with a belief, that the apprehen-ions, which retarded its beneficial operation previous to the union, cannot exist in the Parliament of the United Kingdom)--For your petitioners most humbly shew, that, by virtue of divers statutes now in force, his Majesty's Roman Catholic subjects, who form so great a proportion of the population of Ireland, and contribute so largely to the resources of the state, do yet labour under many incapa cities, restraints, and privations, which affect them with peculiar severity in almost every station of life; that more especially they are. denied the capacity of sitting or voting in either of the honourable Houses of Parliament; the manifold evils consequent upon which incapacity they trust it is unnecessary to unfold and enumerate to this hon. House. They are disabled from holding or exercising (unless by a special dispensation) any corporate office whatsoever in the cities or towns in which they reside; they are inca pacitated and disqualified from holding or exercising the offices of sheriffs and subsheriffs, and various offices of trust, honour, and emolument in the state, in His Majesty's military and naval service, and in the administration of the laws, in this their native land. Your petitioners, declining to enter into the painful detail of the many incapacities and inconveniencies avowedly inflicted by those statutes, upon His Majesty's Roman Catholic subjects, big leave, however, most earnestly to solicit the attention of this Hon. House, to the humiliating and ignominions system of exclus on, reproch, and suspicion. which those statues generate and keep alive. For your petitioners most humbly shew, that in consequence of the hostile spirit thereby sanctioned, their hopes of enjoying even the privileges, which through the benignity of their most gracious Sovereign, they have been capacitated to enjoy, are nearly altogether frustrated, inasmuch that they are, in effect, shut out from almost all the honours, dignities, and offices of trust and emolument in the state, from rank and distinction in His Majesty's army and navy, and even from the lowest situations and franchises in the several cities and corporate towns throughout His Majesty's dominions. And your petitioners severely feel, that this unqualified interdiction of those of their communion from all municipal stations, from the franchises of all guilds: and corporations, and from the patronage and benefits annexed to those situations, is an evil not terminating in itself; for they beg leave to state, that, by giving an advantage over those of their communion to others, by whom such situations are exclusively possessed, it establishes a species of qualified monopoly, universally operating in their disfavour, contrary to the spirit, and highly detrimental to the freedom of trade.Your petitioners likewise severely feel, that His Majesty's Roman Catholic subjects, in consequence of their exclusion from the offices of sheriffs and sub sheriffs, and of the hostile spirit of those statutes, do not fully enjoy certain other inestimable privileges of the British Constitution, which the law has most jealously maintained and secured to their fellow subjects. Your petitioners most humbly beg leave to solicit the attention of this Honourable House to the distinction which has conceded the elective, and denies the representative franchise to one and the same class of His Majesty's subjects; which detaches from property its proportion of political power under a Constitution, whose vital principle is the union of the one with the other; which closes every avenue of legalized ambition against those who must be presumed to have great credit and influence among the mass of the population of the country; which refuses to peers of the realm all share in the legislative representation, eitheir actual or virtual, and renders the liberal profession of the law to Roman Catholics a mere object of pecuniary traffic, despoiled of its hope, and of its honours.--Your petitioners further most humbly shew, that the exclusion of so numerous and efficient a portion of His Majesty's subjects as the Roman Catholics of this realm, from civil honours and offices and from advancement in His Majesty's army and navy, actually impairs, in a very material degree, the most valuable resources of the British Empire, by impeding His Majesty's general service, stifling the most honourable and powerful incentives to civil and military merit, and unnecessarily restricting the exercise of that bright prerogative of the Crown, which encourages good subjects to promote the public welfare, and excites them to meritorious actions, by a well regulated distribution of public honours and rewards.--Your petitioners beg leave most humbly to submit, that those manifold incapacities, restraints and privations, are absolutely repugnant to the liberal and comprehensive principles recognized by their most gracious Sovereign and the Parliament of Ireland: that they are impolitic restraints upon His Majesty's prerogative; that they are hurtful and vexatious to the feelings or a loyal and generous people, and that the total abolition of them will be found not only compatible with, but highly conducive to, the perfect security of every establish ment, religious or political, now existing in this realm--For your petitioners most explicitly declare, that they do not seek or wish, in the remotest degree, to injure or encroach upon "the rights, privileges, "immunities, possessions, or revenues, ap"pertaining to the bishops and clergy of "the Protestant Religion as by law estab "lished, or to the churches committed to "their charge, or to any of them."