Star. — London, England, 1825-02-19 00:00:00

. , in, he could any 'tct of n, that from ern of with Elonse, to the ,s, and i eland, obtain the bo: r court: s from o long ref osed d do if ,rily tell ;ai, the to their the con- PAtlia ion and 'ithout d. The •the per ty, their y to give le House liament ; I they be heir cha permitted youngest !quences. ut cotter he bitter nation.-- 1 to every daily re m Nl'Don mbers, he and Anti ! to grant :4. Would it say to re nothing omplaints you arm n ,t grievous committed. xl in 1766 n of B.ig ent House Bar, they affections iced States ray er they mong mil now with ;hosen De midence in y. These ountrymen, g the sense )use would measure fot now ready w. It must tioners was ,ary, which e prayer of kind and he decision ignation.-- on the op their power tasmuch as of such a , the course tion of the nv urged on tot affecting The Peti ans was, in f the whole le testimony ch has since it gr eat and Stamp Act lught to have MS measure 766 was vent od, he ig the , nt disf I then *- measures )1 1. the " analogous Italic Al continty L I PP° V Ft Per l ' .ec ollect ton that with that 11111111=1 introduction iothi s House was in the Tear 1808, when I came before its bar as Counsel for a Petition; and I the more warmly press this motion on the House, be cause I am convinced, that if even the Bill for the Sup pression of Societies in Ireland is not successfully op posed, yet, at least, the plan I propose will give such light to the affairs of Ireland, and create such a glo rious feeling between you, as the representatives of England, and them, as the representatives of the discon tented of Ireland, as must, eventually, I am perstraded, lead to much better and much kinder feelings between the two countries. Surely the [louse should not oppose Cois hearing, that is demanded on behalf of six out of seven. millions of the population of a distressed country, ;n behalf of a religion that was once your own. It is a vottr that once was conceded to the hawkers and ped ,rs of this country, and ail that I ask is, that the same .- , eour should be bestowed on six millions of Roman athrdics that was granted to the pedlars of England. them, as the pedlars have been, be heard by their Vouna:l and witnesses: the cases are not altogether op. prised to each other; each party came before the llouse complaining of grievances, and I find, in the petition of the hawkers, a sentence that might have been, ith much propriety, copied into the present Petition ;•••-4 Your petitioners have heard, with the utmost astonishment and affliction, that there is a Bill before your House for their utter extermination, unttied, ur.heard, and uncon demned ; we claim, therefone, as our birthright, and as free citizens cf the State to be heard by Counsel and witnesses. The prayer of . this petition was granted to the hawkers, and this is exactly what is asked by the Roman Catholics of Ireland ; they only ask now what was granted to another body in the year 1785. I am afraid that I have ties;eissed too long on the patience of the II nose ; but before I conclude I have one request to prefer to both sides of the House. Let us, I entreat them, on this occasion, forget all the animosity of faction and party ; let us, With one accord, seize upon this golden opportunity, remembering that it is an op portunity sent to us as a God-sent, and, whether we receive the Bill or reject it, at least the safest way will be to hear such things as the Catholics may think pro per to offer, the only way for understanding the ground work on which is e are proceeding, being an attention to such grounds as may be offered on either side; and at present I do not speak so much of the Counsel, whom for a moment I will set aside; but I do call attention to the witnesses that are offered to our consideration, and whether this Biil be passed or rejected, I now give it as my settled and earnest opinion, that on this may be founded a basis of Listing esteem, and of a conciliation, in every respect unexceptionable, with the Roman Catholics of Ireland. I therefore move, Sir, that the Petitioners may be heard by themselves. Coon iel, agents, and witnesses, at tilt Bar of WO-louse.'' Sir F. BUR t)firl seconded the motion. Mr. WY NN said, ie must oppose the motion. When a Bill before Pailiament affected persons by name, or in their interests, it was usual to hear the persons so affected at the Bar of the House, but that was not the case witli the present Bill. If there was a single clause against the Catholic Body, he would not refuse to al. low them to he heard at the Bar ; but there was not a ward of the Catholic Body in the Bill—it was a general measure to put down all unlawful Associations— (llear, hear, hear). The Bills respecting America were local Bills, affecting the trade of a part of the empire that was not represented in Parliament, but the majo rity of the constituents of many of the present Mem- Lets were Catholics. The case of the hawkers and pod- ' , lars did not apply, as that Bill was to affect a particular' class, but the peseta was equally applicable to the whole people—(Hear). If the present motion were agreed to, no Bill could pass, but some individual, or some in , dy of individuals, might petition to be heard at the Bat against it.