§ Earl Stanhoperose, in pursuance of notice, to make a motion respecting Mr. Pole's Circular Letter, [See p. 1.] His lordship first moved, that the letter be read, and also the Convention Act of Ireland; which having been read, he said he should reverse the usual practice of the House, by stating his motion first, and giving his reasons afterwards. He stated his motion to be for declaring the letter of Mr. Pole to be a violation of the law, inasmuch as it required the magistrates to do acts not authorised by the law, and wholly inconsistent with a due and proper spirit of conciliation. His lordship observed that the Convention Act was a penal statute, and it was a well known maxim of law, that all penal statutes must be strictly construed. He then read passages of the Convention Act, to shew that it was directed against delegated assemblies, met for the purpose of discussing any alteration in matters established in church or state, and was not intended to operate against meetings for the purpose of petitioning for the redress of grievances. Were persons delegated to present a petion to be considered as delegates within the meaning of the act? If so, three millions of his majesty's subjects would be deprived of the right of petitioning. Were persons appointed to go round to get a petion signed to be considered as delegates or managers within the meaning of the act? Upon these points the law, he contended, was clear, and that such acts would be perfectly legal. The noble earl related an anecdote upon this subject of a Petition from Kent, during the last war, for peace, in which he took an active part, and where by means of Committees in the different divisions of the county, 17,000 signatures were obtained to the petition, which he presented to his Majesty. Had a similar circumstance occurred in Ireland, it would, he contended, have been perfectly legal, and yet Mr. Pole's Letter jumbled together things illegal and legal, 694 and made no distinction. Supposing a person attended one of the meetings pointed at in the Letter, not for the purpose of voting in the election of delegates, but for the purpose of dissuading the rest from voting, and telling them their conduct was illegal, still under the directions of the Letter he would be liable to be arrested and held to bail, merely for being present at the meeting. Here also was another violation of the law, for the act did not authorise the arresting and holding to bail, but merely the dispersing of illegal meetings, and in the case of resistance then the persons resisting became criminal. He defied any lawyer or any one who ever had been a lawyer, to shew that he was wrong in his law as applied to this Letter—a Letter which was written without temper, which not only invited but required the magistrates to do acts not authorised by law, and which was pregnant with danger to the liberties of the subject. He wished there had been a meeting in the Queen's county, of which he was a freeholder, and he would have met Mr. Pole there, if that gentleman had chosen to attend to disperse the meeting; and if a scuffle had ensued, and the death of an individual had been the consequence of the illegal act of Mr. Pole, that gentleman must have been indicted for murder. He did not apply his argument to meetings of Catholics, and strongly objected to the mention of Roman Catholics in the letter; but the law of the case applied equally to all meetings, whether of Catholics or Protestants. It was clearly shewn on the discussion of the Bill in the Irish parliament, that it was not intended by the act to prevent all delegated meetings, but was only meant to apply to meetings attempting to carry on discussions upon proposed alterations in matters established in church and state. It was observed at the time by a member of that parliament, that the Quakers sometimes appointed delegates to discuss matters connected with church and state, and it was replied by the then Attorney-General of Ireland, that the act was not intended to apply to them. It was also stated at that time by Mr. George Ponsonby, that if the act was only intended to suppress meetings attempting to discuss measures like a parliament, he would not oppose it; and it was replied by Mr. Hobart, that that was the only object of the bill, and that it was not intended to interfere. He trusted that the latter gentleman, now a peer of that House, would support 695 the opinion he then gave. His lordship, intended, upon these grounds, that the letter of Mr. pole was a violation of the law, in requiring the magistrates to do acts which were not authorized by law, and concluded with a motion declaring it to be so.
