they owe to the name and functions of the House; and they deplore particularly one instance of this unwillingness of which they complain in the rejection of a motion made in the last session of parliament by one of their representatives, as that motion, had it been adopted by the House, must necessarily have brought before the Com fective state of the representation of the people, and thereby have led to a substantial reform in the Commons House of Parliament, so essential to the salvation of the state, by preserving to us a free constitution, that inestimable inheritance transmitted to us by the wisdom and intrepidity of 'our ancestors; and that the times demand this open avowal of their sentiments, and in the language employed to convey them they intend no disrespect, though they are persuaded that no words can be too strong to express their feelings upon this occasion; and therefore they most earnestly intreat the House to undertake before it is too late, in a true and cordial spirit, the measure of reform, upon principles which, by conciliating the affections of the people, and restoring to the House its due weight and character, may rescue the country from domestic discord, and secure it from the foreign foe, give stability to the throne, and perpetuate the constitu tion." FORM OF PARLIAMENT.] Mr. Brand presented a Petition, stating "That several Freeholders and inhabitants of the county of Herts, in full county meeting assembled, conscious of the rights they possess of addressing and petitioning the House upon all public affairs, and impelled by a high sense of the duty they owe to themselves and to their country, beg leave to lay be-mittee a full enquiry into the present defore the House their opinions and sentiments on the present defective state of the Representation of the people: to the wisdom and justice of the original design of convening in parliament the representatives of the people to deliberate and co operate with the sovereign and the peers upon every question of national concern, they give their unqualified approbation; but when they take into their consideration the decay of some boroughs, once prosperous and well peopled, the rise and flourishing condition of other places, formerly of little note; when they reflect upon the effects of the heavy and insupportable expence of elections, which closes the doors of the House to many of the best friends of their country, and robs it of their faithful service; and when they recollect the manner in which a large portion of the members obtain and secure their seats in the House, they cannot but be of opinion that time and circumstances have produced much defect and deterioration in institutions wise and salutary in their first establishment, but which now require revision and amendment; that great and important portions of the community are, in fact, unrepresented in parliament; and that the high and sacred Mr. Frankland had understood that the office of a representative of the people is Bills for ameliorating, the laws, of which frequently sought for and procured by un- this was one, were to be so forwarded constitutional means, and, having been so through the House as to admit of their procured, is consequently too often per- being discussed in every stage. With verted from its original design and ren- this impression on his mind, he was sur dered subservient to private ends and in-prised at finding the Report brought up terests: these defects they cannot but con- when the Honse was so thin. He thought sider as a great aggravation of the present the Reports ought to be postponed, dangers and difficulties of the country; to them they ascribe the continuance of a lavish system of expenditure, the many expeditions in which the blood and treasure of our country have been prodigally and fruitlessly wasted, the decision of the House, in direct opposition to the general sentiments of the nation, and, above all, the unwillingness hitherto evinced by the House to enquire into or correct abuses in the representation, an unwillingness which cannot fail to excite the distrust of the petitioners, and to diminish the respect Ordered to lie upon the table. DWELLING HOUSE ROBBERY BILL.] Mr. Lushington brought up the Report of the Dwelling House Robbery Bill. Sir S. Romilly had no wish to hurry the Bills through the House, in a manner which might preclude their being sufficiently discussed. It was not his intention to move the third reading till after the recess. As there would be a sufficient opportunity thus afforded to consider of, and discuss their merits, he thought it unnecessary to postpone the reports. Mr. Frankland still thought an opportunity ought to be given of discussing them in every stage, and would therefore 2 move that the House should be counted. Strangers were ordered to withdraw, and the Speaker proceeded to count the members, when there not being 40 present, the House was of course adjourned. HOUSE OF LORDS. Thursday, April 4. CATHOLICS OF IRELAND-MR. WELLESLEY POLE'S CIRCULAR LETTER.] Earl Stanhope rose, in pursuance of notice, to make a motion respecting Mr. Pole's Circular Letter. [See p. 1.] His lordship first moved, that the letter be read, and also the Convention Act of Ireland; which having been read, he said he should reverse the usual practice