concession of the Catholic claims would not at all strea the great mass of Catholic population in Ire land, be was persuaded ; such was the opinion of all the respeaable.persolis who had serv,ed his Majesty in Ireland for many years ; such was also the opi nion of Mr. Tone, Mr. O'Connor, and every rebel and traitor that had been apprehended in Irelatid for many years. A very great change of opinion also must have taken place in the minds of the Noble Lords opposite on this subject. '• When a Right Hon. Gentleman, now unfortunately no more (Mr. Fox), was in office, they thought that the state and temper of. the times were not fir for a discussion of the Catholic claims. After the death of that Right Hon. Gentleman, the Session passed away, and no mention _ was made of , the claims. The Nsble Lordi opposite were subsequently willing to decline bringing them forward, in order to effect the great purpose of their staying -in his Majesty's Councils. If he were asked what was the cause of the general joy on the Noble Lsrd's quitting office, he might perhaps saithat it was the general sense of their inefficiency. But if the Noble Lords themselves were examined on the rack, trrey must declare, that it was the satisfaction telt at the establishment of an administration determined not to agitate a subject which the people of England th-.ught mischievous in the extreme. The Earl of MotRA strongly supported the mo tion, and defended the conduct of the Catholics.— Their condu6l, he contended, luid been most exem plary. In their applica:ious to the English Parlia ment they bad not. sought to practise on its fear, - nor-to extort from its necessities. They approached as supplicants in the vestmctits of s,btnission, and implored that as the boon of' British liberality which they bad a right to demand of its justice. He re minded- their Lordships of the mighty conflict in which the nation was at present engaged, aud, ad verting to the character of the French Ruler, de picted in strong language the danger of alienating Ireland. The attlfctions of the Irish people concili ated, they would form a shield for England against all the attack sof its most int eterate foe; and" would you," said his Lordship, " throw away your breast plate, you arc about to descend to cuter the ltts with. such an enemy to tight for your existence ?" In conclusion, he secommended it to their Lordships to concur with the motion, as by assenting to the appointment of a Committee, they would satisfy the people of Ireland that they were alive to their distresses, and anxious to find out a way to relieve them. Lord MULGRAVB opposed the appointment of a Committee. Lord ERSKINS supported it. Lord DARNLEY spoke on the same side. Lord BUCKINGHAMSHIRE oppoSed the motion. Earl GRUY said, he rose under circumstances of the greatest embarrassment, in consequence of the total want of argument which had been evinced in the speeches of the Noble Lords who were against the motion. He could not retire, however, to lest, without offering his sentiments at this moment, per haps the last -which would be afforded him before the fate not only of the Union., but of the Sister Kingdom, would be decided, if [licit Lordships were not prevailed upon to consent. to the appo'nt meta of a Committee. The Nuble Earl then, with reference to the observations made by the Noble Earl who last spoke, as to the intervention of the disqualifying Statutes, and the Coronation Oath; asked, how.came his Majesty to recommend to the ttirtictanisdt' in ti-e sitht ion of ois country whi,!h should have prevented them f ! nm pressing their rights at the present jUncoare, If he were o - 'e of the greatest friends of the measure, improperly termed Catholic Emancipation, he would Ohject to then- violation of the law. He would op-, pose the Comminee on the grounds upon Nhich was moved . by the _Noble Lord, without arianging or even seeing jhe means by which they were to. carry the measure into etTect.- Some -persons were for 'an unconditional repeal of all the ; ,others again were for .a conditional one and of this latter cla.s he thought the Noble Lord s appeared to be. A late Right . Honourable and much lamented friend of his (Mr. Roy, wi'h all his anxiety for the measure, and anxious he knew him to bc, had determined that he never would propose it, until, at the same time, he could propose the se curities which would be necessary. If they.intend ed to proceed softly, they would not go into a Committee : the (Ariel was to conciliate the Ca tholics by the adoption' of other securities than those which existed at present ; . bot how could he tell that such an exchange of securities would meet thi- wishes of the Catholics ? He would therefore upon - their Lordships to resist the motion. Up• oar-the'llOestion itself his sentiments were known, and he should be ready to 'repeat them when it was brought properly before them. 