Abbildungen der Seite
PDF
EPUB

prosecution more than necessity required. As to what had been said relative to the officers in the present case not being voluntary prosecutors, he could not suppose that they had contemplated any other course after the letter in which the whole proceeding originated. It had been pleaded, that the letter signed by the officers was not designed to be produced; but it was destructive of the honour and character of Col. Quentin, and he had a full right to demand its production. The hon. gentleman concluded by showing the grounds on which he opposed the motion. Unless there was some urgent necessity to justify the production of such papers as those desired, he could conceive nothing more injurious to the service, or more calculated to incapacitate such courts for performing their functions. In some cases that had occurred there were important political questions involved in the consideration, but it could never be advantageous to convert the House of Commons into a court of ordinary appeal on such matters.

Mr. Tierney said, that he did not wish to dispute the sentence of the court-martial, or to cast an imputation on their conduct; but the proceedings, if produced, would shew, that no officer could be exempt from censure, however just his motives, or exemplary his conduct, who should attack a man who was a favourite. (This term occasioned a cry of "hear" from the ministerial side of the House, re-echoed by the opposite side). Mr. T. went on with a variety of remarks tending to confirm his assertion, and said he should support

the motion, not as a criterion by which to judge of the conduct of the court-martial, but to try the conduct of the Horse-guards and the Crown. He could not hope, by the production of the papers, that the officers could have any military redress; but it was of the last importance that they should have them, in order to lay the foundation for some proceedings on the part of the House, that might prevent the recurrence of such a grievance.

Mr. Wellesley Polespoke strongly against the motion, as highly injurious to the discipline of the

[blocks in formation]

On Nov. 21st, Mr Peele moved in the House of Commons, the second reading of a bill for amending the Irish Peace-Preservation Act.

Mr. J. P. Grant said, he understood that the right hon. gentleman had declared, that the measures carried in the last session had been completely successful, for that the Insurrection bill had never been put in force at all; and the other bill only in one instance. For his part, he had seen or heard nothing to change his opinion of the impolicy and impropriety of

suspending

suspending in Ireland a material part of the British Constitution. Mr. Peele made a reply, and the bill was read a second time.

had

The report of the bill being brought up on Nov. 25th, Mr. Ponsonby rose and said, that it was his confirmed opinion, that never was there a statement more exaggerated, or less founded in fact, than that made last session by the right hon. gentleman with respect to the disturbances in Ireland. He was sure that the misrepresentation was not wilful, but thought it had been made upon very insufficient inquiry. He had since been in Ireland, and the result of his inquiries was, that never had there been a period when the temper of the country was less disposed to tumult than the present. He knew the right hon. gentleman attributed this to his bill, but the state of things was precisely the same before that measure passed into a law. He doubted not that the right hon. gentleman had been deceived by the interested representations of persons in that country, of which he himself had the opportunity of seeing too much when he held the great seal of Ireland in 1806. The government then resolutely refused to receive such statements, because they knew the motives whence they originated. He gave credit, however, to the principle of the bill, as excluding persons from making use of local influence, and from exercising the office of magistrates or peace-officers in the places of their own residence, and was happy that it had not been converted into a source of patronage. On the whole, he did

not mean to oppose the motion of the right hon. gentleman, but he considered the measure as quite unnecessary, if the magistrates did their duty.

Mr. Peele affirmed, that he had never said, that there was a generat spirit of insubordination in Ireland, but that there were parts of the country the condition of which called for a measure of this kind, That this was the case, he had various documents to prove-to which he now referred; and his statement had received the approbation of most of the Irish members. In the present bill he had prepared a clause to obviate an objection made to the former provision imposing a fine on the disturbed district,

After some members had expressed their satisfaction with the moderate spirit of the bill, the report was agreed to.

On the motion for the third

reading of the bill in the House of Lords, Nov. 29th, the Earl of Donoughmore repeated the opinion he had before given, that the act of which this was an amendment was altogether an inefficient measure, and not in any degree calculated to restore peace in any district where disturbances existed. It was a bill of patronage, though he did not mean to say, that government had made use of it for that purpose. It had not produced the effects ascribed to it, and the statements made in its favour were greatly overcharged. He did not, however, mean to oppose it.

The Earl of Liverpool made some observations to invalidate the objections of the noble lord, after which the bill was read a third

⚫ time, and passed. It received the royal assent at the close of the session.

On December 2d. The Earl of Liverpool moved an adjournment of the House of Lords to the 9th of February next.

Lord Grenville said, that to this motion he must decidedly object. Their Lordships had been called together in times when legislative deliberation was more than usually necessary. There was hardly a branch of the public administration that did not require the maturest consideration of parliament, yet under these circumstances an adjournment of from two to three months was proposed without a single reason as-igned. His lordship then touched upon the subjects which peculiarly demanded. their immediate attention. These were, the corn laws, the state of the circulating medium of the country, its finances, the reduction of the immense war establishments, and the war with America, which, from the demands advanced by us, appeared to be converted to a war of aggrandisement. Was this a situation of things in which, for reasons of private convenience, they ought to turn their backs on their public duties?

The Earl of Liverpool began by observing, that it was an error to suppose that the adjournment implied a waste of two or three months, since, until the last session, the House had long been accustomed not to meet before the middle of January, not more than three weeks preceding the time to which the adjournment was proposed to extend. With respect to

the topics waiting for parliamentary consideration, he was fully aware of their importance, but the internal concerns of the empire were too closely connected with the external, to be disposed of without reference to each other. On some of the points alluded to by the noble lord he thought it best to keep silence; but with respect to the charge made relative to the American negociation, their lordships might be assured, that aggrandisement on the part of this country formed no feature of it.

