weary of the bullion question; and the prophecies of the bullionists proved like those of Lords Grey and Grenville concerning the end of the war in

Portugal, and those of Richard Bro thers and Joanna Southcote concerning the end of the world.

Ireland. Catholic Committee. Proceedings in Ireland.

TH

HE accession of the prince regent was welcomed with indecent and triumphant joy by the more intemperate of the Irish catholics. During the administration of the Talents, he had been pledged by the Duke of Bedford and Mr Ponsonby, the then Viceroy and Chancellor of Ireland, to grant them their demands; and the consequence of this flagrant misconduct in the king's ministers now began to be felt. The catholics, without waiting for the natural demise of the king, and setting aside all consideration of the chance of his recovery,-a chance which at this time appeared probable to all, except those who wished that it might never occur,-thought the pledge, which had been so unconstitutionally and inexcusably given, would now be redeemed, and that their claims would be granted if they brought them forward in force. Some of their most honourable and most moderate men came forward on this occasion, actuated by the hope which seemed to present itself of promoting the interests of their religion, and hurried on by the zeal of the young, the violence of the hotheaded, and the arts of the disaffected. Delegates were appointed from the several counties, and they met together in a representative body in Dublin, calling itself the Catholic Committee,

whose proceedings were not more temperate than those of the Scottish Convention in 1793, and like them were regularly published in journals devoted to the same object. To check them in this inflammatory course, the Irish government issued a circular letter to the sheriffs and magistrates, declaring their intention of enforcing the Conven tion Bill, an act passed in the year 1793.

The opposition raised an outcry against this law, and reprobated the conduct of the go- Feb. 22. vernment. Lord Lansdowne moved for papers upon the subject, accusing the lord lieutenant and Mr W. W. Pole of the most inconsiderate violence and severity, and saying, that they had taken this rash step without allowing themselves time to consult the English government, or even to take the pleasure of the prince regent, of whose feelings and opinions upon this subject there could not be much doubt, and whose disposition in favour of the Irish catholics could not well be called in question. The motion was negatived in that house without a division. It was discussed at greater length the same evening in the Commons, when the Honourable Mr Ward, who brought it forward, made the same assertion, that ministers had not the countenance of his royal highness in this proceed

ing.

The advocates for the motion slid into the general question of the state of Ireland, not exaggerating the evil, but imputing it, as usual, to the least of all its operating causes, and the only cause which cannot be removed, without incurring heavier evils than already exist. Gen. Loftus expressed his regret, that the debate should have taken this course, inasmuch, he said, as the observations which were thus made respecting the oppressed state of the inhabitants of Ireland, tended to mislead those members who were not connected with that country. "The fact is," said he, " that there is not a jot of difference between the situation of the great majority of the inhabitants of Ireland and their protestant brethren, or between that description of persons and the lower class of people in England : they have the same laws to govern them, the same advantages under those laws; they have their forty shilling freeholds, and can sit upon juries; and, in fact, there is no difference whatever between the lower class of protestants and that description of catholics: there are about thirty-two offices of state which the educated catholics are not competent to hold; but which, if they took the same oaths the protestants were obliged to take, they might hold; in fact, the oppression of the catholics, was not any want of catholic emancipation, but in the state of the country. The discontents of Ireland could only be removed by her native gentry. Let them lower their rents and raise the wages of the labourer; for the high rents and bad wages were the evils most complained of. Of catholic emancipation, the majority of the people knew no more than they did of what he was uttering at that moment." In the course of the debate Mr Whitbread observed, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had, at his entrance into office, given a bond, sealed with his honour, that he never would

"To

He

concede the catholic claims. whom," said Mr Perceval, ❝ did I give such a bond? Never to any one. I most distinctly deny it. I have indeed, by the expression of my sentiments in this house, opposed the catholic claims; and when I look to the present state of the catholics, I cannot anticipate any change in my opinions. If the honourable gentleman chooses to call this declaration a bond, I am satisfied with that explanation; but if he says I ever gave any other bond to any living person, I must flatly contradict it." Mr Whitbread replied, "The right honourable gentleman desires an explanation from me, and he shall have it. When I said he gave a bond not to concede the catholic claims, I referred to the manner in which he came into power. The former ministry went out of power because they would not give such a bond. came in, and of course it was to be inferred, that he had entered into that stipulation, for refusing to enter into which his predecessors had gone out." "I gave no such pledge on my taking power," rejoined Mr Perceval; “but those who had left the government were pledged to the contrary, and it was natural to expect that those who had always opposed the catholic claims in parliament, would do so in power. So far I gave a pledge, and no farther." A farther explanation, on the part of Mr Whitbread, led to a call for order, among others from Mr Fuller. “Perhaps, sir," said that blunt, odd, honest member, addressing the speaker; "Perhaps, sir, I am not a very proper person to rise to order; but no matter for that, I confess it. When I do get up, however, I speak to the subject; aye, and pretty freely too. When the honourable gentleman opposite (Mr Whitbread) talked about his bond and his sealing on honour, and things of that kind, all it came to in the end was supposing.' For that matter, I