—(Hear). In the case of Hanley, the soldier, it made no difference, whether he was Pro testant or Catholic—whether guilty or innocent—the mischief was, that he went to trial with the opinion of the Catholic Association against him. What he ob jected to was, that any body of men should undertake to defend one party and to prosecute another and this being one of the avowed objects of the Catholic Association, no proof of facts could alter his opinion on the propriety of its suppression. If these petitioners were allowed to he heard, he did not know where they would stop. Sir J. YORKE was not in the habit of speaking on Irish affairs, although he gave them much attention.— The Catholic Association, however, he thought ought to be put down. For the last thirty-five years he was used to hear threats of what the Catholics would do if not granted those claims ; but he was not the least alarmed notwithstanding, and was sure the Act would pass, and the Association, sit down as quietly as the Honourable and Learned Member (Mr. Brougham) when he finished his speech. He remembered, when cruising off Cape Clear, at the period of the Rebellion, he saw the Emerald isle, for the fist time—and having asked a man on hoard what would benefit Ireland ? he answered, that she'd never do any good till she was twenty-four hours under water—(.4 laugh).—By that it was meant, until she was cooled and reduced to a moderate temperature. He denied that England was not disposed to serve Ire land in any mode. Out of the 54 millions a year raised for the State, that country did not contribute more than 1-17th—(Hear). And w!.en the population was starving did not the people of England voluntarily give them .500,000 ?—(Hear). As to Emancipation, the Catho lics did not, he verily believed, care two potatoes about it—(A laugh). The Opposition laid hold of it as one of their great stalking horses. For his part, if Ministers, who were responsible for the discharge of their duty, told him that the Association ought to be put down, he should vote far the present Bill. Mr. HOBHOUSE was astonished that, even in mo ments of hilarity, the Honourable and gallant Member would go to such lengths as he had just done. He de spaired of ever seeing the wrongs of the people redressed, ahile such sentiments were held by their Representa tives. The Honourable and gallant Officer could not ho l e to meet with the approbation of many Members, even of Administiation, by the tone he assumed. It was with pleasure he beard the Learned and Honourable Attorney-General • for Ireland, with such glowing expressions, bear testimony to the justice of the Catholic claims —if the Association did nothing cite, it effected drawing out that declaration. The Right Ho- Secretary for Foreign Affairs, who bad always . von such proofs of liberality, and was always with delight, had expressed a conviction that , mancipationwould be carried. These were great the Association to have achieved. After some remarks, in allusion to the Honourable and gal-- airal's speech, the Honourable Member pro ) say, that it was an old proverb that the last Proke the camel's hack, and that although the had hitherto endured so much, more ought heaped on them. With respect to the Right ale the President of the Board of Controul, its were as natural as cases from the Honour- Tetary for Ireland, and one was as . good as the dignea et hie. The parties accused were ready ...----- - es. ~ ..,sib—ir was not ' t,ood in dr; itured to -ourable S to should ' ;therto gii e Amen- listened to iscussioo- tine day Em n entered tilings for i ;Ores and further rem to United lam Admit logons to ceeded to Asseein• feather bro continued Catholics nt of InY not to be I mhals, b e , Honourabl i ec tion o f p retedeotl t Petitions able Secret h Couns el cthoru—ge 1 i DIY fi rst ! - [1 ►cco teat need long ir•;el st C opz were vhich s was both n as- ash ed 'to ipOeir and 'i n di cate themselies, in oug ht to be heard. Who could honestly get up in that House and say he knew all that was necessary of that Body before a Bill such as the present was passed ? As his Honour able and Learned Friend (Mr. Brougham) observed, there was a striking analog? between the situation of America and Ireland. In 1768. when the King came down to Parliament, he recommended the House to take into its consideration the state of Boston, where acts subversive of the Constitution were occurring. The Address said, the recommendation should be carries into effect, and a resolution. of the Congress contained expressions unquestionably reittlious. Governor Pow nal rose, however, and said that if true the House ought to proceed--hut he was satisfied they had never been employed. The Right Honourable the President of the Board of Controul had complained that the Association prejudged cases be fore trial, but when cr officio informations were filed, did not four Judges first pronounce that they thought sufficient guilt established to justify the proceedings. The Honourable Member supported the motion ? The SOLICITOR•GENERAL thought the real question was, whether there was a sufficient basis of facts to ground the_present Bill on ? He