1 It was thus, my lords, that I wrote to the the correspondence read, that it was utterly noble marquis, who after this can scarcely impossible that the noble marquis and mycomplain, with justice, of being in ignorance self could go on together in the situations of my sentiments upon the Catholic ques- which we mutually held. I might be tion. Subsequent to that letter, I had wrong in my notions (and God knows, my occasion to write to the noble lord on the lords, I may be wrong in opinion as well 11th of November, respecting the agitation as any body else), but, be that as it might, then prevailing in Ireland, and the in- the thing was impossible that we should creased difficulty thereby occasioned to the continue to act in the same government; government. That letter touched upon we could not go on together any longer,some other points. But I beg, my lords, there could be no further confidence bebefore I go further, to advert to the situa- tween the marquis and me. Thus situated, tion of a lord lieutenant of Ireland. The I did not take the responsibility of removperson who fills it, is an officer endowed ing the noble lord upon myself entirely. I with great and extensive powers-greater consulted such of my colleagues as were and more extensive, perhaps, than are in- at the time in town; they were of the same trusted to a subject by any other sovereign opinion as myself. I did then take his in the world; but, at the same time, that majesty's pleasure on the subject, and proofficer acts under the instructions of his ceeded to communicate to the noble marmajesty, conveyed to him through the quis, that it had been determined to relieve medium of the responsible servants of the him from the government of Ireland. Crown in this country. It is their business to instruct the lord lieutenant as to his proceedings, and to animadvert on his conduct if they shall see him act improperly, or in a manner inconvenient or even displeasing to his majesty. It was peculiarly my duty to act as I did with regard to the noble lord, under the circumstances of the time. I felt that every day I delayed to inform the noble lord of the embarrassing circumstances arising out of his conduct, I was highly to blame; and I am confident I should have been so, if I had not communicated with him as I did. His majesty's determination to relieve the noble marquis from the responsibility of his Irish government was communicated to him by the Home Secretary, who informed the noble lord, that the resolution was adopted on the ground of his previous letter. But, recurring to my own letter of the 11th of November, addressed to the noble marquis, I must say I was not very far wrong in the judgment I formed, with respect to the two magistrates alluded to in it; for shortly afterwards, first one and then the other were struck out of the commission of the peace by the lord chancellor, for conduct not much different from that of which I accused them. It was undoubtedly my duty to acquaint the noble lord with the difficulties which he was imposing upon us here by his proceedings; and accordingly I did so, in the communication referred to. After the communications which passed between us, it was quite obvious to me, as I am sure it must be clear to all your lordships who have heard VOL. XXI. There are two points in the noble marquis's statement to which I would more particularly advert. The noble lord says, I did not attend his majesty on the 28th December, and that the order for his relief from the Irish government was not occasioned by his letter to Dr. Curtis. It is perfectly true, that I did not attend his majesty on the 28th; it is also true, that the noble lord's relief from the government of Ireland was not the conse quence of his correspondence with Dr. Curtis-it was the natural result of the previous correspondence that had taken place between the noble lord and myself. However, I did attend his majesty on the 27th, though not on the 28th; and I did take the king's pleasure as to the noble lord's removal upon that day. That is the fact-a removal notified to him upon the day following. Having gone thus far into this part of the case, there I leave it. I deprecate discussion upon this subject: it can do no good to the public: on the contrary, it can do nothing but mischief; and I am thoroughly convinced the result will prove, that the noble marquis would have better reason to be satisfied, if he had not brought the subject forward. I come now to the subject of the noble. marquis's removal. The noble marquis was told, that he would be relieved, and that it was intended to leave him in the. possession of the government, until he should be relieved in a manner agreeable to himself, and with advantage to the government. To that communication the noble marquis replied by his dutiful assu 2 L agitate, and there were to be any thing like an appearance of moderation, 1 most seriously conjure you to signify, an inten tion of taking the state of Ireland into con sideration in the first days of the next session of parliament." From this extract your lordships will perceive it is quite clear, that this opinion, as to the necessity of tranquillity, is not mine, but that of the noble marquis himself. It was he that, at that period, thought it was necessary that tranquillity should come before the concession of the Catholic claims. But this is not the only point to which I beg leave to call your lordships' attention. The noble marquis has told the House, that be wrote the letter to Dr. Curtis, privately, and confidentially, and that it was publish country in a state of tranquillity. But, let me ask, was it calculated to produce any such tranquillity? I will tell your lordships what Mr. O'Connell said upon the subject. Your lordships shall hear what he thought about this letter. The words of Mr. O'Connell were, "the marquis of Anglesey recommends that all constitutional, in contradistinction to merely legal means, should be