Sir H. Parnell said, he wished to move that these Resolutions be brought up. The Speaker replied, that the hon. member had described a certain paper which he held in his hand to be a series of Resolutions come to by the Catholics of Ireland, and he understood him to intend to move that the paper so described be brought up. Sir H. Parnell rejoined, that he should move the first Resolution, finding that to be a more proper course, than taking them generally. The Speaker. The hon. member now makes another motion. Which, therefore, is the motion that he intends to propose? I understood him to intend to move two different things; first, that the Resolutions should be brought up; and afterwards, that the House should agree to the first Resolution. Sir H. Parnell answered, that understanding the House would not agree to his first motion, he had changed it. The Speaker. Then the hon. member offers to the House the first of these Resolutions for their assent. The question then is: "That it is expedient that the Roman Catholic inhabitants of these realms shall not be liable or subject to any laws for the limitation, charging, or discovering of their estates, real or personal, or touching the acquiring, enjoying, holding, or disposing of property of any kind or nature, save such as the Protestant inhabitants of these realms are liable and subject to." Mr. Peter Moore seconded the motion. Mr. Bankes, observing that he should abstain at present from entering at large into the merits of the Catholic question, suggested for the consideration of the hon. baronet, that he was proceeding disadvantageously for his own object; because he himself, for instance, if called upon to vote upon this Resolution, as it appeared to be one of a string of resolutions, should feel it his duty to vote against it; and thus if the motion were rejected, the hon. baronet was liable to be deprived of the head and front of the object which he desired to attain. The clauses alluded to by the hon. baronet were, he was aware, ordered to be printed; but that order was made through a sort of private consent and convention between gentlemen on both sides of the question, to which convention he and others felt it inconsistent to accede with respect to the present resolutions, and of that the hon, baronet had had due notice. On these grounds he thought it would be more advisable on the part of the hon. baronet not to persevere in his motion, which was the less necessary now that the hon. baronet had had an opportunity of fully apprising the House of the nature of his propositions. Mr. Yorke seconded the views of the last speaker, declaring that he would be better pleased if the hon. baronet would consent to withdraw his motion. But he must add, that the hon. baronet's mode of proceeding appeared to him to be altogether novel and irregular-quite in opposition indeed to the standing order of the House, with regard to any question upon the subject of religion. If it were, as it appeared, the only object of the hon. baronet to get his Resolutions published, there were various means by which he might have contrived to give them publicity, without this mode of taking the House by surprise. As the notice of a motion upon this subject stood for Tuesday se'nnight, he should not at present enter into the general question; against the object of which, however, he felt no hesitation in protesting at the present time. The right hon. gentleman concluded with observing, that he could not help expressing his regret that this subject had been taken out of the hands by which it was usually conducted, because, if it had remained in those hands, it was not likely that the House would have been exposed to such inconvenience and irregularity as the present mode of proceeding involved. Mr. Peter Moore declared that his support to the motion arose from the fact, that certain Resolutions, explanatory of the redress which the petitioners sought, were identified with it. This would enable them the better to judge, how far they would go, and where they would stop. He could see no irregularity in receiving resolutions of this kind, and having them printed pro forma: nor could he see how such a procedure could anticipate the general discussion. Sir H. Parnell willingly acquiesced in the suggestion of the hon. member (Mr. Bankes), and withdrew his motion, as the only object he had in view was accomplished, namely, that of explaining to the House the objects necessary to satisfy the wishes of the Catholics of Ireland. Mr. Peel observed that the precedent alluded to had no analogy to the case of the hon. baronet, for the hon. baronet, although deputed to act for a certain class of his Majesty's subjects, was but an individual member of that House, whereas the right hon. member for Liverpool was deputed to act by the House itself, being one of a committee appointed to draw up a Bill, of which, according to the resolutions of the House, some provision for the security of the Protestant establishment must necessarily form a part. Therefore that right hon. member was acting in an official capacity in bringing forward the clauses which the House agreed to have printed. Sir H. Parnell conceived, that it was not necessary for him to prove an exact analogy in order to justify his reference to the precedent alluded to. The motion was then withdrawn. MILITIA EMBODYING BILL.] Lord Castlereagh rose, pursuant to notice, in order to move for leave to bring in a Bill to authorize the drawing out and embodying of the whole or any part of the regular Militia. On the assurances which the House had already given of a disposition to support the executive authority in making adequate preparations for the security of the country in the present emer. gency, he