The Duke of Sussex gave his opinion on some of the treaties with foreign countries which had transpired, and expressed his wishes with regard to several of the points to be settled at the congress.

The Earl of Donoughmore, in reply to the assertion, that the time proposed for the adjournment was not much beyond the usual period, observed that the present was in no respect an usual time, and that the weighty concerns now under discussion at Vienna, were precisely a reason why parliament should be at hand to give counsel to ministers. But, (said he) their language to parliament is tantamount to this"You are very good instruments of taxation, but we do not want you as advisers."

The question was then put and carried.

The motion for adjournment in the House of Commons occasioned a debate of which it is unnecessary to relate the particulars. A division took place on the question, For the motion 86; Against it 23 Majority 63.

CHAP

CHAPTER XIX.

Domestic Occurrences.-His Majesty's State.-General tranquillity of Great Britain.-Disturbed State of Ireland.-Proceedings of the Irish Roman Catholics.- Princess of Wales.-Princess Charlotte of Wales.-Attempt to alter the Corn Laws.-Commercial Prospects.

T

HE official reports respecting his Majesty's state during the present year have almost uniformly been, that his bodily health has remained unimpaired, and his mental condition has been composed and tranquil, but without the least improvement in his intellectual faculties. It cannot be doubted that the case is now abso lutely decided, and that the regenry is to all intents and purposes constituted a reign.

This year, like the last, has been little disturbed by commotions in any part of the island of Great Britain; for a few outrages committed by the frame-breakers in Nottinghamshire scarcely deserve notice. It is even remarkable how little the vast assemblages of people in the metropolis and other towns, drawn together by the festivities and unusual objects of curiosity which the time has afforded, have tended to excite a riotous disposition in the populace; and if the demeanor of the mob has sometimes been marked with rude familiarity towards the illustrious visitants, it never put on the appearance of ill humour or mischievous propensity. The rejoicings on account of the peace were hearty and general, and frequently offered very pleasing displays of

coalescence between the superior and inferior ranks, marked by bounty in the former, and decency in the latter.

In the sister island, however, the year has been distinguished by a very different state of things. Such a spirit of outrage and lawless violence was inanifested in several of the Irish counties, that it was thought necessary to arm the magistracy with extraordinary powers for the preservation of the public peace; and in our narrative of parliamentary proceedings will be found the particulars of the measures adopted on this occasion, as well as the discussions with which they were attended. more full and unbiassed account of these disorders and their causes was however thought to have been given in a celebrated charge from Judge Fletcher, for which reason we have presented it entire to our readers.

A

It was observed, in relating the proceedings of the Irish Roman Catholics during the last year, that a spirit of disunion had manifested itself in that body which had operated unfavourably upon the efforts towards an improvement of their situation; and the same remark will apply to the present year. In the beginning of

May

May was made public a letter sent to the Right Rev. Dr. Poynter from Monsieur Quarantotti, President of the Sacred Missions at Rome, communicating his opinion, and that of a council of the most learned prelates and theologians, on the letters transmitted by Dr. Poynter and the catholic archbishop of Dublin, relative to the proposed bill for catholic emancipation. Their determination was, that the propositions should be gratefully accepted, with an explanation of the second article of the oath, by which the clerical person is bound to have no interCourse with the Supreme Pontiff or his ministers, which can directly or indirectly subvert or disturb the Protestant church. It is observed, that if this be construed to prohibit all attempts to bring back Protestants to the orthodox faith, it cannot be taken; but if the meaning be only to interdict all attempts to disturb the established church by force of arms, or by disingenuous arts, the oath is unobjectionable. The remaining articles of the bill are declared to be such as may be allowed by the indulgence of the apostolic chair.

A meeting of the Catbolic Board at Dublin being held on May 7th, Mr. O'Connel made a speech, expressing great indignation at this interference of the slaves at Rome (as he termed them) to instruct the Irish catholics concerning the manner of their emancipation. It was on no theological ground, but upon that of its danger to civil liberty, that he objected to the late bill, which would place in the hands of ministers a new and extensive source of patronage; and he would rather that the Catholics should for eyer remain as they

were, than receive it on such terms.

He concluded with moving that a committee be appointed to prepare resolutions for the aggregate meeting, which was agreed to. The Catholic priests of Dublin also, ou May 12, held a convocation to take into consideration the rescript of Quarantotti, when they declared it non-obligatory on the Catholic church in Ireland, and passed resolutions against the granting to an anti-catholic government any power, direct or indirect, with regard to the appointment of Catholic bishops. The aggregate meeting was held on the 19th, at which the rescript abovementioned was the principal subject of discussion. Mr. O'Connel having proposed the following resolution, "That we deem it a duty to ourselves, and to our country, solemnly and distinctly to declare, that any decree, mandate, rescript, or decision whatsoever, of any foreign power or authority, religious or civil, ought not, and cannot of right, assume any dominion or control over the political concerns of the catholics of Ireland," delay was recommended by another speaker till the opinion of the catholic bishops was known.

A great majority, however, opposed delay, and the resolution was adopted. The catholic clergy of many of the provincial dioceses unanimously resolved against the rescript; and at length the catholic bishops, at a general meeting held at Maynooth on May 25th, passed, among other resolutions, two, of which the first declared Quarantotti's rescript not mandatory; and the second resolved that a communication be opened with the holy see on the subject of the said docu

ment

« ZurückWeiter »