resorted to The Marquis of Anglesey's [LORDS,] rance, that he was disposed to await the time, manner, and circumstances under which it might be his majesty's pleasure that relief should take place. My communication was dated on the 28th of December; the noble marquis's reply was dated on the 30th. In the mean time, however, I received from Dr. Curtis a letter, dated the 4th of December, to which I wrote an answer on the 11th, which the doctor thought proper to publish. I know it is said, that the letter, to which mine is called the reply, was never written. My answer is, that I shall not follow the example of the doctor, in making that letter public-publish it I will not; but if any noble lord wishes to inspect that letter, here it is on the table for his perusal. On the 30th of December, the noble marquised afterwards with a view of putting the received the order for his relief. On the 1st of January appeared, in one of the papers, the letter of the noble marquis to Dr. Curtis, being, as it seemed, a running comment upon that letter, which I had addressed to the same person on the 11th of December. The noble marquis says, that his letter was written on the 23rd, and that it was on the morning of that day my letter was first shown to him in his official capacity as lord lieutenant. It seems, how-to forward the cause. Now, that is the ever, a most extraordinary circumstance, that on the very morning when the letter was thus shown to the lord lieutenant in his official capacity, it was also published in all the Dublin papers. This is certainly a most extraordinary circumstance; and the first thing I must observe upon it, with respect to myself, is, that the noble lord there asserts, that he did not know what I thought on the Catholic question. Another remarkable circumstance in that letter is, that the noble marquis observes on my feeling of the necessity of tranquillity in Ireland previous to any further parliamentary discussion of the question. In answer to this observation, I beg leave to refer your lordships to a letter written by the noble marquis to Mr. Secretary Peel, on the 11th of July, and which I wish he had read over attentively before he made the observation contained in his letter to Dr. Curtis. That letter goes to shew, that the noble marquis did not at that time object to that part of the subject; for in the letter of July he says, "If I should fortunately be enabled, by the advice and warnings I give, to keep this country in a quiet state for a little time longer if the Association should cease to only part of his letter which we are inclined to disobey; for though the measures may be unconstitutional, if they are against the law, we ought not to adopt them." So that it appears that the noble marquis, by way of tranquillizing Ireland, publishes advice to these agitators, which even they will not follow, because they think it too strong a measure to adopt. But the noble marquis says, that the tenor of this letter is misunderstood, and that, although there is the word "agitate" in it, it does not mean agitation [hear, hear!]. The Marquis of Anglesey. I do not think that there is the word “agitate” in the letter at all. The Duke of Wellington. The word "agitate" certainly appears here:-"I fear that advantages might be taken of the pause, by representing it as a panic. achieved by the late violent reaction; and by proclaiming, that if the government at once and peremptorily decided against concession, the Catholics would cease 10 agitate, and then all the miseries of the last ten years of Ireland will be to be reacted." Now, with respect to agitation, it certainly does appear that the letter con tains not only advice to persevere in that course, but even goes on to shew by what means agitation may be made most effectual; for the word is not only mentioned incidentally in the letter, but the noble marquis refers back to the past history of Ireland. And what is it that we understand by agitation? Why, if I may at all judge of its meaning by experience, it means something just short of rebellion, and that is all-it means a state of things, in which the government of the country becomes absolutely impracticable, and where every thing is bordering close upon irremediable confusion. Let me ask whether that is the condition in which the noble marquis contemplated leaving the people of Ireland? Let me also beg your lordships to remember, that when the noble marquis wrote thus he was still in his majesty's service: let me beg the noble marquis himself to look at the instructions he received when he assumed those functions -to look also at the sense of duty which he himself entertained during the whole period of his continuing in office. The noble marquis began his government of Ireland by entering into discussion with the king's servants here, respecting the point of whether or not he should follow up the step he had taken by an application to parliament to revise the laws that had reference to the Roman Catholic Association. After this the noble marquis received directions to consider, in conjunction with the law officers of the Crown, of the practicability of putting down that Association by means of the law, either through the medium of the common law or of a specific act of parliament. The noble marquis did consider that point, and I need not tell your lordships that it was with a view to putting an end to agitation, that the direction was given. Now, let me ask whether the noble lord's letter to Dr. Curtis corresponded in spirit with these previous steps? The next step adopted by his majesty's government was, to give directions for the proclamation of the 1st of October, in consequence of the noble marquis's representations made to the ministry. Again, I ask the noble marquis whether the agitation alluded to was consistent with the spirit of that proclamation? I ask whether agitation was really consistent with his prévious efforts? Then, again, after the proclamation, the