grounded this proposition; and in the course of the discussion of the Bill further opportunity would be afforded for the consideration of the nature of that emergency, together with the general circumstances in which the empire was placed. At present he did not think it necessary to enter into these circumstances; and the more so, as he hoped to be enabled on Monday to bring down a Message from the Prince Regent, with regard to the arrangements which had been entered into with our Allies, together with copies of the subsidiary treaties which had been concluded. That Message he should propose to be considered on Tuesday, and on Wednesday it was intended to submit a motion in conformity with the subsidiary treaties. He was therefore confident, that under the existing state of things, the House would not hesitate in enabling him to bring in the Bill. As such a measure always had effect when the country was menaced, the very circumstance of the probability of a war with France was sufficient to authorize it; at any rate, it required no stretch of construction to sanction the Bill, for the very nature of the preparations which it was the duty of the country to make, and the necessity of sending so great a proportion of our regular force to the Continent, rendered it fit that the internal security of the country should be provided for. There were various reasons of policy also, which must induce the House to lose no time in passing the Bill, as there was a great portion of the militia whose term of enlistment would soon expire. He wished to apprise the House, that a regulation had been made by Government, which had given entire satisfaction to the men, by providing for their discharge within four months from the 1st of May. It was not intended, by this measure, to violate the good faith of the Government towards the men in the smallest degree. There were, however, certainly very considerable motives for avoiding delay. He was not aware that it was necessary to go into any farther particulars at present, as the state of warlike preparation in which we are placed had been recognized by Parliament; but it would be admitted that it would not be proper for the House to separate for the summer, without providing a measure to preserve the internal security of the country. The noble lord then moved, "That leave be given to bring in a Bill to authorize, under present circumstances, the drawing out and embodying of the British and Irish Militia, or any part thereof." Lord Milton thought, that by the present regulations, if the five years for which the militia-men were enlisted had expired during the war, they would not be entitled to their discharge. Lord Castlereagh replied, that the contract was different with the balloted men, and many that had been raised as substitutes. Viscount Folkestone could not omit the opportunity of just noticing to the House how completely the opinions of the crown lawyers respecting the embodying of the militia were overthrown by the motion of the noble lord. The Attorney and Solicitor General had stated, that the militia being once called out, it was optional in the Crown to keep them embodied; and they had expressly argued, that any portion of the militia being embodied, the Crown might call out the whole of them again, without giving notice to Parliament. According to this doctrine, therefore, the bill which the noble lord proposed to bring in was totally unnecessary; but he believed, that the noble lord attached very little weight to those opinions, or he would not have consented to bring in the Bill. He condemned the apparent intention, as he understood the speech of the noble lord, of continuing those practices with respect to the militia, which tended directly to overthrow that wise and ancient system upon which it had hitherto been conducted; he alluded to the innovation of allowing militia-men to be drafted into the regulars, upon every temporary difficulty in which the country might happen to be placed. Lord Castlereagh said, that the reason why the Bill was necessary was, because a great part of the militia had been disembodied. And whatever opinion might be entertained of the prerogative possessed by the Crown to continue the militia, when once called out, it was never understood that the Crown had the power, in case of war, to call out the disembodied militia by its own authority. Viscount Folkestone replied, that the 144th clause of the Act had been cited as authorizing the Crown to call out the militia, and keep it embodied. The Attorney General would leave the noble lord to enjoy his imaginary triumph, and would only say, that the motion made by the noble Secretary of State, to call out the whole or any part of the militia in the present circumstances of the country, by no means implied that the opinion of the law officers was unsound the opinion given was, that when the militia were legally called out, his Majesty might disembody or embody them as the public service required. A new state of things like the present might, however, justify a different course. Mr. Tierney begged to ask the noble lord, whether any, and what answer had been returned to the communication which the French Government had made to this country, and which was afterwards transmitted to the Congress at Vienna ? Did the noble lord intend to give any information to the House on that subject on Monday next? Lord Castlereagh replied, that the communication which he intended to make on Monday would embrace the point to which the right hon. gentleman had alluded. DUBLIN HARBOUR.] The House having resolved itself into a committee, to consider of making provision for the improvement of Dublin Harbour, Mr. Vesey Fitzgerald said, that the neces sity of