conceived that there was. It was admitted that the Association virtually represented the people of Ireland —and it was admitted that they assumed for the redress of all kcal and general grievances in Church and State. These were facts. He she uld also direct attention to the dis tinction between compulsory and voluntary contribu tions. The interference of the Association in the Courts of Law was admitted to be general throughout Ireland, yet his Honourable and Learned Friend (Mr.Brongliam) knew that every Catholic who contributed to the fund applied in prosecutions or actions, was incapacitated from being a juror or a witness in any criminal case, and from being a juror in civil cases; neither could a Magistrate who subscribed to the Rent preside as a Judge to hear such cases. If the Protestants, then, were to establish a counter society, what became of the administration of justice ?—( thar).—Gentlemen had said that the paying of the Catholic Rent was not compulsory ; it was like what Dr. Johnson called a conge d'eli re, namely, to throw a man out of a two pair window, - and recommend him to fall to the ground.— The Honourable and Learned Gentleman quoted a case which he conceived to bear upon the question of the as sumption of the Catholic Association to levy rent. This case, he observed, occurred in the reign of Queen Anne, relating to the Clergyman of a parish in Kent, who was suspected to be in communication with the Court of St. Germain's, who, for the purpose of raising funds, preached a charity sermon. In consequence of this he was put upon his trial. His eminent Counsel were Sir Constantine Phipps and Mr. Serjeant Cummins; and the Judge declared that he had no hesitation in saying that this mode of obtaining money, although in the form of a voluntary contribution, was illegal. He told the Jury that it was a dangerous precedent, and an in vasion of the King's Prerogative. With regard to the production of witnesses at that bar, he . had enough of evidence before him to satisfy his mind. The Peti tioners proposed to convince that House that " no act or declaration of the Catholic Association was of a tendency to excite alarm or provoke animosity," so that they were required to hear evidence as to the mo tives and intentions of this body—( Hear, hear).—They had the Proclamation before them, and that, he con tended, was a matter of reason and deduction, which that House were to exercise and draw for themselves, and not have witnesses at their bar to do for them.— Perhaps these Gentlemen would tell them that the words " to hate" meant "to like," and then proceed to explain to them what were the moral effects of their language and conduct upon the people of Ireland.— They had facts upon which to form their opinion, and no man could gainsay those facts. When they put down dangerous and seditious meetings—the Radical meetings he meant—would they have heard at the Bar the leading orator of that day, who was at once the author and orator of those meetings? In passing the mien Bill, would they have heard Aliens by Counsel ? It was also worthy of consideration, that if they granted the prayer of this Petition, they must be prepared to make sintikr concessions to Protestants, or whatever parties might think themeelves sufficiently interested in the question to prefer a shnilarcisins—{Hear). Mr. SPRING RICE said, the evidence proposed to be tendered to the House was widely different from evidence of impression and opinion. Every paper, every document, which the Association had ever re ceived or issued since its formation, was now within the reach of the House; and was it possible that Honour- , able Members would proceed upon the worst evidence when the best was in their power? For the right of the Catholic Association to be heard, it was obvious; the Bill affected them, and affected them only. But if the Orange Societies, or any other society in Ireland, felt that their interests were connected with it, he should say, that every one of them was entitled to be heard, and would vote in favour of hearing them as freely as he voted now. For precedent in a case like this he did not care, fot the measure contemplated was wholly un precedented ; but precedent he had for hearing Coun sel in the case, and precedent of no very slight autho rity. In the year 1698, an Act had been introduced in the Irish Parliament, for the purpose of providing for_ the greater security of the Royal Person and, Govern ment. This might be called a pretty general 'Measure, but Counsel had been heard against it, upon petition, before it was passed. In the year 1703,•again, another Bill had been brought in to prevent the further growth of Popery; and against that Bill, as well as the for mer, Counsel had been heard. Again, in the year 1715, a Bill had been introduced, prescribing the oath of supremacy to be taken in certain new cases.— Against that Bill Counsel had been heard, and the cause complained of had been expunged before it passed. If it had been the fashion to undervalue Irish precedents, he hoped that these would not be entirely neglected by the House. He cautioned the House against the refusal of the present motion. If it were refused, the Irish would have just cause to complain that they were treated worse than their ancestors had been in the reigns of King William and Queen Anne—(Hear, hear).