-The sole object of your petitioners being an equal participation, upon equal terms with their fellow subjects of the full benefits of the British Laws and Constitution.Your petitioners beg leave most humbly to observe, that, although they might well and justly insist upon the firm and unabated loyalty of His Majesty's Roman Catholic subjects to their most gracious Sovereign, their profound respect for the legislature, and their dutiful submission to the laws, yet they most especially rest their humble claims and expectations of relief upon the clear and manifest conduciveness of the measure, which they solicit, to the general and permanent tranquillity, strength, and happines of the British Empire. And your petitioners, entertaining no doubt of its final accomplishment, from its evident justice and utility, do most solemnly assure this Honourable House, that their earnest solicitude for it, at this peculiar crisis, arises principally from their anxious desire to extinguish ali motives to disunion, and all means of exciting discontent.--For your petitioners humbly state it as their decided opinion, that the enemies of the British Empire, who meditate the subjugation of Ireland, have no hope of success, save in the disunion of its inhabitants; and therefore it is, that your petitioners are deeply anxious, at this moment, that a measure should be accomplished, which will annihilate the principle of religious animosity, and animate all descriptions of His Majesty's subjects in an enthusiastic defence of the best Constitution, that has ever yet been established. Your petitioners therefore most humbly presume to express their earnest, but respectful hope, that this Honourable House will, in its wisdom and liberality, deem the several statutes, now in force against them, no longer necessary to be retained, and that His Majesty's loyal and dutiful subjects, professing the Roman Catholic religion, may be effectually relieved from the operation of those satutes, and that so they may be restored to the full enjoyment of the benefits of the British Constitution, and to every inducement of attachment to that Constitution, equally and in common with their fellow subjects throughout the British Empire. And Denys your petitioners will ever pray, &c. Shrews- SUMMARY OF POLITICS. NAVAL INQUIRY.--In the preceding number of this work was inserted the Tenth Report of the Commissioners of Naval Inquiry, together with the most material part of the evidence thereunto annexed, and also the written defence of Mr. Trotter. To those documents and to the observations made thereon, I beg leave to refer the reader; because what I bave now to offer must be considered merely as supplementary to what has already been said.——It is known, that, as soon as the Tenth Report came before parliament in its printed state, Mr. Whitbread gave notice of his intention to make a motion relative thereto on Thurs day, the 4th instant. Of course, the discussion would have taken place on that day; but, on Monday last, the 1st instant, it was requested, by Mr. Pitt, that the motion should be postponed until Monday, the 8th instant, upon the following ground: that Lord Melville had, on Thursday the 28th ultimo, addressed a letter to the Commismissioners of Naval Inquiry, relative to the Tenth Report, and that the said letter, together with any proceedings thereon on the part of the Commissioners, ought to be printed and laid before the House previous to the intended discussion.-—After some besitation on the part of Mr. Grey, who spoke for Mr. Whitbread in his absence, it was agreed to postpone the motion of the latter till Monday next.-Relating to this occurrence, the first object of remark would be, the singular fitness of things as exhibited in the time, the place, and the person, when, where, and by whom, this proposition was made: but, of that person hereafter: the time is now come when the people will have abundant opportunities of comparing his past professions with his present conduct. It is said, that the letter of Lord Melville, represented by Mr. Pitt as "contain"ing points of explanation of the highest "importance," states, that his lordship is now ready to swear, that he derived no advantage whatever from the use of the public money flowing through his office. The reader will recollect, that he refused to swear this, when under examination; and, that he sheltered himself under the 5th clause of the act, under which the Naval Commissioners were sitting. What can have induced him to change his mind? Or, where can he have obtained new lights upon the subject? Every paper, relating to his concerus with the treasurership of the navy, he burnt, at his leisure hours, during his retirement in Scotland, as appears from his letter to the Commissioners (See Reg. p. 455.) From his own papers, therefore, he can have obtained no information which he did not possess when he wrote the aforementioned letter on the 30th of June last, previous to his examination upon oath. But, we are told by one of his partisans, that, he hesitated to answer before, because, Mr. Trotter, having so confounded the public account with his own and his own with that of Lord Melville, had rendered it impossible for his lordship to know, whether he might, or might not, have derived some advantage from Mr. Trotter's having misemployed the public money! What! and, is it likely that Mr. Trotter should, against the will of Lord Melville, keep his accounts for so many years in this strange way? Is it likely that he should have done so without his lordship's knowledge? Did his lordship draw on him, or receive money from him, and not know how much, and whose, money it was that he was receiving? Trotter has said, upon his oath, that such was the nature of their monied connexion, that he could not pretend to point out the cases when he advanced money to Mr. Dundas out of his private funds, or out of the funds belonging. to the public. Whether such a mode of keeping accounts be much in use; whether it arose, in this instance, from a desire to afford, when called on, an elucidation of the transactions of the treasurer and his paymaster; or whether, indeed, it might have in view (though that is hardly credible) the possibility