Alexandria daily advertiser. [volume] (Alexandria [Va.]) 1803-1808, 1807-05-19

This dispatch, Sir, I wrote with !, ,r.,
clearness as it was in nv power % do
With The clauses it weas TO the kioa
Monday; on Tuesday it resuroed to-"
Windsor, without the slightest hla. ,f Oh
lection on the part OF his msissly and
| had been accustomed TO do, 90 rscrir;a,
the royal sanction, %immedia.e,y .orv
ed the dispatch to Ireland. la Is.
time, sir, objections were started. ns'sa
IN point ct form, to the mode Of proces'
Ing IN this measure by clauses in the mu,;
ny bill, and On a Reconsideration ofsh.
subject, il was thought bsuerto ~iatroda..
aseparate bill. On "Wednesday [ a,,snsss
the leyee at St-Jamss'.. and had nv ps,s.
audience Of his majesty. Alter tie aud,
encs, his msjestyinquifed wha: bus;or,,
was geipg forward thar day in .as s.ss,e IS
commons? I replied that the mu.;av hi,
was TO pass through ore of lis stages: and
explained lo hio majesty the reasons vb:,b
had induced me to smbody the clauses for
allowing the Catholics admission Ito y.
army and navy, IN a separate bill. flism,
jes.y approved of this. change, and The"
asked me whether the bill vas no, n. s,ma
as the Irish bill Of 1898? / s.a,sa.io VIA,
the difference consisted, observing ,as, !,
had been fully detailed in the various Dis.
patches previously submitted to his ms;.s,
ty's inspection. Here, sir,I must ackoow
ledge, that hissnajesty did express q ps.
neral dislike and disapp:e batios off the nsa.
sur ; bnt not s such a manner as to il.
duce me to conclude, that the relec.ap,s,.
sent originally given by bis q. Jes,y was
withdrawn, and thatl was not Empowered
to Introduce the bill. What condrrn-d me
in my opinion was, tha. lord Greuvi!le had
a subsequent audience with his maiss,v,
in which nls majesty did not mak-.a sias;s
observation on the bill, On Thursday OF
Friday, [ do not recoilec, which, Iio,ro.
ducsd this bill! into the house. Daring.he
whole Of the week, although had various
cenmuaicaiions with his majes.y on other
subjects. his majesty did not make the
slightest objection to 'hs DILL, nor was any
intima;ion GA the sobiec, rece :7ed from his
majesty until the "Wednesday following IA.
which tins | was precluded from si,eud.
ing ny duty in ,his house By family ca.
lamity) when his majesty stated d~ecl1edIy
his objection 10 aoy extension of the pro.
visions of the Irish act of 1893. From
that moment, We were convinced Tia, his
ma;.s.y misunderstood the subject. or "a.
Their, I was convinced that had uisrHder.
stood his majesty. Having unfortunately
introduced the measure into the house Of
commons, IN the belief tia, | was sane.
toned 4 do SO b the king. Iimmsdisle.
ly suspended sny proceedinss-c ca the bill,
demanded an cadence Of his majesty on
the following day, and convinced INN thar
had been Eaisled, and that | had misun-
desssood those gracious expressions, which
be had Used GA he subject ca a formeroc.
casion. From that tco, sr, It
bccl8s The mos, anxious consideration OF
ministers how TO reconcile their public du'
~, with their respecs for the feelings OF his
majesty. VIZ attempted to correct the
bill but The ohjsc,isa Of his majesty was
SO extensive, tina, we found it wzs !mpos-
sib!e SO to modify the measure, IS to re-
inoye that objection, and at the same tlme
leave it efficiently beneficial. Ia this stu
alton We preferred abandoning the biila'
together.
f7obe continued