on the 2d of November they called an aggregate meeting of the Catholics. There was then, he understood, a difference of opinion among them, as to whether or not they could deliberate on any other subject than on that of their petition. He should forbear to inflame them by quoting the speeches of Mr. Keogh and others; but would state to them one anecdote, which he thought would sufficiently mark the tone of their discussions. A man, (Mr. Finnerty,) now as notorious in England, as he had been before in Ireland, was then in that country, under pretence of collecting athidavits for a mitigation of punishment in the case of a libel of which he had been convicted. He, of course, attended the meeting, and was called on to make a speech. Some gentleman in the assembly bad thought proper to deal out some sarcasms upon the English nation; he had talked of their selfishness, and their inhospitality, and their vulgarisms, and Mr. Finnerty stepped out as their advocate. But how did he defend them? Why, 'Indeed, gentlemen,' said he, the English nation are not so bad as you suppose them to be, but they are misled by their government. Which of you but would shrink from being tried by your own Irish government; and it is just the same case with the unhappy English.' Then he bade them petition for emancipation, and for reform, and for a repeal of the Union. He was naturally heard with acclamation, and repaid with thanks. Notwithstanding this, the Lord-Lieutenant did not interfere. They then came to a resolution that the committee should have power to manage, not the Cutholic pe tition, but Catholic affairs.' Still there was no state danger to be apprehended, and the Duke of Richmond overlooked it. On the 24th of November they met again, and proposed thanks to Lord Donoughmore. Lord Fingall however, who was in the chair, asked them if they were not going too far? Though he said he approved of the motion, still he thought it called for this remark. Mr. O'Connel, however, answered, that they had come to a resolution to manage all Catholic affairs. It was in this manner the meeting proceeded, and on the 1st of December they went further, and one of the members called the attention of the constitution to what he described as a horrible grievance committed on a Catholic soldier; and proposed a subscription to be raised for the purpose of prosecuting all those who were concerned in it. He would state how this was. Dr. Troy had written to the Chief Secretary, that on a court-martial held on a Catholic militia-soldier for refusing to attend Protestant worship, the soldier had been obliged to commute the punishment awarded by entering into a regiment for foreign service. The Secretary wrote immediately on the subject to the Commander-in-Chief: the circumstances were inquired into, found to be true, and the soldier was immediately liberated, and actually discharged from the army. All this took place in the month of August; yet on the 1st of December the subject was again taken up by the Catholic committee, which met only for the purpose of petitioning. On the 29th of November, a Petition, which came from the sub-committee, was for some time debated and agreed to, after which they voted thanks to the Right Honourable Gentleman opposite (Mr. Grattan), in the name of all the Catholics; another instance, in which they exceeded the purposes for which they professed to meet. Still, the Duke of Richmond did not interfere, feeling, as he and the rest of the government did, sincerely anxious not to interfere with the Catholic committee so long as they did nothing tending to endanger the peace of the country. At this time nothing remained for the committee to do, but to determine whether five or any other number should carry the petition to Great Britain. What he had stated, was the mode of proceeding until the middle of December, when the Catholics appointed a committee for the purpose of inquiring into all the grievances under which the Catholics laboured. Dr. Troy, the titular Bishop of Dublin, sent in a statement to the committee, that something of a very grievous nature had taken taken place, respecting the Catholics, in the management of the Foundling Hospital. [Here, Mr. Pole entered into a description of the nature of the Hospital, in which he stated it was founded on the same principles and for the same purposes as a similar institution in this country; that the number of children brought up in it amounted to about 1,200, and that there were about 5,000 brought up out of it; that all children whatever brought here were received exactly in the same way; that they were placed in a particular spot, with a name attached to them, as well as a number; that the names and numbers were all registered, though they were never called by their names, but by their numbers, so that their names were never known until the children were claimed. In such an institution, it was ridiculous to suppose, upon so extensive a plan, children should be brought up in any other than the Protestant faith; but, that, whenever