of something like that which has now happened, and, therefore, provided the means of baffling the researches of impertinent curiosity: these are questions which may properly enough come under discussion another time; but, at present, all we have to ask is: bow, if the accounts were kept in the manner described by Mr. Trotter and his principal, has that principal been able to discover, to a certainty, that he did not derive any advantage from Mr. Trotter's malpractices; that he did not, in short, go snacks with Mr. Trotter? Yet, toe question goes further: how has that principal been able to make the discovery now, at this late, this very late hour? Does any one imagine, that Lord Melville did not know the contents of the Tenth Report before that Report came out in the newspapers? It has been upon the table of the House of Commons these two months. How came his lordship not to think of the "points of explanation of great importance," as his right hon. friend calls them; how came he never to think of submitting these points to the commissioners, and to offer (as it is said he has done) to swear to them till now? Now! when the report is printed, and has been read and talked of by the whole nation, and when his refusal to swear has been so universally insisted on as a proof of his having participated? Really, it is a pity the offer to swear (if it be at last made) was not made sooner!--But, we have not yet driven the nail home. Where; in the name of probability and of common sense, I ask, where has his lordship now found the happy means of ascertaining with such precision, that he has never received a share of Mr. Trotter's profits? All his own papers, relative to the matter, he had burnt previous to the month of June last. As to Mr. Trotter's accounts nothing can have been gathered from them to enlighten bis conscience, because that intelJigent person himself swore, that he was unable to state, whether Mr. Dundas had derived any profit from the use of the public money, or not. There remains, then, no source but that of Mr. Dundas's own recolJection; and, upon an inquiry into dates, we shall find little ground for believing, that recollection can have afforded him much as sistance. From the language of his parti Fans, one would conclude, that he had, in the first instance, been taken by surprise; and, that, knowing Mr. Trotter to have ad vanced him great sums of money, he could not positively swear, that none of that money ever came out of the public purse, and, of course, that he could not swear that he had not derived any advantage from the inisuse of the public money passing through his of fice. But, first, observe, that there was no surprise. The Commissioners, with a degree of candour equal to their diligence, intelligence, and integrity, permitted the persons, whom they examined, to come afterwards and explain or correct the answers they had given; accordingly we see, that Mr. Trotter, Mr. Antrobus, and others, did make such explanations and corrections. Why did not Lord Melville do the same? Then, let it be remembered, that it is now two months since the report was laid before parJiament; and that it is four months since his Jordship's evidence was taken by the Com missioners. Strange, that he should never think of his explanations till now! Till now, that the people are demanding justice! But, four months for consideration; four months for explanation is not all; for, it must be ob served, that his lordship had a very long time, in the first instance, to prepare those answers, which he now has thought it notessary to explain. Mr. Trotter was examined before, and not only before, but several months before, Lord Melville was examined. Mr. Trotter's examination, began in June last, and Lord Melville's took place in No vember. All the questions which could be put to the latter had been put to the former first. One of them was in London and the other at Wimbledon; and, I leave any one to guess whether Mr. Trotter gave his lordship an account of what had, in respect to him, passed at the Board of Commissioners! On the 14th of June (See Register, p. 488) Mr. Trotter was asked by the Commissione:s, whether Mr. Dundas had derived any advantage from the misuse of the public mopey; and, it was not till the 5th of November that the same question was put to Lord Melville (formerly Mr. Dundas) himself. Was not here plenty of time for him to con sider of the answer he should give? Was this taking him by surprise? And now, after having had five months to prepare his an. swer, and four months more to see how that answer would be received, he comes with his "points of explanation!" Verily, he who has a good cause stands not in need of such indulgence.--There are two or three detached arguments that I have heard made use of, in beha f of Lord Melville and Mr. Trotter, which will just notice. The first is, that "Lord Melville is as poor as a church mouse." I could, in the words of his own countryman, quarry the fact; for, I think, it will be allowed, shist eleven thonsand a year from the public purse, between him and his lady, leaves them little reason to complain of poverty; especially when we see, that about eight thousand year is sealed on them for life. We have not the rent roll of Lord Melville; if we had, we should probably discover that he is far from being poor, even as to land d esiates. Besides, what does a man want with money, but to make him great, and to make his family great; aud, has not he effected this? Is he not the first Lord of the Admiralty of Great Britain? Is he not in the post formerly filled by Lord Howe, Lord Spencer, and Lord St. Vincent? Could his most daring hopes ever have aspired to uch an honour? Is he not, besides, the sovereign dispenser of power and wealth in India aud in Scotland? Let any one refer to an article, in a former part of this sheet, upon the subject of Scotch patronage; and, let him recol lect, at the same time, that