improving the harbour of Dublin was so strongly felt by the merchants and ship-owners of that city, that they most cheerfully concurred in the proposition which he was about to make for levying certain duties upon vessels entering that port; and their sentiments would now have been before the House in the shape of a petition, if unfortunately the time had not elapsed when it could be presented. He would not take up the time of the House in enforcing the necessity of making the proposed improvement in that har bour, because it must be obvious to the gentlemen opposite to him, and, indeed, to every person acquainted with that port. In order to defray the expense of this work, he should propose a duty of 6d. a ton upon every foreign vessel, 4d. a ton upon every British vessel, and 2d. a ton upon all coasting and coal vessels entering that port. And as the proposed alteration would contribute greatly to the safety and accommodation of persons arriving there in the packets, he should propose, that each cabin passenger should pay 2s. 6d. and that the same sum should be paid for each horse and carriage brought by the packet. In addition to these, he should propose a duty upon invoices, outvoices. cockets, &c. making altogether about 15,000l. a year. The sum necessary for the completion of this work was to be advanced by the Exchequer; and the sum to be raised by these duties, was to be applied to the payment of the interest and principal of the sum so advanced. The right hon. gentleman concluded with moving the Resolutions. Mr. Shaw, of Dublin, expressed his decided approbation of the measure. Sir H. Parnell also spoke in favour of it. Alderman Atkins said, he was very much averse to any tax upon shipping. He thought it would be better, if the whole expense was paid out of the public purse. He added, that if these duties were imposed, the ship-owners would be obliged to raise the price of their freight. Mr. Wellesley Pole expressed his surprise at the objection of the hon. alderman. Every seaman knew how dangerous the bay of Dublin was; and he was convinced that there was not a ship-owner, whose vessels entered the bay of Dublin, who would not cheerfully pay the duty to have the harbour improved. Mr. Peele said, the worthy alderman's argument answered itself; he first ob jected to any tax upon shipping; and in the same breath said, that the ship-owners would not pay it themselves, but lay it upon the freight, so that, in fact, the citizens of Dublin would really bear the expense. He then stated the great number of vessels lost in the bay of Dublin, and particularly two transports in 1807, when between 7 and 800 soldiers were lost to the country. Vienna: now, before the House decided that it was expedient to support those engagements by a war, and by subsidies to our Allies, it was surely necessary that their lordships should be informed of the nature of them. Of those engagements, however, they were at that time entirely ignorant, excepting only those which had been made as to Genoa. But as to the partition of Saxony, which, if it possibly could be made more important, was rendered more important by the circumstances of the present time, no information whatever was before the House, nor as to any of the other arrangements which had been made at the Congress, although the House was to be called on to say that it was just and expedient that the country should undertake a war, one of the foun General Gascoyne did not object generally to the measure; but as it must affect the interests of his constituents, he hoped the right hon. gentleman would not press it, but give time to the merchants of Liverpool to consider of the proposed duties, and to state their sentiments upon the subject. The Resolution was agreed to, and the report was ordered to be received to-dations of which was to be the mainte morrow. HOUSE OF LORDS. Friday, May 19. TREATIES WITH THE ALLIES-OVERTURE FROM FRANCE.] Earl Grey said, that as no objection had been made to the production of the overture which had been made by the present Government of France to this country, he wished to know whether it would be laid before the House, and on what day? The Earl of Liverpool said, it would be laid before the House on Monday. He should at the same time observe, that he believed it was nearly word for word the same as that which had been printed in the French papers as a circular overture to the different Powers of Europe. Earl Grey said, that he remembered having seen such a document in the public papers, though he did not exactly recollect its substance, but it was certainly necessary that the House should have it in an authentic shape before it; and also that more time should be afforded the House for the consideration of it than was now proposed to be given. Neither would any time be sufficient to enable them to decide on the question which was to be submitted to them, in the present very defective state of their information. Not only was this country engaged to the several Treaties of which, in substance, they were in possession, but in the Treaty of the 25th of March, there was an article by which the Allies agreed to maintain the arrangements which should have been signed and contracted at the Congress of nance of those arrangements. There was another article in the Treaty of the 25th of March, which stipulated, that it should be proposed to the King of France, now at Ghent, to accede to that Treaty, and to state what degree of assistance he should be able to render to the common cause of the alliance. Now, it was proper that the House should be in possession, not only of the invitation which had been made to Louis 18, but also of his answer, and the extent of means which he possessed of cooperating