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

aot•e'rnrilent; off forrher ratasidn, those 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 fact; they.
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-