Lord Melville has, for many years, had the disposing of India patronage to an amount that produces a hundred thousand a year; let this be recol lected, and let the reader consider what effects this power has had upon his own family. Mr. Dundas was, at one and the same time, Treasurer of the Navy, President of the Board of Control, and Secretary of State for the War department. What a sweep of power! What millions of patronage! He is now at the bead of the Admiralty; his nephew is Secretary at War. These were two departments hitherto not absolutely glutted with the Dundas's and their followers. They were fresh fields, as it were; and a glorious harvest they are yielding! Let it be observed, too, that Mr. Trotter, that ingenious accountant, is now again Paymaster of the Navy. This fact should be kept in view. The tenth report has not been able to remove him. Mr. Canning, too, has, I believe, the good fortune to be re lated to Lord Melville. Oh it is a thrifty and a thriving race! I see no signs of that poverty, of which the partisans of his All Mr. Pitt, written on the 28th ultimo. that I have hither.o said respecting it is fully applicable to its contents; only, that I proceeded upon the supposition, that his lordship had now offered to swear positively, that he never did derive any profit or advantage from the use which was made of the public money, passing through his of fice This is not the case; and, indeed, except as the means of procuring a short delay, it is very hard to conceive what purpose this letter could be expected or intended to answer. Such as it is, however, I shall here insert it, and then trouble the reader with a very short observation or two upon its contents. "Having read your 66 66 " 66 66 lordship think it wise to talk. Yes; to talk of this poverty is a very good thing. Used in this way, it is a most useful quality. The being constantly dunned, and now and then sued for a trifling sum, are excellent proofs of a minister's purity and disinterestsaness! This trick is, however, almost worn out. Every thing has its day; and, I am persuaded, that the years are drawing nigh, when, to acquit a minister charged with peculation, something more than pretensions to poverty will be required. Men will recollect the parable of the unjust steward, and will look not merely at the wealth amassed by a minister himself, but at that which has been amassed, in so short a space of time and so unaccountably, by his relations and close political adherents; and, they will clearly discover, that, while he suffers all around him to plunder, it would be perfect folly in him to become a plunderer in his own name.-With respect to Mr. Trotter, the plea of poverty has not been urged; but, we are told, by Lord Melville himself, of the inadequacy of his salary. Viewing Mr. Trotter, seated in his splendid mansion, with a fortune of a million, or more, we naturally look upon his salary of 500l. a year, now augniented to Sool. a year, as a mere trifle; especially, when we see him annually charged in Mr. Coutt's books with from But, 2001. to 300l for Christmas boxes! strip Mr. Trotter of these appendages; make an estimate of his intrinsic talents and merits; and you will find, that his salary, together with a dwelling house, perhaps, with coals and candles, were quite as much as it was proper to allow him. And, as to the "responsibility," of which so much has been said, the Commissioners have very justly observed, that if the law pad been obeyed, there would have been no responsibility resting upon him. The plain statement of the case, then, is. that, by risking the public money, and by augmenting the public expenses, he first amasses immense sums, and then he claims those sums as a just compensation for his responsibility; which is, I take it, in no respect inferior to the conduct, spoken of by Swift, of Lord Peterborough's steward, who pulled down a house, sold the materials, pocketed the money, and then charged his lordship with repairs!..... Since the foregoing part of this artiele was written, the LETTER OF LORD MELVILLE to the Commissioners has made its appearance in the SUN newspaper. It has no date; but it must be taken for granted, that it was, agreeably to the statement of 66 66 Tenth Report, and observing particularly "the following paragraph in the 141st page, However the apprehension of 66 66 disclosing delicate and confidential "transactions of government might ope""rate with Lord M-lville in with-holding "information respecting advances to other ""departments, we do not perceive how ""that apprehension can at all account for his retu ing to state whether he derived any profit or advantage from the use or employment of money issued for the "services of the navy. if his lordship had received into his hands such mo""nies as were advanced by him to other departments, and had replaced them 66 66 as soon as they were repaid, he could ""not have derived any profit or ad. ""vantage from such transactions, how""ever repugnant they might be to "the provisions of the legislature for the ""safe custody of public money."--I "think it necessary to state the following "observations, in order to place in their "just view the grounds on which I declined answering your question, and which you appear not to have accurately understood. -When you first called upon me for "information I stated to you that I had not "materials on which I could frame such an account as you required me at that time "to prepare, and in a communication with "Mr. Trotter, before my examination on "the 5th of November last, I learnt, for the "first time, that in the accounts he had "kept respecting my private concerns, he "had so blended his own private monies "with what he had in his hands of public money, that it was impossible for him to ascertain, with precision, whether the advances he had occasion to make to me "in the course of his running private account with me, were made from the one 66 |