with the Allies. The propriety of our entering into an alliance with Louis 18, it was not then the time to discuss; but that the House should be in possession of the state of our engagements with that monarch there could be no doubt. There was another point, on which, though not connected with the Treaties, he wished to receive some explanation. A declaration had been published, purporting to be the proclamation of the duke of Wellington, which he had no doubt would be found to be a forgery emanating from some person or other, as it was totally inconsistent with the declaration attached to the Treaty of the 25th of March. He however wished that the noble earl opposite would state that it was a forgery, and also whether he was possessed of any information as to the person from whom that forgery issued. The Earl of Liverpool had not the least hesitation in assuring the noble earl, that he had never seen nor heard of that proclamation before he had observed it in an evening_paper, in which it was copied from a French paper of the 13th. He could also say, that it was highly impro bable that any proclamation should have been issued by the duke of Wellington in the present state of things. As to the source from which that proclamation could have originated, it was of course impossible that he could speak, as he knew of the existence of it, as he had before said, only from the public prints. As to the other points which had been mentioned by the noble earl, he did not wish then to enter into any discussion of them, but he could state that the communication from the Government of France having been referred to the Allies at Vienna, it was decided that no negociation should be entered into upon it. Such was the fact, and he did not conceive that any further information could be given. On the other point mentioned by the noble earl, viz. the accession of the King of France to the Treaty of Alliance, the accession of the King of France had certainly not been received in this country, though the Treaty had been submitted to him; and as to the means of the King of France it would not be in his power to submit any information to the House; but certainly it was not on the existence or extent of those means that he should ground the proposition which he had on Tuesday to submit. He therefore thought there was no reason for further delay; whether there had already been too long a delay, was another question. As to the proceedings at the Congress, the noble earl observed, that until they were reduced to the form of a Treaty, he should not be enabled to lay any message on the subject before the House. Earl Grey remarked, what an extraordinary state the House was placed in. The Treaty of the 25th of March agreed to maintain the arrangements concluded and signed at the Congress of Vienna, and the House was to be called on to support that Treaty, without being in possession of the arrangements on which it was founded-not only to support it, but to give large sums to our Allies, raised from the people of this country. He would, therefore, intreat the House to consider whether the House could enter into the discussion without that information. There was also one of the Treaties which had not been ratified. He wished to know what power it was whose ratification had not been received? The Earl of Liverpool answered, Austria; but certain intelligence had been received, that the Treaty had been ratified by that power. The noble Earl then stated, that he should not submit any proposition to the House to approve of any part of the arrangements at Congress, which were not laid before them. The Earl of Darnley observed, that the declaration of Louis 18, respecting which he had put a question when it first made its appearance, was in effect the same as that which had been said to have been issued by the duke of Wellington, for that Monarch stated that his Allies would acknowledge him alone as the Sovereign of France. He wished to know, therefore, whether that proclamation of Louis 18 was authentic, and whether there was any objection to lay it before the House? No answer having been given, The Marquis of Buckingham observed, that the conduct of his Majesty's ministers had in all respects been so irregular, that he was justified in departing from the strict course of order, by making some further observations. The declaration of the 30th of March stipulated to support the arrangements which had been signed and concluded at Vienna-not, it was to be observed, the arrangements which might hereafter be concluded. It did not matter in what shape the noble earl submitted his proposition to the House; they had to look to the Treaty itself, which they were to be called on to approve of, and until the noble earl could rail the seal from off the bond," the House, by approving of the Treaty, would approve the arrangements of the Congress to which it referred. He thought it was not too much that the House and the country should ask what those arrangements were. It was not now the time to consider whether the question had been put off too long; he believed it had been put off too long for the strength of the country; but it was imperative on the House to know what they were to bind themselves to support. He should again inquire whether any copy of a declaration of his Most Christian Majesty had been issued at Ghent? The Earl of Liverpool said, that his Majesty's Government were not answerable for any declaration issued by any foreign power or state. Earl Grey wished to know, whether there was any reason to doubt the authenticity of that declaration ? The Earl of Liverpool said, that he could not deny or affirm the authenticity of any thing issued by Louis 18. The Earl of Darnley said, that to bring # |