committed or held to bail. Now it was quite evident that persons might attend such meetings for a purpose directly the reverse of the ostensible object. They might come there to oppose the proceedings, to state their objections, and to dissuade them from their illegal purpose. Let their Lordships consider in what a situation the magistrates were placed 'by such instructions. Had any individual magistrate acted upon them, there might have been actions against him from hundreds of the people of Ireland. He had no hesita tion in saying, that in his opinion the Catholic meeting was completely legal, and that the proceedings of Mr. Pole were authorised neither by common nor by statute law. Their rashness and impolicy, required to be still more severely stigmatised. On the trial of Mr. Gilbert Wakefield for a libel, his pamphlet was represented by the then AttorneyGeneral, (now the noble Lord on the woolsack) as stirring up to a pernicious and seditious activity; and this letter of Mr. Pole's might be well described as inciting the magistrates of Ireland to a pernicious and intermeddling activity. It was like drawing up an indictment against a whole people. Even had the proceedings been legal, in point of prudence and policy it would have been wise to abstain from them, and instead of irritating the people of Ireland, to build up in their affections the true and substantial bulwarks of that division of the empire. The Lord Chancellor observed, that there could be no doubt that the Convention Act operated upon all classes of people in Ireland, whether Protestants, Dissenters, or Catholics. Neither did it signify what name was given to the persons who met in such assemblies, whether managers or delegates, if in substance their object was that which the law forbade. He was ready to acknowledge that the language of Mr. Pole's letter appeared to him put together in rather a slovenly manner (hear, hear!) He meant no offence to that gentleman, but he did think that it might have been more correctly worded. But still he did not order any thing generally that was not contained in the Act, for he requires the magistrates to act in pursuance of it. This, then, was necessarily the meaning which appeared on the face of the letter; and was it necessary for Parliament to interpose in a case where the obvious direction to the magistrates was to act according to the statute? He could not help thinking it would be going much too far to accede to the present motion. If the object of the Catholic meet ing was only to petition Parliament, he knew of nothing, in either common or statute law, to prevent them, even though their petitions were got up in the manner which a noble Lord (Stanhope) had described as having been practised by him. Lord Grenville thought the House greatly indebted to the noble and learned Lord for his candour and openness in meeting the question. There was one point in the letter of Mr. Pole which had not been adverted to, though it required attention; and that was the complete relaxation of all those forms, the observance of which was so important to all good government. He must repeat, that it involved the complete subversion of the Irish Government. The Secretary for Ireland could not legally issue such instructions. The only proper way was by a proclamation of the Lord-Lieutenant in council. The noble Lord then went over the objections as to the legality of the powers conferred on the magistrates, and particularly dwelt on the hardship of demanding bail, which in Ireland particularly was no slight matter. On that ground alone their Lordships were bound, if not to punish such temerity, at least to record their disapprobation of such a grievous extension of the legal penalty, as that which made the mere act of being present at a meeting equally penal as voting, and other active measures. No defence could be set up on this point. Even the mere writing of letters for the purpose of convoking such an assembly was pronounced equally criminal, and exposed to the same severities. The learned Lord had asked, whether the pressure of circumstances was such as to require the present rosolution. Each of their Lordships must put this question to his own mind. But was it a light matter which placed three millious of people at the discretion of the magistrates, with regard to bail or imprisonment? It was now the fashion to talk of conciliating the people of Ireland. The most effectual way of doing so, was to afford them a practical conviction of their enjoying the same protection of law and justice with their fellow-subjects in this country. How could that be done, if official letters were circulated in that country, containing principles and instructions which could not be attempted in England? Their Lordships should take care that all those who live under the same law should enjoy the equal benefit and protection of that law. The Earl of Buckinghamshire observed, that though Mr. Pole's name was affixed to the letter in question, yet, doubtless, he had the best legal advice and assistance, namely, that of the Irish law officers of the Crown inpenning it it, therefore, was a little hard to throw the whole blame upon that gentleman. Lord Grenville contended, in explanation, that the only parliamentary way of considering the letter, was to regard it as the letter of the person whose name it bore. That was the true definition of parliamentary responsibility; and if departed from, the responsibility of public officers was at an end. There was no hardship, therefore, in ascribing this letter to the gentleman whose name was affixed to it. Lord Holland conceived, that the explanation of his noble friend was of a most constitutional nature. The Lord Chancellor again rose, and protested, that when he used the word "slovenly," he did not mean it in an offensive sense. What he meant by it was this, that if those who drew up the letter in question had only read it over again, and altered a word