'Until the securities could be proposed, he did not approve of exciting the expedations and passions of the people. Lord GRENVILLE regretted that the Noble Lord had not acted upon this principle some years ago, and disdained to excite the passions of the people, instead of being one of an Administration who had excited 'the diabolical cry of " No Popery !" to serve their own purposes. Were they now to ask what part of the condud of Government was un favourable to the Catholics, when it was evident that every part was marked with hostility and ma lignity ? He then entered into a long discussion to prove the legality of the Catholic Meetings, and con cluded with - an exhortation to adopt the Course ,of conciliation. The Hoilse then divided, when there appeared • Contents - - 4 2 Proxies - 37 Non-Contents 86 162 rOX ICS - - - Majority against the motion, - Adjourned at halt-past Six o'clock`tiiis morning. HOUSE OF COMMONs.--ne extraordinary length and interesting nature of the debate in the House of Lorcti, last night, compels us to defer unit! Monday the detail of what passed in the Houseof Commons: —After some ordinary business, a debate took !dace on a =lion of Mr. LOCKHART, respeeling BANK" RUPT MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT, which was ne g a4 tired without a division. The, next sobje6t The STATE OF'THE POLICE, upon a motion of - Sir FRANCIS BURDETT, as to the Qualifications of gisTates ; and upon a division, the number for the mot c ion was 7 ; against it ,57. The last subjea was THE LOCAL MILITIA; Mr. RYDER moved for leave to bring in a Bill, to amend the la ws on the Local. Militia,and was seconded by Mr. EL ADDINGTOtia Leave was, giveo.—Adjourned till Monday. vkik. 'THUS DAY AT TWILLV t O'CLOCK Console. I Red. Ann. - - - 631 THE SUN. SOLIM QUJS DICiltE FALSUM AUDEAT ? L 0 N D 0 N, SATURMAY, FEBRUARY 1, 1819... KING'S BENCH, DUBLIN. , --.THOS. KIRWAN, one of the Catholic Delegates, was, on Monday last, put on his trial. Mr. Kammts, Jun. a.witness, was examined at considerable length by Mr. BURROWES for the de fendant, and cross-examined-by the ATTO R NEY GE NERAL, for the purpose of trying whether unlawful means had been used by the Sheriff, at th'e instance of the Solicitor for the Crown, to procure a panel fdvourable to the party for which fie iF con cerned. The July returned thefollowin:g verditl:-- " We find against the Challenge."—The Court ad. journed till the next day at ten o'clock. The Jury were sworn on the Tuesday, and tike trial proceeded. The ATToRNRY-GENEttAr. addressed the Court at great length, and the busine.,s closed lbr that day, On the following day, alter a short exatnination of a witness, Mr. BUIMOwES rose for the defendaary and after speaking Ihiee hours, cooduiltd his state men!, and the Court aojouri:ed at halt •past six to the fonowing morning. THE THEATRE.—A Drama, enftled The Virgix or the Still, partly derived from MARSIONTEL'S in• teresting.romariee 01 The Irlcas, and pa:t!'y from a play Of KoT7_,Eiruit, was represented last night at Covent Garch:n Theatre. Tinligh the outline of the plot has been given before in the Opera of lar«lide, and son English plays, yet t he author of the piece of last night has worked it into an interesting shape, and (;n d ea . voured to relieve the grave and terrific parts by sc nos of a comic tendency. It was well supported by .rbe - Performers in general, but the merits, of YouNia and ss Smuint, in Rolla and C'ora were conspicu. ors. 'fire Proprietors deserte trig!' praise for Elie splendour with which this Drama is brought forward in scenery, dresses, &c. An earthquake formed, 'de tremendous feature in this piece; it made a strong impression on the audience, and excited great ap plause. The Piece experienced a very favourable re ception. Mr. REYNOLDS is the avowed author, and it is solnevi hat extraordinary that one whose cotnk muse has been so luxuriant should be capgble of pro. dticing a drama of so vuly differ :Ili a nature. We fed much regret in stating, that the Lady of Sir JosE.Pit YnEK, died last night, at his house at the Admiralty. BIRTII. On Tuesday last, at Colchester, the Lady of Major Haver. field, Assistant Quarter.Master-Ueneral, of a Daughter, Ult.!) Lately, in Jamaica, Mr. lohn Braithwaite Batty, aged 24, eldest son of Dr. Batty, of Charlotte-street, Portland-plate. [ol tin-street, G r/svepor. atlit.4; e, 1, must be addressed.