of the House, by stating his motion first, and giving his reasons afterwards. He stated bis motion to be for declaring the letter of Mr. Pole to be a violation of the law, inasmuch as it required the magistrates to do acts not authorised by the law, and wholly inconsistent with a due and proper spirit of conciliation. His lordship observed that the Convention Act was a penal statute, and it was a well known maxim of law, that all penal statutes must be strictly construed. He then read passages of the Convention Act, to shew that it was directed against delegated assemblies, met for the purpose of discussing any alteration in matters established in church or state, and was not intended to operate against meetings for the purpose of petitioning for the redress of grievances. Were persons delegated to present a petion to be considered, as delegates within the meaning of the act? If so, three millions of his majesty's subjects would be deprived of the right of petitioning. Were persons appointed to go round to get a petion signed to be considered as delegates or managers within the meaning of the act? Upon these points the law, he contended, was clear, and that such acts would' be perfectly legal, The noble earl_related an anecdote upon this subject of a Petition from Kent, during the last war, for peace, in which he took an active part, and where by means of Committees in the different divisions of the county, 17,000 signatures were obtained to the petition, which he presented to his Majesty. Had a similar circumstance occurred in Ireland, it would, he contended, have been perfectly legal, and yet Mr. Pole's Letter jumbled together things illegal and legal, and made no distinction. Supposing a person attended one of the meetings pointed at in the Letter, not for the purpose of voting in the election of delegates, but for the purpose of dissuading the rest from voting, and telling them their conduct was illegal, still under the directions of the Letter he would be liable to be arrested and held to bail, merely for being present at the meeting. Here also was another violation of the law, for the act did not authorise the arresting and holding to bail, but merely the dispersing of illegal meetings, and in the case of resistance then the persons resisting became criminal. He defied any lawyer or any one who ever had been a lawyer, to shew that he was wrong in his law as applied to this Letter-a Letter which was written without temper, which not only invited but required the magistrates to do acts. not authorised by law, and which was pregnant with danger to the liberties of the subject. He wished there had been a meeting in the Queen's county, of which he was a freeholder, and he would have met Mr. Pole there, if that gentleman had chosen to attend to disperse the meeting; and if a scuffle had ensued, and the death of an individual had been the consequence of the illegal act of Mr. Pole, that gentleman must have been indicted for murder. He did not apply his argument to meetings of Catholics, and strongly objected to the mention of Roman Catholics in the letter; but the law of the case applied equally to all meetings, whether of Catholics or Protestants. It was clearly shewn on the discussion of the Bill in the Irish parlia ment, that it was not intended by the act to prevent all delegated meetings, but was only meant to apply to meetings attempt ing to carry on discussions upon proposed alterations in matters established in church and state. It was observed at the time by a member of that parliament, that the Quakers sometimes appointed delegates to discuss matters connected with church and state, and it was replied by the then Attorney-General of Ireland, that the act was not intended to apply to them. It was also stated at that time by Mr. George Ponsonby, that if the act was only intended to suppress meetings attempting to discuss measures like a parliament, he would not oppose it; and it was replied by Mr. Hobart, that that was the only object of the bill, and that it was not intended to interfere. He trusted that the latter gentleman, now a peer of that House, would support the opinion he then gave. His lordship contended, upon these grounds, that the letter of Mr. Pole was a violation of the law, in requiring the magistrates to do acts which were not authorized by law, and concluded with a motion declaring it to be so. The Earl of Liverpool doubted whether the noble earl had succeeded in convincing any noble lord in that House that the letter was a violation of the law. He said the object of the Convention Act was well known. It might be a question, however, whether even at common law such an assembly of delegates would not be illegal. It was the uniform course of parliamentary proceedings for instance, that no petition should be received, except from the individuals, subscribing it, or from corporate bodies; and though sometimes petitions of an opposite description were received, yet it proceeded merely from inadvertency. That principle was recognized on a late occasion, when a Petition from the Livery of London was presented, signed by the Lord Mayor and Aldermen, who not being authorized to represent the Livery, the Petition was refused. On looking to the preamble of the act of the 33d of the king, the object of the act