—The Catholics had been identified with the resolution proposed by the Hon. Member for Aberdeen, relative to church property in Ire land, but with this they had nothing to do; the Catholic Clergy, though anxious for some provision, did not look for any part of the tithe property. Mr. Secretary PEEL said, that in the observations which he had to make, he would confine himself to the question immediately before the House, without going into the general one, except in those points where that question had been touched. Without going into an examination of what was done in the case of the Pro vinces of America, or inquiring into the power of the Catholics, he would ask whether this was a question consistent with the usage of Parliament ? Was it a me don required as an act of justice to the Catholics? He looked Upon the Petitioners as upon all other Peti- `boners, - . • and would have the ir ease decided aeon prin ciples applicable to all. He-would ask, was compliance with the prayer of the Petition required on the ground of parliamentary precedent? Was it reqUired as an act of justice to the petitioners ? Or was it required for the pur pose of supplying some evidence which was not hid be fore the House when the measure of his Right Hon. Friend (Mr.Goulburn) was introduced? With respect to precedents, he was prepared to contend, that not one of the cases put was fairly urged, so as to meet the question. He conceived the principle to be, that Parliament was ever ready to hear Counsel in cases where the private or personal rights of individuals were to be interfered with. In such case they acted, as it were, as a court of judi cature, where all parties interested in the case were al lowed to he heard: and he apprehended that all the precedents quoted on the other side fell within this de scription. He would notice the Hon. and Learned Member's mot splendid instance, and which by being pre.erved for the last, seemed to be his strongest case, he meant that of the " Hawkers and Pedlars."—(A laugh). That felt within the rule which he considered to be adopted by the House. The Bill against which the hawkers and pedlars desired to be heard, did not a ff ect all classes of the community, but they uiged, that it had a specific objtct, and was calculated to take away their bread. Even there, however, he thought the House re fused to hear the petitioners. He would not be certain : he had looked at the dates given by the Honourable and Leatued Member, and according to the entries in the Journals, he though such had been the result.- 13nouGuANE here intimated that they had been heard at the bar of the Hothe. It was the year 1785 Mr. Secretary PEEL, in continuation, said the hawkers and pedlars only complained of the additional duty on them, and its effects upon their future condition, and he believed that they were heard. However, he did not consider the case as at all in point. He looked upon it as falling within that description of cases which the Parliament had admitted as allowing the right of indi viduals to be heard, where their private and prsonal interests were concerned. But he would discuss this question on principle; and he would ask, if the House agreed to hear Counsel and witnesses on this question, what would be the consequence? The Habeas Corpus Suspension Bill had been passed without having any such claim made. The Alien Act had been men tioned ; but that Bill had been passed without having any such claim recognized on the part of individuals ; and so, in fact, had all the general measures of the last ten years. If the claim were admitted upon every public measure upon which certain individuals might differ from the opinion of Pailiament, the House would be occupied, not in its usual business, but for a great por tion of its time in hearing the eloquent addresses ,of Counsel at its bar. It was well known that a Counsel never thought of any other interest than that of bisclient. He could cite a very memorable illustration of this in the instance of the Hon. and Learned Gentleman (Mr. Brougham), who, on the trial of the Queen, had em phatically declared, that be the consequences what they might, he could look to no other interests than those of his Royal client. He (Mr. Peel) did not mean to deny the justice of the doctrine thus laid down, but he wished the House to see what would be the effect of 'it. The whole privilege of general discussion would be cut up, and Gentlemen not accustomed to professional habits of speaking, would be completely overborne by the eloquence of Counsel. He remembered that last Ses sion, when the Marine Insurance Bill was before the House, there were not fewer than six large wigs at one time at their bar; and if so limited an interest as that con nected with the Marine Insurance should send six, what number might not the Catholics of Ireland send ? He well recollected,on that occasion, that when four of the Learned Counsel had exhausted themselves in ad dressing the House, an imploring look was cast towards the remaining two, as if to entreat their silence; but it was cast in vain. The interest of their clients was, in their mind, paramount to all other considerations, and they continued to occupy the attention of the House for some time longer. It would be the same in the present case; it would be the same on the question of Catholic Emancipation ; it would, be the same in every case of public importance—(Hear, hear). He recollected when a Bill was before the House,for authorizing the removal of some West India slaves from one island to another, that a benevolent individual undertook their cause, and wished to have Counsel heard, on the ground that the proposed removal was wholly against their wills.