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, theywoultl 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 Catholics
of Ireland, and that could.only be 'done by g'oi'ng into the Committypt;
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 .ofea -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. Fnear, &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 foreisn
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