After Mr. Parnell and Sir John Newport had spoken on the same side, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, first deprecating inflammatory language in discussing the case of the Irish Catholics, asserted his conviction that their proposed convention was illegal, and that therefore the only question for the House to consider was, whether there was a prima facie ground for censuring the proceeding of the Irish government. He concluded with asserting, that it was not the intention of the government of either country to obstruct the Catholics in the exercise of the right of petitioning the legislature, or expressing their grievances.

Mr. Whitbread succeeded, and, in a speech of much asperity, condemned the conduct of government towards the Irish Catholics. Some personal remarks which he made on the Chancellor of the Exchequer, as having come into power under a bond to make no concessions to the Catholics, called up that minister again, positively to deny that he had given such a bond to any one. Mr. Whitbread, in explanation, said that his coming into power in place of a ministry which had gone out because they declined to give such a pledge, virtually implied such a condition on his part; which was all that he meant to assert.

The House divided upon the motion, which was rejected by 80 against 43.

On March 3rd, Mr. Wellesley Pole appearing in his place in the House of Commons, Mr. Ponsonby rose to make a motion concerning his letter, and previously requested to know from that gentleman what were the circum

stances which induced him to issue the circular communication to which he was calling the attention of the house. He then read from a widely circulated Dublin newspaper a public relation of the proceedings in the Catholic Committee on January 19th, at which the secretary read several letters in answer to his circular of Jan. 1st, and he desired to be informed how it happened that the government suffered 24 days to elapse before it thought proper to interfere with the acts of what it denominated an unlawful assembly. He also expressed his surprize that this interference should not have been by a proclamation, which would have had the sanction of the council and the lawofficers of the crown; and wished to know whether the opinions of the latter had been taken on the proceedings; and whether the Right Hon. Gentleman had been advised to call the Catholic committee an unlawful assembly. He concluded his speech with moving, "That an humble address should be presented to the Regent, praying that he would order to be laid upon the table copies of all proclamations issued in the year 1811 by his Grace the Lord-lieutenant of Ireland, relative to the enforcement of the 33rd of the King in that country; and also copies of all cases on that subject referred to his Majesty's Attorney or Solicitor-General in Ireland, or to either of them, with their opinions thereupon; and also copies of all dispatches between the Lordlieutenant of Ireland and the government of this country relative to the assembling of the Catholic committee."

Mr. W. Pole began his reply

with fully admitting the right of the hon. gentleman to demand from him an explanation of the measures alluded to. He then proceeded to consider the first charge made against the Irish government, viz. that they had not executed the law in time, and that if the Catholic committee was really an illegal assembly, it should have been sooner terminated. He gave a history of the committee of 1809, the deliberations of which were always confined to their petition, and which had declared their resolution not to transgress the convention act by any thing like a delegation. That of 1810, he said, acted upon very different principles. It called an aggregate meeting of the Catholics, which came to a resolution that the committee should have power to manage, not the Catholic petition, but the Catholic affairs. Some of the members, Lord Fingal in particular, now began to apprehend that they were going too far; and some instances appeared of the committee's taking into consideration certain supposed grievances under which the Catholics laboured. A committee of grievances was then appointed, which met weekly, and imitated all the forms of the House of Commons. They grew more and more violent, till at length some of the more respectable of the Catholics took the alarm, and a resolution was passed, but afterwards rescinded, that the committee, by proposing a delegation often members from each county, had exceeded its powers. A petition was transmitted to England, after which, Lord Ffrench said, "Your commission is at an end; you have exceeded your powers; do you VOL. LIII.

mean to erect yourselves into a perpetual parliament?" and Lord Fingal was publicly attacked at a meeting for his moderation. The Lord-Lieutenant had hitherto for borne to take notice of their proceedings, though he viewed them with an anxious eye; but it now became the general opinion that it was high time for the government to interfere.

With respect to the question why the Irish government deferred so long to control their proceedings, he assured the House that neither he, nor any other member of administration, ever saw Hay's letter till the 10th of February, at which time they received secret information that it had been circulated in every part of Ireland, that many delegates had been chosen in consequence of it, and that several would certainly meet on the 16th or the 23rd at furthest. Government was likewise informed that various modes of election were so arranged, as to ensure secrecy, and that several names had been transmitted from Dublin for election, in order that there might be always a majority residing in that capital to carry on the purposes of the committee. In answer to Mr. Ponsonby's question, whether the great lawofficers had been consulted on the measure pursued? He assured them that the Lord-Lieutenant had taken the opinions of the Lord Chancellor, the Attorney and Solicitor-General, and that the Attorney-General had drawn up the letter issued in his (the Secretary's) name, framed in such a manner as to bring closely before the eyes of the Catholic committee the tendency of their proceedings to violate the convention act. With [C]

respect to denominating the Catholic committee an illegal assembly, it was in consequence of their having constituted themselves a committee of grievances.

Mr. Pole then proceeded to observe, that the Irish government could not wait for instructions from this country, because this self-constituted parliament would first have held one meeting, which might have produced a dangerous effect. He concluded a long speech with trusting that his statement had given satisfaction to the House, and that they would see no necessity for the production of the papers moved for.

After a reply from Mr. Ponsonby, in which he denied that the requisite satisfaction had been afforded by the explanation given, the question was put, and the motion was defeated by a large majority, the numbers being 133 against 48.

