dined together after their triumph; and after dinner, before the bottle went round, he proposed another Committee at Maidstone, and other Committees of Managers, to get the names from the different districts. He divided them according to their localities. Here, Rochester, come you here. Then Chatham or Stroud, and so on, go you there: and afterwards they went to their respective places to get the signatures. He went himself to Rochester, and asked for twelve good and sound men for his Committee. They had one set from the King's dock-yard. That was a gal lant thing; keep you by me, said his Lordship to them.(A laugh.) He said in some places to six, "Go and get six others to sign, and get them to go about and get six more That was a glorious scheme; and if the people in general understood what they might legally do, and acted upon it in that manner, they would soon beat the Ministers, though they might beat him from the dock-yard! (A laugh.) Now, suppose that was done in Ireland, was it to be called choosing unlawful delegates? If so, the law ought to be altered certainly it could not so stand. From Kent, he presented to the King a petition signed by 17,000 names, collected by the appointment of managers, as the mode was legal. He then read and commented at length on Mr. Pole's letter, and asked, why a proclamation had not been resorted to? Why point out a certain religious sect in the Circular Letter? A Mr. Hay had written a letter; did that prove all Catholics to be attempting to violate the law?There never was a more jumbling confusion than the letter evinced about delegates and representatives. It spoke of members of an unlawful assembly. Then why not have gone to work more sharply? Instead of that, Mr. Pole gives the members of that assembly in Dublin many civil compliments, and they return him civil compliments. He don't put an end to it, and that was a confession that it was not an illegal assembly; or why had he not done his duty, and suppressed it? But it was not illegal, and so Mr. Pole prudently brought himself back to this country. Mr. Pole said, "Hold them to bail;" but the Act said, "Disperse them," in the first instance, and those only were to be held to bail who unlawfully resisted. Mr. Pole spoke of persons in any manner voting or attending as representatives, managers, or delegates, always in the disjunctive. Persons might attend and not vote, or might attend to dissuade others from voting: and yet all were to be liable.

After many acute witticisms on the letter and the Act, the noble Earl characterised the former as a letter without temper or discretion, contrary to law, and hostile to the feelings of an immense body of his Majesty's subjects. The Act could not mean this, as it was only against illegal meetings to make alterations in Church and State, and not against the whole right of petitioning, and the means by which, only, general petitions could be procured. He cared but little about what passed in the Irish Parliament. He could find no record of their debates; and if he had, he should still choose to rely on the Statute Book. But, as a matter of history, or anecdote, he might mention what was in the published debates of the Parliament. He could not vouch for their perfect correctness; but he must suppose they contained a representation of the sense of the speakers. When that Bill passed, Major Doyle suggested the propriety of quieting the apprehensions of the Quakers, who held meetings by delegation, to settle matters connected with Church and State, and who had taken some alarm at this new measure; upon which the then Irish Attorney-General declared, "that there was nothing more remote than the intention of interfering with such delegations, much less must it have been with respect to the managers of a petition. A great lawyer there said, "that if the object of the Bill was only to prevent such meetings as assumed the functions of Parliament, he should not have objected to it." He (Earl Stanhope) knew that he had the opinions of the greatest lawyers on his side: he meant out of that House; for as to those in it, he had not yet heard their opinions. Then there was another Irish member, a noble Lord now in that House, then Mr. Hobart, (Earl of Buckinghamshire.) What did he say Why, that the bill went only to affect such assemblies as Mr. George Ponsonby had alluded to! (Hear, hear!) The noble Earl maintained on various grounds the illegality of the letter; and said, that though he might not equally succeed in a speech, he had no doubt that in private conversation he would make every noble Lord present a proselyte to his opinions on this subject. He had endeavoured to press the law points on their attention: and he thought it would not be creditable to the House of Lords to decide contrary to law. Some might say, that, neverthe less, it might not be necessary to decide as he proposed. He wished, however, to keep the words "deemed it necessary to declare, &c." because it made his resolution more clear,

direct, forcible, and pithy. He did not desire to trouble their Lordships long. He should observe, that he was himself a freeholder of Queen's-county. Suppose there had been two meetings there, one for choosing managers, and another for appointing delegates, not for overturning or altering Church and State, but for some other purposes. He should have liked to see Mr. Pole there to apprehend any of them. If Mr. Pole had acted illegally, and in a scuffle somebody had been killed, he must have been tried for murder. See the consequences. Just as in Sir Francis Burdett's question with the House of Cominons: if any body had been killed in serving the execution of the warrant, why, if Sir Francis Burdett was wrong in his law, he must answer for the consequences; but if he turned out to be right, then the Serjeant must be tried for murder! There was no getting rid of that. So it might have been with Mr. Pole, who might have been sent across the Styx through his misconduct. At all events, he thought their Lordships must consider the letter as a most uncommendable ineasure on the part of the Irish Government. He concluded by moving his resolution.

