Nothing memorable occurred in the discussion of the customary addresses, which were carried in both Houses without a division.

A further proof of the light in which the Regent viewed the authority with which he was invested, was given by a communication made to the House of Commons by the chancellor of the exchequer, that his Royal Highness, on being informed that a motion was intended to be made for some provision for the Regent's household, declared that he would not, for his own personal magnificence, add another burden to those already imposed on the nation. This fact was further explained by Mr. Adam, who said, from authority, that his Royal Highness declined any proposition for an establishment, or a grant from the privy purse; and that, during a temporary regency, he would not accept that which ought to belong to the crown.

The first subject of importance brought before the regency parliament related to a measure adopted by the government in Ireland respecting the catholics of that country. This numerous class of subjects had long been intent upon the means for obtaining that restitution to the full rights of citizens which they considered as their due; and a plan was adopted, at least by the major part of them, of forming in Dublin a standing delegation, consisting of ten persons elected from each county charged with the management of their affairs, not only for the purpose of petitioning, but for that of the redress of the general grievances under which they laboured. This kind of organization gave an alarm to government, and produced a circular letter by Mr. Wellesley Pole, secretary to the lord-lieutenant (the Duke of Richmond) addressed to the sheriffs and chief magistrates of all the counties in Ireland. After stating the report, that the catholics of the county in which the person resided to whom the letter was addressed were to be, or had been, called together to appoint delegates to an unlawful assembly in Dublin styling itself the catholic committee, the writer, in the name of the lord-lieutenant, required him, in pursuance of an act of the 33d of the King,

to cause to be arrested and committed to prison, unless bail should be given, all persons within his jurisdiction guilty of having been in any way concerned in issuing notices for such election or appointment, or of having attended meetings for such purpose. The intelligence of this proceeding excited much surprize and alarm in England, and on February 18th, the Earl of Moira brought the matter before the House of Lords. After some observations on the letter, his lordship put the question to the minsters, whether the measure had been settled by them before Mr. Pole's departure for Ireland? The Earl of Liverpool in reply asserted that they knew nothing of the matter till the news arrived, but that it was accompanied with reasons for the procedure which justified it; and Lord Moira having moved that the letter should be laid on the table, Lord Liverpool moved for a copy of the letter of the secretary of the catholic committee; both of which motions were agreed to. The subject was introduced in a similar manner into the House of Commons by Mr. Ponsonby, where Mr. Perceval made the same assertion of the previous ignorance of the ministers relative to the measure. In both Houses motions were made by the opposition for the production of copies of all the dispatches to and from the lord-lieutenant referring to this business, which were negatived. Mr. Pole having come over from Ireland during these discussions, and appearing in his place in the House of Commons on March 3d, Mr. Ponsonby made a motion for copies of various papers and documents, which drew from the secretary a particular explanation of the whole transaction. His principal object was to shew in what respect the proceedings of the catholic committee of 1809, which had not been interfered with, differed from those which had produced this act of government; and he stated, that in the former case they had confined their deliberations to petitioning, without attempting any thing like delegation; whereas in the latter, they had come to a resolution of appointing delegates to manage, not the petition, but the catholic affairs, and that a committee of grievances

sat weekly, and imitated all the forms of the House of Commons. In answer to a question from Mr. Ponsonby, whether the law officers had been consulted on the occasion, he affirmed that the lord-lieutenant had taken the opinions of the lord chancellor, the solicitorgeneral, and the attorney-general, and that the latter had drawn up the letter issued by himself. In conclusion, Mr. Ponsonby's motion was negatived by 133 against 48. The topic was again agitated in the House of Lords on a motion from Earl Stanhope, when the letter was attacked chiefly on the ground of its illegality, as being unauthorized either by the common law, or the act to which it referred. The lord chancellor, in defending the measure generally, confessed that its language did appear to him to be put together in a slovenly manner. The division, however, was in favour of the ministers by 21 against 6; and thus terminated the parliamentary proceedings respecting this remarkable letter.