could suppose any thing myself. But he has no right to talk of other people, for I never saw a set of men sneak out of their offices in the way his own friends did. The honourable gentleman has no right to say or suppose that my right honourable friend would enter into a bond: No, he would disdain such a thing. He shewed them that in late affairs-he shewed them a spirit, I think, which they felt, aye, and heartily too. As to these Irish affairs that they talk so much of now, why, I remember very well myself, about 30 years ago, a set of people coming down to this house, just like the honourable gentlemen, sweating and foaming, all in a fume like a steam engine. The cry was then, Won't you grant Ireland arms to fight for you? Well, we did give them 60,000 stand of arms, and they turned them against us. I have no great faith in catholic emancipation; try it, if you think it will do. Give the fellows in their red waistcoats and blue breeches every thing they want. But it won't do. No; let the great men of the country go home, in place of spending their money here, let them regulate their own tenantry and their estates, and not hear of them only through those secondary persons whom they employ. That will do more to conciliate Ireland than all the measures there is so much work made about."

The motion was rejected by 80 voices against 43. Its substance was again brought forward when Mr W. Pole arrived from Ireland; and that gentleman, being called on by Mr Ponsonby for an explanation of the conduct of the Irish government, entered into a full detail, premising, however, his regret, that the zeal of the opposition should have induced them not on ly to demand explanations, but to prefer the most serious charges, at a time when they knew that there was no

person present who could give the explanation required, or answer the accusations. "I cannot," said he, "but lament that their ardour had not been so far corrected by their prudence and justice, as to have induced them to refrain from entering into any discussion on the subject during the necessary ab sence from the house of that individual, from whom alone their remarks could receive a complete and satisfactory answer. I am the more disposed to lament the course which the other side of the house have thought proper to adopt, because I know that it has produced the most injurious effects, which might undoubtedly have been avoided, if the gentlemen had waited till they were in possession of all the facts of the case, before they took upon them. selves to pronounce a judgement upon it.

"The right honourable and learned gentleman," he continued," says, if the Catholic Committee was an illegal meeting, why did you not interfere at an earlier period? Why did you not suppress that unlawful assembly? Sir, I will tell the right honourable and learned gentleman why the Irish government did not interfere at an earlier period; and, in doing so, it will be necessary for me to refer to the discussions which had taken place in the Catholic Committee, both of that and of the present period. In May, 1809, there had been a general meeting of the catholics, the Earl of Fingall in the chair; they passed some resolutions, which, though couched in strong and even vehement language, the government did not wish to take notice of, because they were such as might have been expected from honest, loyal, and ardent catholics, anxious to convey to the foot of the throne, and to parliament, a declaration of what they believed to be their rights; and to state what they considered as grievances. They closed their resolutions,

however, in a manner which shewed that they had a thorough knowledge of this Convention Act, and that they were determined not to transgress it; for they declared, that the persons who were instructed to prepare the petition could not be considered as representatives of the catholic body; and they made it imperative on them to finish their labours within the first fortnight after the meeting of parliament.

"This committee was composed of 36 representatives of the different parishes of Dublin, who, on a previous occasion, had formed a similar committee; the remnants of the committees that prepared the petitions of 1805 and 1807; and, finally, of the surviving delegates of the Catholic Convention of 1793, and the noble lords who compose the catholic peerage. With regard to the first, I believe that some of the gentlemen opposite to me had some communication with them when they were in office, because they were the persons who addressed the Duke of Bedford. I believe, also, that in those communications the honourable and learned gentleman opposite to me, and his right honourable friend, who at that time was chief secretary to the lord lieutenant, gave them some wholesome advice with regard to the Convention Act. Such is the rumour in Dublin. The lord lieutenant and the government of Ireland knew perfectly well the nature of the construction of this committee; they knew what passed at their meetings; they knew that their debates were ardent, vehement, and sometimes violent; but it was obvious to every man, of a fair and honest mind, who looked at their proceedings with calmness and candour, that, though their language was stronger than propriety could justify, yet that their real, and indeed their sole object, was to frame their petition for parliament. The Irish government, therefore, did not interfere, or take any notice of

their proceedings, for this simple reason, that they felt it to be their duty not to interfere with the catholics, as long as they professed to be merely engaged in preparing their petition for parliament, and as long as their proceedings had not a tendency to inflame the public mind, and endanger the peace of the country.

"The committee of 1810 conducted

itself in a very different way. It commenced much in the same manner, by a general meeting of the catholics, by which the committee of 1809 was reestablished, and the same resolutions were passed, as those which had been agreed to in the preceding year. An aggregate meeting afterwards assembled on the 2d of November; a great difference of opinion prevailed among those who attended it, with regard to the propriety of petitioning, and the debate was conducted with extreme violence. One argument was used by a Mr Finnerty, a person formerly well known in Ireland, which it may not be improper to notice. The manner in which it was said the English nation was misled, with regard to Ireland, had been previously dwelt on with great heat, and much had been stated of the stupidity and vulgarity of the people of England. Mr Peter Finnerty, in the course of a very long speech, defended the English nation from these charges. He observed, that the English people detested their government, and that it would be as great a libel to judge of the English nation by the principles of their government, as it would be to judge of the Irish people by theirs. He asked, what honest Irishman would endure to have his principles judged of by the principles of the Irish government ? After this, Mr Finnerty proceeded to recommend a petition to parliament for catholic emancipation, a petition for parliamentary reform, and a petition for a repeal of the Union ! His