The Earl of Liverpool said, the noble Earl might think the measure illegal, but he did not believe he would satisfy the House that it was so. The noble Earl had treated the question as to the legality of the measure, and not so much. as to its being one of sound discretion or not. The Act was passed under peculiar circumstances, to prevent confusion by a convention such as had been held before, professing to represent the people, or a portion of the people of Ireland for the purpose of effecting alterations in Church or State. There were disputes at the passing of the Bill; it being held that such meetings required no declaratory law, being illegal by common law. On that he should give no opinion. By their Lordships uniform course, no petitions could be received except from individuals as such, or from corporate bodies, as had been recently shewn in the case of a petition from the Livery of London, signed by the Lord Mayor, &c. which had not a corporate capacity, such as the Lord Mayor, Aldermen, and Common Council had, and which was recognised by law. Sometimes, by inadvertency, other petitions might indeed have been received. If Acts of Parliament were ransacked, they could not find any thing clearer than the first clause of this very Act. The mere change of names from delegates to managers could VOL. 11.-1811. 4 A

not vary the question. When they were in substance delegates, there was a clear contravention of the fair meaning of the law. He was not then discussing the legality of the Dublin Committee. When a circular letter was issued, for the appointment of managers, could any man doubt that the object was to get what would be called a complete representation of the country? That was avowed, and he thought there was no difference of opinion on it; but that however noble Lords might disapprove the mode pursued, still that such a convention to be held in Dublin was deemed improper. The difference of opinion was only as to the prudence of the Government. As to Government's not stopping the meeting at Dublin sooner, it was possible that men might go very near the wind, and evade the laws, or that they might not have any very blameable object in view; and Government surely would not be blamed hastily because they did not in such cases take strong or violent measures of suppression. They might wait to see what the object was, whether it was merely to petition, or to meet by delegations. This was therefore a matter of discretion. The Dublin Committee, composed of delegates from the parishes, was certainly not a legal meeting. Originally it was not delegated, but consisted of individuals, who framed a former petition. When it introduced delegates, it became illegal. Government exercised its prudence as to the putting the law in force, or leaving the matter to die away or rest where it was, till its patience was abused, and the attempt was made to extend a system of representation over the country after the petition had been concluded. The indulgence, patience, and forbearance of Government had been manifested, but the attempt at general representation or convention tore off the mask. It was to be observed further, that it was the intention of the Government to execute the Act with the greatest lenity and forbearance.

Lord Holland observed, that the question now at issue, which the noble Secretary seemed entirely to have overlooked, was not as to the discretion of the Irish Government, but as to the legality of what was required by Mr. Wellesley Pole in his circular letter. The noble Earl, with all his perspicuity, had not said one word as to whether that letter was legal or not, nor had he displayed his usual candour on the present occasion. The question was not, whether the Catholics had done what was illegal, but whether Mr. Pole had adopted measures that he was justi

fied in adopting, and had called upon the magistrates in Ireland to do that which they were justified in doing. He (Lord Holland) objected to the circular letter on the lega lity of it, to which point he would confine himself. And though he differed from Ministers as to many questions on the policy to be pursued with regard to Ireland, yet he admitted with pleasure, that the Duke of Richinond, a relation of his, though he had not the honour of his intimate acquaintance, had conducted himself in his government with so much moderation and prudence, that it was with pain he objected to this act of his administration. His first objection to the letter was, that it deduced inferences from the Act of the Irish Parliament of the 33 of his Majesty, that were neither authorised by the common law, nor by that statute. That Act required all those who were sitting in an unlawful assembly, to be proceeded against in a particular manner. It required the mayors and justices of the peace to disperse them; but it did not say, that they may be committed or held to bail. It went on to say, that, if resistance was made, then the individuals so resisting might be apprehended, and if convicted, were to be deemed guilty of a high misdemeanour. But the question at issue was, whether this would enable the Justices to hold to bail persons for merely assembling in the way mentioned in the letter. By the common law, there were only three grounds on which persons could be held to bail-treason, felony, or breach of the peace. Lord Camden, in delivering his opinion on the subject of general warrants, had said, that it was not law to hold persons to bail for libel, because it was not a breach of the peace, but only tending to a breach of the peace; and that great judge had at the same time remarked, that even the profligate Ministers of James II. had not held the seven Bishops to bail on the ground of a mere misdemeanour. Here, then, by this circular, a power was given to the justices of the peace in Ireland, namely, that of holding men to bail for a misdemeanour, which the law allowed only to judges of the supreme courts, in the case of information by the Attorney-General. But his second and principal objection was, that Mr. Pole's letter did not describe the offence as it was described in the Act. The words of the Act were, "If any person shall vote or act for the purpose of appointing such delegates, &c." What did Mr. Pole say in his letter? Why, that "all persons who shall attend, or vote, or act," for such a purpose, may be