— On that occasion, the Honourable and Learned Gentle man (Mr.Brougham)had opposed the hearing of Counsel, and stated, that if Mr. Stephens were heard as next of kin to the blacks, some other Counsel, on some future question, would claim to be next of kin to the whole population of England. and would pray to be heard on that ground. Though he (Mr. Peel) did not think the case one in which an exception might be made, yet so persuaded was he, after hearing the Honourable and Learned Gentleman's eloquent appeal, of the bad con sequences of such a precedent, that he voted against it —(Hear, hear). He would not allow himselt to be swayed in his vote on this occasion by any tears of bad consequences in case the measure was refused, or by any fear that those consequences would lead to any such event as that which had happened with respect to the United Provinces of America. He had too good an opinion of the Catholics to anticipate, for an instant, any such results; and be was surprhed that even a hint of the kind should come from those who were their defenders. Could he be persuaded to hold such an opinion, his conscientious objections to the claims of the Catholics would be increased tenfold. Then, leaving the dry question of Parliamentary precedent, it was stated that we had no instance of such a Bill having been introduced without some previous commu nication, or without laying some documents before the House to strew its necessity. This, he begged to say, was not the fact. We had the Habeas Corpus suspended more than once, without any such communications, or papers being laid before Parliament. The House, in those and other instances, had gone upon the notoriety of the facts. This was the case on th' passing of the Convention Act by the Irish Parliament, in 1793 (for, as Irish precedents were to be quoted, he thought they might be of weight on one side as well as the other). In that case there was no communication from Govern ment—no papers laid before the House—no Committee of Inquiry. It was true the Lords had a Con3n.ittee; but it was for another purpose; and in their report, they noticed the existence and dawerous tendency of assemblies acting by branch Committees, and collecting voluntary subsci iptions (quite as voluntary as those of the present day); and on this report, and the general no toriety of the facts to which it alluded, the Parliament le gislated. In the same way it proceeded, in the year 1 1795 ; to pass an Act for the more effectual suppression of unlawful aiiiibblies, withotit hkvbsg rticeiitei special communication or any papers from the Governs. ment on thesubject. Without waiting for or requiring such eidenci, Parliaiment did then what he hoped It would do now, legislate on the general notoriety of the facts. There were on the present occasion no green bags brought down--"ono secret or Select Committees ap pointed, but Ministers had come boldly forward, and without such documentary evidence, had determined to act on their own responsibility. Such conduct, he thought, would have been hailed.by Gentlemen on the other side; instead of which, it seemed, they now op posed everything which' at all went upon Ministerial responsibility. The measure was introduced for the purpose of putting dawn secret societies of every kind—(Cheers fro* the Opposition). He understood the nature of those cheers. They seemed to insinuate that lie would support societies on one side, and now, for an appearance of consistency, would agree to a mea sure which affected to put them both down. He assured Honourable Gentlemen that he had no such feeling. He had fiom the first expressed his dislike of all party associations of any kind ; and two years ago, when a measure was introduced for putting down societies of one particular description, he gave it his support — though he must say that he did not then hear any of the constitutional scruples which were now avowed on the other side of the House. The associations then at tacked, were not much in favour with the Hon. Gentle. men opposite, and that si ould account for their silence. The Act which had' then passed, had, he understood, been since evaded, but he could assure the House, that be would be ready at any moment to lend his support to any Act by which Parliament might assert its autho rity in putting dawn ail such societies. But he appre hended, that if Alderman King, who had appeared at their bar on one occasion, had come forward. and avowed himself as the Deputy Grand Master of the Orange Lodges, and had prayed to be heard against any measure tending to put them down, tint his prayer would have met but a cold reception from the Hon. Gentlemen opposite—(Cheers).