noble marquis gave directions for the prosecution of Mr. Lawless. Now, was that consistent with his subsequent sense of the value of agitation? But it was not in particular instances that this appeared. It was in the whole tenor of his correspondence with the government, of which I might read much more copious extracts than the noble marquis himself has done, to show how uniformly sensible he seems to have been, that the greatest evil the country endured was the agitation occasioned by the Association; and yet, with these recorded opinions, the noble marquis had no objection to leave the agitation which he had so repeatedly denounced as a legacy to his successor. Was it possible to have worked the business of the government, with the head of it in Ireland entertaining and avowing such sentiments? In justice to my view of these circumstances, I ought to read some of the letters which the noble marquis addressed to me and to the Secretary of State upon this subject; but I will not detain the House by any further reference to the details connected with it. In conclusion, I have only to say, that I have never, since I have sat in this House, entered into any discussion with more pain to myself than the present; and I should have avoided it altogether had I not felt it a duty which I owed to the king and the government to make a reply to what had fallen from the noble marquis. The Marquis of Anglesey said in reply: With respect to the declaration of the noble duke, by which he seems to doubt my having received the permission of the king to read the correspondence which I have this evening laid before your lordships, I beg to assert, most unequivocally, that I had his majesty's permission to read any papers that I might deem necessary for the vindication of my administration in Ireland. In consequence of this permission, I have produced the papers now be fore your lordships; and if the noble duke can discover that I have asserted what is false, I shall find no fault with him if he advises his majesty to take away all those honours which I have received at his hands. The noble duke seems also to think that I have kept back part of the correspondence that has taken place-and a part, too, that would have told against me [" no, no," from the duke of Wellington]. The noble duke certainly did utter words to that effect, or I am much mistaken. The noble duke has also quoted a letter, in which he supposes that he told me what his sentiments on the Catholic question were: all I can say on that sub- ́ ́ ject is, that I have read that letter with 'attention, and have not been able to discover any declaration by which I might learn what his sentiments were-certainly not that they were favourable to the question. The noble duke's expression in that letter was, "there are those who think that this measure will pacify Ireland, but I have always doubted it;" how, therefore, I was to understand that he had any intention of carrying this measure into effect, I am at a loss to conceive. I do say that I have a right to complain of the fact, that my first idea that the noble duke had decided on conceding the Catholic claims was from the letter which the king's prime minister wrote to the Roman Catholic primate of Ireland. I think there must be some extraordinary mistake with respect to the letter which the noble duke has quoted as my letter. I feel confident that in that letter I did not use the word "agitate;" and as the noble duke has it in his power to refer to my original hand-writing, I do not exactly understand why he goes to the printed copy. If there are papers which are to tell so marvellously against me, why are they not produced? My great anxiety is, that every document that relates to the subject should be laid before your lordships. With respect to the proclamation, I do not imagine that there was any particular merit in issuing it. If, however, any there be, it did not emanate from this side of the water-it was framed in Dublin. When I thought I might be obliged to arrest Mr. Lawless, I informed ministers I would do so on a particular day, if I did not receive an answer from them: the answer did not arrive, and I caused Mr. Lawless to be arrested. The Duke of Wellington here said something in a low tone of voice across the table. The Marquis of Anglesey.-As to my being authorized in using the correspondence to which I have referred, all I shall say is this--that on the day but one after my arrival in town from Ireland, I sought and was admitted to an audience with the king. When I waited upon his majesty, I stated plainly what had been my conduct and policy while I was at the head of the government of Ireland; and I said, that I did not believe his majesty had seen all iny letters, but only extracts, or he could not have derived the impression of my conduct which I thought he had imbibed. He said that he had seen them. I however placed in his majesty's hands copies of them, which he was graciously pleased to read, and then, on my request to that effect, to tell me that I might use them all in any way I pleased for my vindication, and also any other documents which I thought proper to call for, His majesty, when I suggested my intention to make no mention of his name, was further most graciously pleased to give me the fullest permission to mention his name in any way I thought proper. The motion was negatived, without a division. HOUSE OF COMMONS. Monday, May 4. The FRENCH CLAIMS-PETITION OF M. ROUDEAUX.] Sir R. Farquhar, in presenting a Petition from M. Roudeaux with reference to the French claims, stated that he had great pleasure in bearing testimony to the highly respectable and loyal character of M. Roudeaux, an inhabitant and most extensive proprietor at the Mauritius. This testimony to his character he bore in common with all the governors and authorities who have been in the administration of that colony. The petitioner stated, that the government and the colony were