any Catholic went there and claimed his child, he had only to mention the name and number, and it was immediately delivered to him.] Dr. Troy said, that this mode of proceeding with respect to the children was adopted for purposes of proselytism, and the aggravated griev ance of which he had complained, was, that from not being known by their real names, a brother and sister had intermarried. The Committee of Grievances on the 8th of December proceeded in the same manner. He must remind the house, that this Committee had from the 24th of November met weekly and adjourned from week to week, at every one of which meetings they had a debate, which was taken down by reporters, and published in all the papers so that they imitated the House of Commons as closely as possibly. This Committee of Grievances reported, that the debates, consisting of 300 pages, were intended to be published, and were nearly ready; that they were to be circulated all over England, and a copy was to be sent to the House of Commons. How a committee, appointed only to petition, could take upon themselves to do this, he would leave to the House to determine. This same Committee of Grievances began, about the end of December, to evince a disposition to increase their numbers; and they entered into a resolution, stating, that it was desirable their secretary should correspond with Catholic gentlemen in the country, for the purpose of obtaining full information of their sentiments. There was a subsequent resolution to augment the members, but not one word as to delegation. That was to be fixed by a sub-committee. They never showed this until the 23d of January. At that time they had a meeting, and he would beg leave to read what was said by one of the members on that occasion. That member, seeing occasion to speak against the aggregate meeting, expressed his dissent, by saying, that there were thirty-six members of the committee, which were enough; and that if they increased them in the way that was proposed to one hundred and fifty, it would be too many. He begged the House to recollect, that he had already shown they met from week to week, and one violent proposition engendered another, until the most respectable of the Catholics took the alarm, and discontinued their attendance at the meeting. On the 2d of February, at an adjourned meeting, a resolution was passed, that the petition of the Catholics be transmitted to England. Another resolution was also passed, that a proposed delegation of ten from each county to the committee, exceeded its powers; but this resolution was afterward rescinded. On the same 2d of February, Lord Ffrench says, Your petition is at an end; you have exceeded your powers; do you mean to erect yourselves into a perpetual parliament?' On the 9th of February, there was another meeting, at which the most violent and unjustifiable language was held. At this meeting, Lord Fingall, one of the most patriotic and ardent Catholics in Ireland, was attacked. A gentleman present rose for the purpose of justifying Lord Fingall, in a speech in which he used such language as would scarcely be credited. [Here, the Right Honourable Member read some passages from his mock defence, which was most sarcastic and ironical, stating, that his lordship P3 lordship had no other motive in joining the enemies of the Catholics than to be of service to the latter.] Honourable gentlemen might smile, and think it an excellent joke; but he could assure them, that it was thought no joke by the respectable Catholics of Dublin. Up to this time, the Lord Lieutenant, though always looking to their proceedings with an anxious eye, had forborne to take notice of them; but at last their proceedings became so alarming, that it was the general opinion, it was high time for government to interfere. He had now gone through the proceedings of the Committee of 1810. The Duke of Richmond had been accused in one place, of acting with two much lenity; in another, with two much severity, toward the Catholics: and amid such a variety of contradictory opinions, he would leave it to the House to say, whether, in the course of the whole proceeding, with regard to the Catholics, the government of Ireland had acted in such a manner, as to prevent them from exercising their right to petition either the King, the Regent, or the Parlia ment? It became, however, at length necessary for the Lord Lieutenant to look more closely to their proceedings. He (Mr. Pole) advised him to do so; the Lord Chancellor and the Attorney-General had done the same; though they always were of opinion, that it would be prudent to defer any decisive measure as long as possible. He now came to the second part of the Right Hon. Gentleman's argument. The House would recollect, that the proceedings to which he had alluded came up to the 9th of February. Neither he nor any other member of the Irish government ever saw Hay's letter till the 10th. They at the same time received secret information that it had been circulated in every part of