here and there in it, their Lordships would have been saved the trouble of the debate that night; which he could not help thinking was partly owing to some of their Lordships expecting that lawyers ought always to have more accuracy than other men. Lord Stanhope spoke in reply. He thanked the noble and learned Lord for the candour he had displayed that night, and therefore should not give him that trimming which he would have done, had the learned Lord acted otherwise. He was extremely glad that he had brought the subject before the House, on account of the able speeches which it had drawn forth from his noble friend near him; and he should now leave the question for every Lord to vote upon it as he thought proper. A division then took place, when there appeared, HOUSE OF COMMONS. THURSDAY APRIL 4. PAY OF OFFICERS IN THE ARMY. General Gascoyne rose to make the motion of which he had given notice." He regretted the business had not fallen into abler hands, and much more, that his Majesty's Ministers had not taken it up. Before he proceeded further, he wished to prevent any mistake which might arise from the wording of the notice. It had been imagined by some, that he wished to increase the pay, but he really had no such presumption belonging to him. He would always have that to emanate from the Crown. His Majesty's well-known predilection for the Army rendered any such attempt from him unnecessary. The illustrious Personage, also, who now held the reins of government, who was bred from his infancy in the army, very well knew the wants of the officers; and no one, he was sure, would be more ready to relieve them as far as was in his power. Having stated what he did not mean, it was necessary he should inform the House what he did mean. He then proceeded to shew that the first regulation of the military establishment in this country, according to Sir W. D'Avenant and Adam Smith, took place in 1614. An ensign had then allowed him, as pay, six days' labour or six days' pay of a common soldier, which was 3s. a day; a Lieutenant eight days, or 4s.; a Captain's pay was sixteen days, or 8s.; and the Major and LieutenantColonel in a similar ratio. In 1695, a Lieutenant-Colonel's real pay was 17s. a day; at present his pay is 17s. ; but being liable to the income-tax, makes it only 15s.; a Major's pay was at that time l5s.; now the same, but the income-tax makes it only 14s. 6d. In fact, the pay had, during all that length of time, continued the same, though all the necessaries of life had increased to double what they were at the period mentioned. He then shewed, that each Captain paid his own company according to the establishment, and not according to the effectives: that the noneffective fund was inquired into, in the year 1746, and the precise words he had used for this Committee, for which he meant to move, were the words used on that occasion. No proceedings, however, took place on this inquiry till 1766, when certain precautions were taken to preveut false musters; and it appeared from the examination of witnesses, that the stock-purse of the Captains which had till then prevailed was abolished, and a compensation made in lieu of it. By Mr. Burke's Bill, the Captains were allowed, in lieu of the stock-purse, 201. each. The object of his motion was this: that whatever the advantage was which they derived from the stock-purse, they ought to have been accordingly compensated. This was the chief cause why he should call on the House for a Committee to inquire into this. A few years ago a Bill passed into a law for abolishing the fees of Custom-house officers, and allowing them a fair compensation in lieu of the same; and where a fair and proper compensation was not made by the Commissioners, the Lords of the Treasury were empowered, on proof thereof, to order an additional sum. He wished the officers of the Army had some such friends as the Lords of the Treasury to stand by them, and see their compensation was just and fair; for if the Custom-house officers were thought deserving of such a clause in their favour, surely the officers of the Army ought to have the same benefit. He should be told, perhaps, that the pay had been increased in 1806: yes, if paying with one hand, and taking away with the other, might be called increase, it was so. The increase was Is. and a halfpenny: the shilling was taken from them by the income-tax, and the halfpenny remained as increase of pay. Officers in the Amy received less now than they did 150 years ago. Perquisites were then allowed to captains in particular; and if these perquisites had since been abolished, captains had as much right to a fair compensation as any other class of his Majesty's servants. He begged to observe, that the period in which they were taken away was a period of economy, which did not always act on the strict principles of justice. He wished to restore to captains what they once enjoyed or an equivalent in the way of compensation. He felt in common with the profession, the late allowance made by the Prince Regent, in placing officers of the Army on a footing with those of the Navy, with regard to wine, free of duty. He only lamented it was not carried a little further, and extended to a certain time after they left the country. The whole expense of the allowance would not amount to more than 50,000l. It might perhaps be said, that was a large sum; but the House had not long ago voted 100,0001. in favour and in aid of the Clergy; and he saw no claim which the clergy had on the House more strong than that of the officers of the army, or that they were not equally entitled to. The rank of captains ought particularly to be protected. Frederick the Great of Prussia always said, that captains were the sinews of the Army; and it is a fact, that they are better paid in every country than they are in this. All the increase he should ask would be 5s. a day to the captains, instead of 3s. He asked no more than justice; he con |