The Earl of Liverpooldoubted whether the noble earl had succeeded in convincing any noble lord in. that House that the letter was a violation of the law. He said the object of the Convention Act was well known. It might be a question, however, whether even at common law such an assembly of delegates would not be illegal. It was the uniform course of parliamentary proceedings for instance, that no petition should be received, except from the individuals, subscribing it, or from corporate bodies; and though sometimes petitions of an opposite description were received, yet it proceeded merely from inadvertency. That principle was recognized on a late occasion, when a Petition from the Livery of London was presented, signed by the Lord Mayor and Aldermen, who not being authorized to represent the Livery, the Petition was refused. On looking to the preamble of the act of the 33d of the king, the object of the act would be found very clearly expressed; and though the noble earl had attempted to draw a distinction between managers and delegates, the name under which these delegates were elected, was of very inconsiderable importance,: if they were delegates in substance. They were guilty of a contravention of the act of parliament in every fair view of that. act. When Circular Letters were sent to the different counties of Ireland, for the purpose of procuring representatives to sit in the Catholic Committee, no man could doubt that this was a contravention of the Convention Act. It had been asked if the Committee was illegal, why was it allowed so long to continue its sittings? He had no doubt that from the moment representatives began to sit in the Committee, it was an illegal meeting, but it might not be expedient to put the law in execution on every violation of it. He saw no ground for the motion of the noble earl.
Lord Hollandwished to recall the attention of the House to the real state of the question. The question at issue was not whether the meeting in Dublin was legal or illegal, or whether the electing of managers was legal or illegal, but whether the mode of proceeding pointed out in the letter of 696 Mr. Secretary Pole, was a legal mode of proceeding. It. certainly was a presumption in favour of his noble friend's motion, that the noble Secretary, whose perspicuity and distinctness were well known, had not said a single word in favour of the legality of Mr. Pole's letter. Supposing government would not recognize the legality of the Petition of the livery of London, did it therefore follow, that those who signed it were guilty of an illegal act, and could be held to bail for it? Mr. Pole had done what by the Convention Act he was not authorised to do. Admitting that those who assembled in consequence of Mr. Hay's letter were guilty of a misdemeanor, was the Irish Secretary authorized to issue such a letter as he had issued? It was with reluctance that he brought himself to censure the conduct of the Irish government; for he considered the noble person at the head of that government, to whom he had the hononr of being related, to have conducted himself with great moderation and prudence; and for one he was willing to pay him his tribute of gratitude.—His objections to the letter were of two sorts: first, Mr. Pole had deduced consequences from the 33d of the king, which he was not justified in deducing. Secondly, The offence against which his letter was directed was not the offence specified in the Convention Act. The noble lord then proceeded to comment upon the act of the 33d of the king, and the letter of Mr. Pole, and to shew that some of the acts in that letter for doing which their author were directed to be apprehended and held to bail, were not prohibited by the act of parliament, and were in themselves innocent. He said, no man could be held to bail at common law for a misdemeanor. If it was legal to hold to bail for a misdemeanor, then the proceedings in the case of the Seven Bishops were perfectly legal. If any of the magistrates, in the execution of the injunctions of Mr. Pole's letter on their being resisted, had proceeded to acts of violence, from which lives had been lost, they would certainly have been, as was said by his noble friend, guilty of murder; and actions of wrongous imprisonment certainly would have lain against every magistrate who should have attempted to carry the directions of Mr. Pole's letter into execution. He recollected that when a very worthy and a very learned man, the late Gilbert Wakefield, was tried, the indictment had run in rather a whimsical form; of the words being, as far as he could remem- 697 ber, "That he had by certain libellous passages stirred up his Majesty's liege subjects to a mischievous and seditious inactivity." Mr. Wellesley Pole's letter did, on the contrary, stir up, not the people, but the magistrates, not to inactivity but to pernicious, dangerous, and illegal activity; and if Mr. Wakefield was to be punished for working upon the people to be so wickedly quiet and inactive, what must be said of Mr. Wellesley Pole, who had prompted the magistracy to break the laws and throw the whole country in confusion, by forcibly imprisoning two thirds of the population of the country? While, however, he condemned the spirit which dictated, and the language in which the letter was drawn up, he would not thereby involve the whole of the Irish government in an indiscriminate censure. He must do justice to the moderation and impartiality which had uniformly marked the conduct of his noble relative, the duke of Richmond, since he had been placed at the head of that government; but their lordships would do well, while they made this just exception; not to pass unnoticed and uncensured the inconsiderate and dangerous interpretation of the law which had that night been set up as a justification of the conduct of the Secretary of the Irish government; in issuing such a letter as that to which the attention and reprobation of that House had been so properly directed by his noble friend.