Ireland; that many members had been chosen in consequence in different places; and that several would certainly meet on the 16th, or 23d at farthest; that the letter had been drawn up by such persons of the Committee as were lawyers, in order to keep it as far as possible out of the scope and meaning of the Con vention Act; that on the 23d they would have their meeting, and would be able to transmit the resolutions they should come to to every part of the country. The Government had also information, that there were various modes of election, so arranged as to ensure secresy; and several names were transmitted from Dublin to different places in the country, to be chosen for those places, in order, as they said, that there might always be a majority residing in Dublin to carry on the purposes of the Committee. The Right Hon. Gentleman (Mr. Ponsonby) had asked him whether, in writing the letter issued in his name, he had consulted the Attorney-General and other law officers of the Irish Government?-He had taken the opinion of Lord Chancellor Manners; he had taken the opinion of Mr.Saurin and Mr. Bushe; and it was on the united opinions of those three eminent characters, that the letter issued in his name had been framed; and he was proud to declare, that the last words of Lord Manners to him were, That he would never forgive him (Mr. Pole,) if he did not put his name forward, and let him stand the foremost as having given his advice.' The Duke of Richmond had, by his advice, taken the opinions of all these great men before he adopted the measures which had drawn so much censure from the Right Honourable Gentleman.-The letter thus drawn up by this high authority was issued; and he was happy to say, that not one person had been taken up and held to bail in consequence of it, except the printer of the Galway paper, who had inserted an advertisement, calling a meeting directly in the teeth of it. The Lord Lieutenant and Council had, from the beginning to the end, acted in a spirit of the greatest lenity towards the Catholics. They supposed this letter would have the desired effect; and it was positively determined at the time it was issued not to act further upon it. It had been said, that it was very extraordinary the Irish Government should then call the Catholic Committee illegal. This point had not escaped the acute sagacity of Lord Chancellor Manners and Mr. Saurin; but they were well con vinced, vinced, that although the Catholic Committee, merely as a Catholic Committee, was not illegal, yet from their having constituted themselves into a Committee of Grievances, in which the most violent language had been held; and from the secret information he had received, they were determined to call it so. As to the charge of his presuming to take such a step upon his own responsibility, he was surprised it should be imputed to him, for he was no lawyer; and he assured the House, that whatever degree of arrogance might be imputed to him, he never entertained an idea of taking upon himself an act of such magnitude and importance. The Hon. Member then proceeded to observe that the Irish Government could not wait for instructions from this country, because this self-constituted Parliament would have had one meeting, which might have had a very disagreeable and dangerous effect. He must contend, that the proceedings adopted by the Irish Government had produced beneficial effects; the country had remained perfectly tranquil; and he trusted that those of the Catholics who were at all misguided, had returned to a sense of their duty. He felt convinced in his own mind, that the great body of the people of Ireland, though irritated at first by the circular letter of government, would ultimately applaud the measures which government had resorted to. The Right Hon. Gentleman then adverted to the resolutions which were entered into by the last Catholic Meeting which had taken place very lately in Dublin. This meeting had said before, that they had complete power over all Catholic affairs. This was their claim, and that which excited the jealousy of Government. But on the 1st of March, the very day on which he left Ireland, this meeting passed a resolution to this effect, That the object of the Committee's appointment was to prepare a petition to Parliament. The purport of their second resolution was, That the Committee having no other object in its appointment, they felt strongly that their proceedings did not come under any thing like the Conven tion Act.' The meeting which passed these resolutions was not at all molested, and he was very happy that it was not. The next meeting of the Committee was on the 2d of March; on which occasion also their resolutions were remarkable. A Major Bryan, who was in the chair, said, that he had meant to propose a petition to the Regent, for removing the Duke of Richmond from the vice-regal government; but he now found that such a petition could be properly proposed only at an aggregate meeting. In this, the Major was perfectly right; and he (Mr. Pole) had no manner of objection to such a motion. But he must particularly call the attention of the House to the first resolution which they then actually adopted. It was, that their petitions be engrossed, and sent to Lord Donoughmore and Mr. Grattan, for the purpose of being presented to the two Houses of Parliament. Thus ended the labours of that Committee, at which termination he for one certainly felt extremely happy.