It now remains, without breaking the continuity of subject, to relate the consequences of the resolution adopted by government with respect to the Roman catholics of Ireland. On February 23d, two magistrates of Dublin, by direction of the administration, repaired to a house at which the catholic committee was accustomed to assemble, and were shown to a room in which were a number of gentlemen, some of them in the act of signing the petition of the catholics to parliament. Lord Ffrench, who was called to the chair, demanded of the magistrates by what authority they came there and was answered, that understanding it to be a meeting of the catholic committee, they came, by order of the government, to require it to disperse. A conversation followed, which terminated with the departure of one of the magistrates to consult Mr. Pole. On his return, he said, that as Lord Ffrench had assured them that the meeting was only of catholic gentlemen for the purpose of signing and forwarding a petition to parliament, and not of the catholic committee, it was not the order of government that they should be interrupted.

;

The petition was afterwards drawn up and presented, and its fate in parliament is now to be mentioned.

On May 20th, the catholic petition was presented to the House of Commons by Mr. Grattan; and on the 31st he moved that the same should be read, and also the votes of the House conveying thanks to the armies under Lord Wellington and General Graham, (in which were many Irish catholics.) From these documents he took his ground to shew that there was nothing in the Roman catholic religion itself which encouraged disaffection, but that the manner in which the catholics had been treated by government was the true cause of their discontents. After enlarging with great force on these heads, he concluded with moving that the petition be referred to a committee of the whole House. motion was supported by other speakers; and on the other hand was opposed on the grounds of a supposed inherent principle of intolerance in the religion of Rome, of the apprehension that the catholics would still be rising in their demands, and of danger to the protestant establishment should their claims be allowed. On a division there appeared for the motion 83, against it 146.

The

The catholic petition was introduced to the House of Lords on June 18th, by Lord Donoughmore, who moved for referring it to a committee. In the debate which followed, the same arguments were urged on each side which had been produced in the other House. It was chiefly remarkable from a reference to the opinions of Mr. Pitt on the subject; Lord Redesdale and the lord chancellor affirming that in their conversations with him, it appeared that he had no safe-guards to propose for the effectual security of the protestant religion if the catholic claims were granted, whence an inference might be made, that he had other motives besides the refusal of them for quitting the ministry; whilst Earl Spencer and Lord Grenville rose to defend his memory from such an imputation of duplicity. The division on the motion gave contents 62, non

contents 121.

The Irish catholics were too zealous and confident in their cause to regard their parliamentary defeat as a reason for renouncing their plans; and the summer was actively employed in meetings for the nomination of delegates, several of which were attended by protestant gentlemen, who regarded catholic emancipation as a branch of the general liberty of Ireland. On the other hand, government resolved not to submit passively to the violation of its injunctions. An aggregate meeting being held at Dublin on July 9th, for the appointment of delegates to the general committee of catholics, five persons were apprehended by a warrant from the lord chief justice, for a breach of the convention act, one of whom, Dr. Sheridan, was put upon his trial before the court of King's Bench in Dublin. Either from some defect in the evidence, or from a different opinion concerning the nature of the imputed crime from that given by the judge in his charge, the jury brought in a verdict of not guilty, which was received with enthusiastic applause by the crowded audience; and the attorney-general declined proceeding to try the other persons implicated in the same offence. A new committee of delegates being at length completely formed, it assembled on October 19th, to the number of nearly 300, at the theatre in Fishamble-street, Lord Fingal in the chair. A petition to parliament was read and unanimously approved, and the whole business of the meeting was dispatched in so short a time, that the police magistrates came too late to disperse it as an unlawful assembly. The same committee met again on December 23d, when it was formally dispersed by a magistrate; and on the same day, a number of the members assembling at a tavern as private gentlemen, signed a requisition for an aggregate meeting of the catholics. On the 26th, the aggregate meeting was held, when a set of resolutions was passed, strongly censuring the proceedings of the Irish government, and expressing a determination not to submit. in silence to the perversion of law and the abuse of power which was asserted to have been manifested. It was also resolved to present an humble address