The Lord Chancellerjustified the general tenor of the Letter; though he was willing to confess that in some parts of it, the words were somewhat slovenly got together. The Convention Bill, to which such frequent reference had been made, had not in its view the Catholics of Ireland. It had in contemplation the assembling of any description of persons who met together for the purpose of electing others who were to interfere in matters of church and state. It was the nature and intention of such meetings that made them legal or illegal. It mattered not under what denomination they were known; whether delegates, managers, or any other. They would take their character from their mode of proceeding. If the assembly which these delegates or managers proposed to elect was an unlawful assembly, so would the assembly be which should elect them. The elected, or appointed, according to the nature of the object for which they should have been chosen, communicated the legality or illegality of their 698 meeting to the body electing them. Such was the interpretation of the law upon which the letter proceeded; and he could not consider it as improper, much less as rash and dangerous. When he applied the term slovenly to, the letter of Mr. Pole, he by no means intended to impute any blame to that gentleman. The fault was not with him. Perhaps a little more care and caution in the drawing of it up might have removed all room for cavil; at least it might have saved many of the observations which had protracted unnecessarily the present discussion. He thought it would be, therefore, going a great deal too far, to accede to the motion.
§ Lord Grenvillewas willing to acknowledge the candour and the fairness with which the noble and learned lord had spoken of Mr. Secretary Pole's Letter, but he could not concur in the inferences which that noble and learned lord had drawn from the statement laid down by him. He should not now go into any detail of the arguments which might be urged on the present occasion. He would content himself with asking whether, by the mere act of being present at such an assembly, without voting, or otherwise concurring in the business of such a meeting, could subject a person to the penalties of the act? The noble and learned lord would not surely state the affirmative. Yet, by virtue of Mr. Pole's Letter, any man, merely for the crime of simply being present at such an assembly, was liable to be arrested and imprisoned. Their lordships would no doubt feel themselves bound to record on their Journals their marked disapprobation of such an interpretation of the law, and of the dangerous measure which had been grounded on it. He could not help considering such a stretch of power resorted to in Ireland, as a fresh proof of a disposition hostile to every measure and demonstration of conciliation towards that country. When duly considered, how monstrous must it not appear! What, make three millions of our fellow subjects liable to be arrested and imprisoned at the will of a Secretary of the government! How would such a doctrine sound in the ears of Englishmen? How would they relish such a practice? What clamours would be raised in England, if not three million, but three hundred, nay, if thirty persons were to be so arrested, and thrown into prison; such was the difference of opinion between the 699 inhabitants of these two parts of the empire—such the different temper of the law as administered respecting them! He should therefore support the motion of the noble earl.
§ The Earl of Buckinghamshirethought that Mr. Pole had been dealt rather harshly by during the course of the debate. He was, however, confident that no measure had been adopted by that gentleman, nor the letter in question written by him, without the advice and approbation of the law officers of Ireland. It was therefore hard to impute to him only, whatever blame might be thought to attach to the letter, though, no doubt, Mr. Pole must take his due share of responsibility for the measure. As to the intention of the Convention Act, he would confidently say, that it was not levelled against the body of the Roman Catholics, but was passed at the close of a session, and chiefly directed against the meetings of the United Irishmen, from which improper proceedings were to be apprehended at that time.
§ Lord Grenvilledisclaimed any intention of treating Mr. Pole with harshness or disrespect. There would be an end to all responsibility, and parliament itself would be completely useless, if no responsibility were to attach to a person for any measure which even bore his signature, and thus openly avowed the approbation and sanction of such measure by the person who adopted it.
The Lord Chancelloragain explained, and said, that surely nothing could be more foreign from his mind than to make any unhandsome allusion to the Lord Chancellor of Ireland, for whose estimable qualities, as a man and a judge, he had ever entertained the highest respect.
§ Earl Stanhopein reply, thanked the noble and learned lord on the woolsack, for the candour and fairness which he had displayed that night. It had saved him from the trimming which he had prepared for him. Had any other lawyer attempted to hold a different language, he should have given that lawyer a complete basting. He rejoiced in having brought forward the present motion. It had drawn from the noble and learned lord many useful confessions; and it had drawn from his two noble and distinguished friends (lords Grenville and Holland) the soundest doctrines, and the most appropriate observations He was therefore, determined to 700 take the sense of the House upon the motion. It was to strength of argument he looked, and not to strength of numbers.
§ The House then divided. Contents 6 Non-Contents 21—Majority against the Motion 15.
| List of the Minority. | |
| Duke of Norfolk, | Lord Grenville, |
| Bedford, | Holland, |
| Earl Stanhope, | Montfort, |