in the enjoyment at the present moment of the fruits of his industry, during an active life of usefulness spent there for the last forty years, for which he has wellfounded claims for compensation. petitioner had direct claims under treaties and conventions recognized in this country, for debts due to him by the French government, originally contracted on aécount of marine stores, and ship-repairs of the French government ships taken at the capture, under capitulation; and he claimed to be paid, agreeably to the terms of his written contract with the French minister. The principle had been admitted here, but he complained, that an arbitrary deduction from the terms of his contract had been made in this country; and the alleged, that such proceeding was neither just nor necessary, and that theres was wherewithal paid by the French government to satisfy all the English creditors; and he prayed for justice from that hon. House. He had read the petition attentively, and considered the petitioner, under the special circumstances of his case, to be justly entitled to payment in fully or satisfactory compensation.ao) 9df to tub Ordered to be printedad Rea FRENCH CLAIMS-PETITION OF MR. to the rate of interest to be allowed SIMCON] Mr. Littleton rose, to present a on their claims would be productive of petition from Mr. Simcox, respecting the injustice towards them. The seventh rate of interest allowed by the commis- article of the convention expressly provided sioners for liquidating the claims of British that upon all balances of money and mortsubjects on the French government. The gages claimed from the French government, petitioner complained of the amount of a rate of five per cent should be awarded. interest awarded by the commissioners on Upon the class of claims under which the his claims, and of their having induced petitioner's came, the commissioners him to abstain from prosecuting his appeal thought fit only to award three per cent before the privy council, on the assurance, interest. Now, looking to the articles of that whenever the case of Boyd's claims the convention he was of opinion that the should be decided, if five per cent interest petitioner's claim respected property which should be allowed upon them, the same came under the seventh article, and upon rate of interest would be awarded upon all which, consequently, five per cent should claims of a similar class, under which the be awarded. The most important part of petitioner's claim was included. He had the case was that which related to the given notice of his intention to present this promise given to Mr. Simcox, that if, in petition, because it involved a question of the case of Boyd, a certain allowance was considerable importance, both as regarded made, the same should be extended to his the conduct of the commissioners, and a claim. On the strength of that promise, great number of claimants who were placed Mr. Simcox had withdrawn his appeal. in the same situation with Mr. Simcox. It appeared that the case of Mr. Boyd, A convention was agreed to, in the year which came before the privy council, 1815, between this country and France, and which was adjudicated by that in consequence of which a mixed commis- body, was decidedly similar to that sion was appointed, for the purpose of of Mr. Simcox. Mr. Simcox, after liquidating the claims of British subjects the adjudication of Mr. Boyd's case, upon the French government. The first applied to the commissioners, who four articles of that convention referred to had a balance of 500,000l. in their hands, the liquidation of claims arising out of the for interest, at the rate of five per cent. loss of funded property; the fifth and He did so, relying on the promise which sixth articles referred to claims arising out had been previously given to him by the of landed and moveable property; and commissioners, and the House might upon all the claims to which these articles easily conceive what his surprise was, when referred an interest of three per cent was after repeated statements and applications to be allowed. The seventh article specially being made to the commissioners, he was provided, that all claims arising out of the informed by them that they had no recolloss of property, not included under the lection of having ever made any such six preceding articles, should, when allowed, promise; and they at last paid over the have an interest of five per cent awarded balance held by them to the Treasury, with- ' upon them; and it particularly mentioned out liquidating this demand. He should commercial property as coming under that now briefly advert to the principal objechead. The commission sat at Paris for tions that were likely to be urged against two or three years, a great number of the petitioner's claim. In the first place, claims were liquidated in that period, but it would be alleged, that the commissioners amongst them only one which arose out of did not recollect giving to Mr. Simcox the the loss of commercial property, and upon promise he relied on; but that such a that claim an interest of five per cent was promise had been made was clearly borne awarded. The British government con- out by the statement contained in the petisented to accept a certain sum from the tion, where it was positively set forth, that French government, and with it to liquidate in March, 1821, Mr. Collingwood, one of all the remaining claims. The commis- the commissioners, told the petitioner, sioners then transferred their labours to that if, in the case of Mr. Boyd, or of any T-London. The petitioner and the class of other claimant, more than three per cent -claimants to which he belonged, did not interest was allowed, he should receive the meano tou impugn the honourable con- same. The petitioner declared that on duct of the commissioners, but they con- another occasion, a distinct recognition of ceived that their decision with respect that promise was made; and his memory |