would be found very clearly expressed; and though the noble earl had attempted to draw a distinction between managers and delegates, the name under which these delegates were elected, was of very inconsiderable importance, if they were delegates in substance. They were guilty of a contravention of the act of parliament in every fair view of that act. When Circular Letters were sent to the different counties of Ireland, for the purpose of procuring representatives to sit in the Catholic Committee, no man could doubt that this was a contravention of the Convention Act. It had been asked if the Committee was illegal, why was it allowed so long to continue its sittings? He had no doubt that from the moment representatives began to sit in the Committee, it was an illegal meeting, but it might not be expedient to put the law in execution on every violation of it. He saw no ground for the motion of the noble earl. Lord Holland wished to recall the attention of the House to the real state of the question. The question at issue was not whether the meeting in Dublin was legal or illegal, or whether the electing of managers was legal or illegal, but whether the mode of proceeding pointed out in the letter of Mr. Secretary Pole, was a legal mode of proceeding. It certainly was a presumption in favour of his noble friend's motion, that the noble Secretary, whose perspicuity and distinctness were well known, had not said a single word in favour of the legality of Mr. Pole's letter. Supposing government would not recognize the legality of the Petition of the livery of London, did it therefore follow, that those who signed it were guilty of an illegal act, and could be held to bail for it? Mr. Pole had done what by the Convention Act he was not authorised to do. Admitting that those who assembled in consequence of Mr. Hay's letter were guilty of a misdemeanor, was the Irish Secretary authorized to issue such a letter as he had issued? It was with reluctance that he brought himself to censure the conduct of the Irish government; for he considered the noble person at the head of that government, to whom he had the honour of being related, to have conducted himself with great moderation and prudence; and for one he was willing to pay him his tribute of gratitude.—His objections to the letter were of two sorts: first, Mr. Pole had deduced consequences from the 33d of the king, which he was not justified in deducing. Secondly, The offence against which his letter was directed was not the offence specified in the Convention Act. The noble lord then proceeded to comment upon the act of the 33d of the king, and the letter of Mr. Pole, and to shew that some of the acts in that letter for doing which their authors were directed to be apprehended and held to bail, were not prohibited by the act of parliament, and were in themselves innocent. He said, no man could be held to bail at common law for a misdemeanor. If it was legal to hold to bail for a misdemeanor, then the proceedings in the case of the Seven Bishops were perfectly legal. If any of the magistrates, in the execution of the injunctions of Mr. Pole's letter, on their being resisted, had proceeded to acts of violence, from which lives had been lost, they would certainly have been, as was said by his noble friend, guilty of murder; and actions of wrongous imprisonment certainly would have lain against every magistrate who should have attempted to carry thedirections of Mr. Pole's letter into execu. tion. He recollected that when a very worthy and a very learned man, the late Gilbert Wakefield, was tried, the indictment had run in rather a whimsical form; the words being, as far as he could remem ་ 1 T ber, "That he had by certain libellous meeting to the body electing them. Such The Lord Chancellor justified the general tenor of the Letter; though he was willing to confess that in some parts of it, the words were somewhat slovenly got together. The Convention Bill, to which such frequent reference had been made, had not in its view the Catholics of Ireland. It had in contemplation the assembling of any description of persons who met together for the purpose of electing others who were to interfere in matters of church and state. It was the nature and intention of such meetings that made them legal or illegal. It mattered not under what denomination they were known; whether delegates, managers, or any other. They would take their character from their mode of proceeding. If the assembly which these delegates or managers proposed to elect was an unlawful assembly, so would the assembly be which should elect them. The elected, or appointed, according to the nature of the object for which they should have been chosen, communicated the fegality or illegality of their Lord Grenville was willing to acknowledge the candour and the fairness with which the noble and learned lord had spoken of Mr. Secretary Pole's Letter, but he could not concur in the inferences which that noble and learned lord had drawn from the statement laid down by him. He should not now go into any detail of the arguments which n might be urged on the present occasion. He would content himself with asking whether, by the mere act of being present at such an assembly, without voting, or otherwise concurring in the business of