On April 4th the matter was taken up in the House of Lords by Earl Stanhope, who began his speech with reading the following motion: "That the House having given full consideration to the circular letter of Mr. W. W. Pole, Secretary in Ireland, and to the act of 33rd George III. chap. 29, to which the said letter referred, and to the consequences such letter might produce, deemed it necessary to declare, that the said letter required from the magistrates of Ireland acts of severity not authorised by the act to which it referred, and contrary to law; and that the said letter did require of the magistrates to attack the legal rights of the people; that it was an unjust attempt to invade the liberties of

the subject; and that it was contrary to that spirit of conciliation which it was the policy and duty of government to adopt and pursue." In his subsequent speech, the Earl began with considering the nature of a representative or delegate, and contended that these terms did not apply to persons deputed to convey the assent of others to a petition which they were not able to present by themselves. He then made various acute remarks on the wording of the letter, and contended that it was an illegal measure, which rendered the writer responsible for all the ill consequences it might have produced.

The Earl of Liverpool defended the Irish government, as having acted with all possible lenity and forbearance. He was answered by Lord Holland, who strictly confined himself to the legality of the letter. He argued that, in the first place, it deduced inferences from the act of the 33rd, that were neither authorised by the common law, nor by that statute; and secondly, that it did not describe the offence as it was described in the act.

The Lord Chancellor, in defending the measure generally, confessed that its language did appear to him put together in rather a slovenly manner. After some further discussion in a thin house, a division took place, in which there were for the motion 6, against it 21.

Thus ended the parliamentary proceedings respecting this memorable letter. We shall hereafter have occasion to speak of the consequences it produced in Ireland.

I

T has already been mentioned in the account of the debates on the Regency Bill, that Lord Grey took notice of the King's being suffered to perform some of his royal functions at a time, in 1804, when his mental malady still placed him under medical control; and that a particular censure had been moved upon Lord Eldon for his conduct in that point. The subject was brought before the House of Commons on Feb. 25th, by Mr. Whitbread, who founded a motion upon it, prefaced by a long speech. After having adverted to the circumstance that upon his Majesty's indisposition in 1801 a commission was issued under his sign manual on Feb. 24th, two days before his illness was declared, he said that he meant to confine his motion to what occurred in the year 1804. In that year the King was attacked with a return of his disorder on Feb. 14th, and it was announced to the public on the 15th. From that time bulletins continued to be issued to March 22nd; but it was not till April 23rd, when his Majesty attended a council in person, that he could be considered as perfectly recovered. On March 6th, however, the Chancellor, Lord Eldon, stated in the House of Lords, that he had been with the King on the 5th, and also on the 4th, and after having explained to

him the nature of a bill then pend, ing, for alienating certain crown lands to the Duke of York, that his Majesty had commanded him to signify his assent to that bill. On March 9th a commission signed by the King was issued; and when Lord Eldon was asked on that day whether he had personal knowledge of the state of the King's health, he declared that he was aware of what he was doing, and would take the whole of the heavy responsibility upon himself. Mr. W. however would take upon himself to assert that his Majesty was at that time, and to a period long posterior, unsound in mind; that he was incompetent to his functions; that his reason was clouded, and his judgment eclipsed. Yet whilst the King was still in that state, Lord Sidmouth, on the 26th of March, brought down a message to that House from the King. This fact he should broadly assert; and he called upon the House to put him in the situation to prove his charge. It was necessary for the character of the individuals that they should be disproved if not founded; and it was material to the public that they should be. proved if true; because if the case was as he had stated it, the public had been imposed upon, and might be so again, if not prevented by the result of the inquiry proposed.

After many other observations tending to show the impropriety of relying on the statements of physicians in such cases, and the cautions observed in restoring lunatics in private life to the exercise of their social privileges, he concluded by moving, "That a committee be appointed to examine the Lords' Journals for the evidence of the physicians respecting his Majesty's state in 1804, and to report the same to the House.”

Lord Castlereagh, as the only cabinet minister of that year now present, rose to defend the LordChancellor, and at the same time to take upon himself an equal share of responsibility respecting the transactions on which the charge was founded. His defence turned upon the unanimous declaration of the physicians, of the King's competency to transact business on Feb. 27th, though, in fact, none was submitted to him till March 5th, when the physicians again agreed that it might be done. On the 9th it became necessary to submit other bills to him, one of which was the mutiny act, which could not have been suffered to expire without the greatest danger; ministers therefore took upon themselves to obtain the sign manual upon the same assurance. On March 26, a message came to the House relative to the Irish militia, and the physicians being again examined on April 9th, declared the King fully competent to act. Having thus laid the whole case before the House, his Lordship submitted to its judgment and that of the country, whether ministers could justly be charged with having acted improperly.

Mr. Yorke followed, as one of

the ministers of that time, in confirmation of the statements of the last speaker. He also made some remarks upon the length of time which the hon. gentleman had suffered to elapse before he had thought proper to bring on his accusation.

Sir F. Burdett spoke in support of the charge. He observed that it was, in his opinion, impossible for any man to believe that the King could be in a proper state of mind to transact public business, when it was thought necessary to keep such persons as Dr. Simmons and Dr. Willis in constant attendance about him. If the King was to be considered as a person of any consequence in the government (and he thought him a most essential one), if the kingly power was essential to the constitution, then his Majesty ought to be free from such restraints as the presence of such attendants imposed, before he could be judgedcompetent totransact the most important business of the state. If, on the contrary, the King was a puppet, to be occasionally brought down to parlia ment in a gilt coach, then the argument of ministers was valid.

No other speaker rising in defence of the ministers, Mr. Whitbread concluded with asserting that not a word had been advanced against the truth of his charge. Let him have an opportunity of cross-examining the physicians before the House, or a committee, and he would pledge himself satisfactorily to make out the whole of it. As to his not having brought forward the charge sooner, his answer was, that he did not know that the King was under such control at the time. The noble lord