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

ft had been asserted that a spirit of discontent- was
confined to some particular districts ; but this was
pot the case; nor could it be said that the Catholics
were at one time too zealous and at another too re-
miss. The experience of the last twelve years was
a sufficient argument of the erroneous measure that
bad been adopted, and he thought an additional ass.
gement was derived from the present conduct of Go.
comment. It was not fair to charge the Catholics
with forming a convention for general representation.
Theirs was a convention for a particular object. No
circumstance had occurred that could justify Govern-
'met iu availing themselves of the Convention Act.—
Look to the history of that Act. In 1792, the year
before passing that Act, there was a Delegation
to represent the Irish Catholic recognized both by
the English and Irish Governments, and that same
Government afterwards passed the Act in question.
But it was expressly stated at the time, by the At-
tornettGeneral Wolfe, afterwards lerd Kilwarden,
that is Act had no reference to the Catholics, but
was intended to prevent delegation for a precon-
ceived purpose. It had not then been conceived an
objection that the Catholics endeavoured to extend
their numbers. He thought the Irish Government
had been guilty of great impropriety in applying
that Act to the Catholic Committee, in 1809. From
Mae, 1809, to February, 1811, the Committee had
sat unmolested. It had been said that repented
acts of the Catholics had called for this measure;
but the necessity was the same in 1809 as in 1811.
The Catholics had been endeavouring to improve the
construction of their Committee, in order to facilitate
their application tp Parliament. That illegal assem-
bly had met in February, and March,and June, and
the Government, that had declared it illegal, did
not interfere. If the Act was to be carried into ex-
ecution, it ought to have been in a manner most con-
formable to law and equity. But the warrant had
been signed by the First Justice of the King's Bench,
who was to try the prisoners, though upon that
Learned Judge he did not mean to throw the slightest
imputation. For the impropriety of this proceeding,l
be had the authority of the Chief Secretary of the i
Irish Government himself, who, in a Speech pub-
halted and circulated under his sanction, in which he
endeavoured to vindicate his conduct, stated, that
he had consulted the Lord Chancellor (Manners)
and the Attorney-General, but not the Chief Justice,
because be must necessarily preside at the trial of the
pisoners. Nevertheless, the Chief Secretary after-
wards obtained a warrant from the Chief Justice, who,
in so doing, might be said to prejudge the cause.—
The words of the warrant were, "for the purpose,
and under the pretence," which words were not in
the Convention Act. (Hear! Ilear!) This atone
was sufficient to call for that inquiry that had been
moved for by the Noble Earl. It was not his inten-
tion to inquire into the right of a peremptory chal-
lenge of Jurors, how far it might be legal or not ;
but the instance in which it had been exercised was
the last in which it was justifiable. No less than
twenty-three persons had been peremptorily chal-
lenged at a late Erie'. in Dublin. The Catholics had
been worse treated even than aliens, who had a
right to be tried by a Jury, one half of whom was
composed of their countrymen. He had reason to
believe that Lord dial not receive any intima-
tion of the intention of Government till the day of
issuing the Proclamation. The state of Ireland, and
the conduct of Government on the trial of Dr. Sheri-
dan, were things that loudly called for the attention
of ;hat House. He could not agree with a Noble
Viscount (Sidmouth) that there was not a strong in-1
clination in this country in favour of the Catholic
claims. For the last ten years the Catholics had i
been tried by their Protestant countrymen, and,
would obtain a most triumphal acquittal. Placed onj
the very field of action, and viewing narrowly the
conduct of the Catholics, the Protestants had mani-
fested the strongest wishes in favour of the claims of
their Catholic brethren. The Irish Protestants were
throwing off the prejudices of youth and education;
nor would the 'English Protesthnts, from the recole-
lectimi of pa!t crimes, not to be named but with
detestation, be unmindful of the purest virtues.
These crimes could never be repeated. What might
the Catholics say ? Your laws are not calculated to]
exclude Atheists or Bigots, but they are calulated
to exclude an honest and conscientious race of men,
ho are too honourable to abandon the religion of
their fathers frees any motive of interest or policy.
There existed a principle of discontent that called
loudly upon their Lordships to arrest' its progress,
which would be the mete difficult to effect, the loos
Syr it was delayed. The Noble Lord concluded a
very able speech by giving his assent to the Motion.
The Earl of Ch.II.YSFORT was of opinion, that,
the true principles of the Constitution had been de.
parted from in refesingthOCatholic claims. Thougk
rally particular haidshipss had been removed, still
the effect of the system remained. All classes of sub-
ms ought to feel that they had a common interest
ri the welfare of 5e state, awl the preservalien
of the Constitution. • WaS that the case- in Ire-
? The great ohjtict should be to reconcile to
Government the ItopVistion of Ireland, by removing
tSc remaining restrictions. There was a numerical
deduction of four nailllons-from the subjects of the
King. The Callsotic Committee fell neither within
the letter nor spirit of the Convention Act, and, in
applying it in that manner, the Government had
acted rashly. The Noble Fort here quoted the senti-
ments of. Lord Clarendon, respecting the conduct of
sky Judges •
in the time of Charles the First, and ob-
° 'mid, that a similar line of conduct seemed to have
l''en adopted in Ireland, though the evil conse-
quences of such conduct had been so forcibly pointed
eye by the Nuble historian.
.1./H' E'er! of WEATMORLAND could not dis-
fever that what hid been said by Noble Lords on the
other sMe, had any tendency to conciliation—much,
be fere:gilt, had been said to cause irritation: The
riovertament of Ireland was imperiously called upon
by its public duty to put down the attempted assem-
bling ef a Convention of Delegates. it had been at
all times the nhjeat of those who wished to separate'
Ireland from England,to have an organ which should
represent, or pretend to represent the sentiments of
the People. It aas to put down this disposition to
form Conventions of Delegates, that the Convention
-"t't was passed, and the fair interpretation of the
o-f..t either applied to the Catholic Convention re-
reatly attempted to,be assembled at Dublin,* or the
Act itself was highly absurd. It was said, however,

•
1