—But to come to the ground of this motion of the Honourable Mem ber (Mr. Brougham) being necessary for the purpose of supplying evidence not already before the House, he would contend, that on that ground it was uncalled for. There was, he maintained, evidence to satisfy the House of the injurious tendency of this Association. He would adduce it from their own public acts. Without taking the intemperate speeches of one or snore members of this body, he would demonstrate their per nicious tendency from that which they laid before the House in support of this motion—(Hear, hear). In the petition presen:ei yesterday, it was stated that " the Catholics of Ireland felt the necessity of bestirring themselves in their own affairs, and it was deemed right to enter into an association to promote the geheial in terest of their body." Why, was not that, lie woull ask, in itself evidence of representation ? But what was their prayer ? That " that House would adopt no mea sure against the Catholic Association." That, no doubt, would be fair enough ; but did they contii.e their prayer to that alone? No; they prayed farther, that the House might not pa. s " any measure against any portion of the Catholic people of lielan J." This is as a tliiccs ac knowledgment of representation, against which he should enter his protest. The petitioners further said, that they met fur the purpose of consideting " va rious grievances which affected their body.' Here then was a public body, holding a weekly meeting—a body which had met 20 times at least since October last. This body appointed Finance Committees, Grievance Committees, and Committees of Education. Was this a system which should be allowed to continue? that men should thus usurp the privileges and practice of a Parliament, and these men forming an assembly, of which any man might become a member who paid his guinea? It was said they assembled for the discussion and redress of grievances. He would protest tgainst such body taking on itself the power of pointing out and publicly denouncing particular gtievances, in cases where they were afterwards to become the prosecutors. The petitioners denied the charge of levying contribu tions. He did not mean to say that they could legally enforce the payment of those contributions, but there was a moral as well as a legal influence, and that they did not fail to take advantage ot. The names of subscribers were publicly read at the parochial meetings. Was it no exercise of their power that the names of those who did not contribute should be placed in their black-book, as an Hon. Friend had described it ? He would ask whether subscription; collected under such excitements could be called voluntary ?—(Hear). But, voluntary or involuntary, was it to be borne that funds should be thus collected for the purpose of secur ing the press—for prosecuting all who might injure Catholics, and for opposing Orangemen lor any other society? Could an association with such objects be car ried on without irritating the public in Ireland? He would not pin his own construction on their objects: let their own public document speak for them. The Committee of the Association appointed to consider the necessity of raising subscriptions, state in their report, " that it was necessary to have pecuniary resources to animate the energies of the Irish people." Now, with out asci ibing any bad motives to those who framed and agreed to this resolution, giving them full credit for all the honesty of intention which they claimed for them selves, he would say, that these resolutions were, on the very same day, followed by an act, which was in itself calculated to excite the strongest suspicion, and to awaken feelings of alaim, which it might be oifficult to allay. On the very same day that they declared the necessity of raising a supply of 40,0001. " to ani mate the energies of the Irish people,"—on the same day that those people were called upon 41 by the hate they bore to Orangemen." to forward the views of the Association, they arced unanimously to an address to Mr. Hamilton Rowan—(Hoer, hear). — In the letter of the Secretary, communicating that ad dress, he spoke of inlaying been adopted with an energy and unanimity seldom ss 'messed. The Right Hon. Gentleman bele read the principal passage of the letter, in which the whole conduct of Mr. H. Rowan had been praised, and the warmest eulogy had been, passed on his having almost sacrificed his lite for the good of his country. He then proceeded to read to the Home an extract from a Report of a Committee on the state of the country, which sat in the year 1799. The Report stated, that in the month of Apri1,1794, a Mr. Jackson, a Clergyman, came over to Ireland from the Directory of France, to arrange the clan of a French invasion of that country. Mr. Jackson stated that he met and had several interviews and conversations on the sub ject of his mission with Mr. Hamilton Rowan, a princi pal leader of the United Irishmen, who had since escaped the country, and had been anointed of high treason.— He had also met a Mr. Wolfe Tone, who h' 'hid — - e - sc - aTed t - -