* On the division, there appeared, for Mr. Ponsonby's motion, 48; against it, 133-majority, 85. March 8. The Chancellor of the Exchequer stated to the House, that it was his intention to attempt to equalize the duties on malt and sugar. That this was a new principle, the application of which might vary, according to the nature of the * We have inserted this speech at some length, because it throws considerable light on the present state of the Catholic Question in Ireland; a question which truly is, not, as it is artfully attempted to be described, whether the Catholics of Ireland shall be allowed the Right of Petition, but whether a House of Delegates shall be established ( a perpetual Parliament,' to use the words of Lord Ffrench) to manage all Catholic affairs,' (Mr. O'Connell,) and all those other affairs to which the Delegates may please to give their attention?-ED. P 4 ་ circumstances circumstances to which it might be applied; he therefore only meant to extend it to two years. In former financial arrangements, the way had been to give one of them a decided preference over the other. At one time the duty was so high that sugar could not be employed for the purposes of distillation; at another time the plan was to prohibit distillation from grain, and to give the public equal advantage as if such distillation had not been forbidden. Each cwt. of sugar produced thirty gallons of spirits. With respect to the quantity made from the wash, instead of eleven gallons, as had been calculated, it had produced twelve. He therefore proposed an additional halfpenny per gallon, and this additional halfpenny would raise the duty upon spirits from sugar equal to that upon spirits from grain: 1517. is the duty upon 250 gallons, at 31. 10s. 9d. per cwt. The price of barley was 38s. per quarter, taking malt at 75s. and upon the same quantity of spirits made from malt, as formerly stated to be made from sugar, the duty would be 151. 17s. 6d. There will, by this plan, be a greater increase of revenue, particularly from grain. The price of sugar was higher last year than at present, and no diminution of the quantity consumed. It is a fair principle to impose a duty, in order to raise the price of spirits, and by that means make them less accessible to the lower ranks. From the experience of last year, it is not likely that the duty will be so high as to injure the revenue. Two articles are to be brought into the market on equal terms.-The Right Honourable Gentleman said, he was afraid he had not made his statements so clear as he could have wished, but that he trusted they would be more intelligible upon paper, when put into the hands of the Members of the House. He was against the old system of monopoly which gave every thing to the agriculturist. The price of the articles must affect every calculation upon the subject, but at present he was of opinion, that by the proposed plan the duty would be upwards of 2,000,000l. and a gain to the public of 380,000l. He concluded by moving for leave to bring in a bill upon the subject. After a warm debate, the House divided; for the motion, 70; against it, 21; majority, 49. EXTRACTS FROM THE LONDON GAZETTE. Admiralty Office, July 2. COPY of a letter from Vice-Admiral Drury, Commander in Chief of his Ma jesty's ships and vessels in the East Indies, to John Wilson Croker, Esq. dated on board the Samarang, in Madras Roads, January 1, 1811. SIR,-You will please to acquaint the Right Honourable the Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty, that I have received letters from Captain Byng, whilst cruising, pursuant to their orders, in the Straits of Sunda, for the outward-bound China fleet, detailing the gallant proceedings of the boats of the Belliqueux and Sir Francis Drake, under the orders of Lieutenant Joseph Prior, First Lieutenant of the Belliqueux, whose most judicious and highly spirited conduct in an attack on a French ketch and several of the enemy's gun-boats in the bay of Bantam, is spoken of by Captain Harris, of the Sir Francis Drake, with uncommon warmth, as well as of the brave conduct of acting Lieutenants Bradley, Dawson, and Addis, and the seamen and others employed on this occasion, as well as a Mr. Pierre, midshipman of the Belliqueux, who has served his time. On this enterprise, Lieutenant Joseph Prior destroyed the French ketch, with despatches for General Daendels, and two gun-boats, under a heavy fire from the batteries of Bantam, being so fortunate as only to have one man killed, John Holloway, seaman of the Sir Francis Drake. I have the honour to be, &c. W. O. B. DRURY. |