such a meeting, could subject a person to the penalties of the act? The noble and learned lord would not surely state the affirmative. Yet, by virtue of Mr. Pole's Letter, any man, merely for the crime of simply being present at such an assembly, was liable to be arrested and imprisoned. Their lordships would no doubt feel themselves bound to record on their Journals their marked disapprobation of such an interpretation of the law, and of the dangerous measure which had been grounded on it. He could not help considering such a stretch of power resorted to in Ireland, as a fresh proof of a disposition hostile to every measure and demonstration of conciliation towards that country. When duly considered, how monstrous must it not appear! What, make three millions of our fellow subjects liable to be arrested and imprisoned at the will of a Secretary of the government! How would such a doctrine sound in the ears of Englishmen? How would they relish such a practice? What clamours would be raised in England, if not three million, but three hundred, nay, if thirty persons were to be so arrested, and thrown into prison; such was the difference of opinion between the inhabitants of these two parts of the empire such the different temper of the law as administered respecting them! He should therefore support the motion of the noble earl. The Earl of Buckinghamshire thought that Mr. Pole had been dealt rather harshly by during the course of the debate. He was, however, confident that no measure had been adopted by that gentleman, nor the letter in question written by him, without the advice and approbation of the law officers of Ireland. It was therefore hard to impute to him only, whatever blame might be thought to attach to the letter, though, no doubt, Mr. Pole must take his due share of responsibility for the measure. As to the intention of the Convention Act, he would confidently say, that it was not levelled against the body of the Roman Catholics, but was passed at the close of a session, and chiefly directed against the meetings of the United Irishmen, from which improper proceedings were to be apprehended at that time. Lord Grenville disclaimed any intention of treating Mr. Pole with harshness or disrespect. There would be an end to all responsibility, and parliament itself would be completely useless, if no responsibility were to attach to a person for any measure which even bore his signature, and thus openly avowed the approbation and sanction of such measure by the person who adopted it. Lord Holland declared himself to the same effect. PAY AND ALLOWANCES OF THE ARMY.] General Gascoyne rose pursuant to notice, to move for a Committee to inquire into the Pay and Allowances to the Land Forces of this country, so far as the same related to sums granted by Parliament. He was sorry that the business had not fallen into hands more able to do justice to it than he was conscious that he was; and he was still more sorry that it had not been brought forward by his Majesty's ministers. His object, he begged it to be understood, was not to increase the pay of the officers in the army. Deeply as he was impressed with the inadequacy of their pay to their increased expences; he was far from entertaining such an idea. If any increase was to be made, he knew that the proposition would come with infinitely greater propriety from that source whence every thing of the kind ought to emanatefrom the crown. The partiality of the King to this branch of our service was so well known, that it would be unnecessary for him to dwell on it. The royal personage, too, who had long held a Commis sion in the Army, and who was himself a practical soldier, there could not be a doubt, was sensible of, and anxious to af Earl Stanhope in reply, thanked the ford relief to the officers of our army. noble and learned lord on the woolsack, That royal personage was as practical a for the candour and fairness which he had soldier as any in our army, and there was displayed that night. It bad saved him nothing which withheld him from particifrom the trimming which he had prepared pating in the laurels so proudly earned by for him. Had any other lawyer attempt our brave officers, but the high rank he ed to hold a different language, he should held in the country; and, he entertained have given that lawyer a complete basting. no doubt, that if the royal person to whom He rejoiced in having brought forward the he alluded had seen the propriety of propresent motion. It had drawn from the posing an increase to the pay of officers in noble and learned lord many useful conthe army he would have recommended it. fessions; and it had drawn from his two Having now stated what was not his object noble and distinguished friends (lords he should go on to state shortly what it Grenville and Holland) the soundest doc- was, and should endeavour to draw a com trines, and the most appropriate observa-parison between the allowances to the of tions. He was, therefore, determined to ficers of the army now and what they The Lord Chancellor again explained, and said, that surely nothing could be more foreign from his mind than to make any unhandsome allusion to the Lord Chancellor of Ireland, for whose estimable qualities, as a man and a judge, he had ever entertained the highest respect. |