The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser. — London, England, 1825-02-19 00:00:00

times. I allude to the reception of the illustrious La Fayette that country. 1 entreat the House, if they cannot meet the hopes of the Catholics, at least to put an end to their discontent. There another peecedeoefor bearing the petitioners at the Bar of the House, to be found in the ease of the Hawkers and Pedlars, who were permitted to be heard by Counsel, on the prayer of their pe tition to that effect. I only entreat the same measure of justice and consideration, for the claims of six millions of people, as you acceded in that instance Ido entreat that on an occasion such ' as the present, all animosities will be forgotten, and I entreat both aides of the House to seize the present golden opportunity—an op portunity which may never again occur; I entreat Hon. Members, whether they be for posing or rejecting the present measures. to concur with the Brayer of this petition. you hear and see those men, and become familiar with the leading interests of the Ca tholics, you will have laid the fhundation of a permanent, firm, and urexceptionable conciliation. I move, Sir, that those parties, in ptirsuance of the prayer of their petition, be now heard at the Bar of this House. Mr. W. WYNN thought, that the present parties should be content with the customary privilege of being teard by petition. Pe thought the proposed measure for the suppression of illegal associations, 'one of great consequence ; and he was sure there existed no desire to force it prematurely through the Moose, without giving it the most calm and extensive consideration.— Da he would tell the House. that this measure seas not directed solely against theflatholic Association: It was an 'Act to put down all Associations, all parties, all combinations,' which, under the garb of religion, or any other pretext, kept alive animosities in Ireland. And he would tell the House sad the country, that if It was not speedily curly' into effect, all that we had already . 'seen or heard of the interference of party in the administration of justice would be but a shadow compared to what must inevitably • follow. He contended, that neither the Hon. Gentleman's allu sion to the Stamp Acts nor the Hawkers' Act, were applicable it the present case—they were local Acts, not of general appli ; not like the present Act, extending to all AtrociitMna. Ile did not like to quote precederos, but he would just mention a ease which occurred in 1785. At that time a bill was attempted to be introduced for the purpose of regatati ng the method of taking the poll at elections in Westminster. Mr. Pitt opposed it, on the grounds •that it would be a pretedent for every ether borough procuring an Act for the same purpose, and the consequence was tint the Bill was lost. It Tors with ro little surprise that he had heard the Hon. Gentleman argue to-night so strongly ter these wh ewe being heard at the bar of this idoose ; for he recollected thatDO Mager Chad three years ago he hadbeen opposed by the Hon. 4911111111111110 in a eashWhich very much resembled that which he now advocated. Ile had presented a petition from the next friend of a body who (Auld rot petition themselves, the negroes of an Island is the .Vest Indies, praying that they might not be removed from as island where many of them had been born, and where all had Bred fora great number of years. What was the objection ? Why, edy Hon. Friend would not allow fbem to present a petition, and to be heard by their next friend, rest it should create a precedent ; bitt if their master would allow them to appear, if he would provide them with fie means of coming to England, then he would hear them. He would not allbw their next friend to be heard, but if they came themselves he iehuld heir them. Is not this a little inconsrttent ? He would not hear them because It eight create a precedent, and any other bodies of per am feeling themselves aggrieved Might claim to be heard in the manner; and yet nori - lie calls upon us to hear witnesses on of others in a precisely similar manner. The Hon. Gentle_ tattoo, too, has endeavoured to draw an inference from the fact of the soldier being a Catholic. Now he could say that it was not in his recollection that the Right Hon. Secretary for Ireland had ever *id hewn either Catholk or Protestant, and in his mind it made ttftß Ible bast differerce whether be was Catholic or Protestant ; no, bet the least dtfFerenee whether he was gust' or innocent of the Murder laid to his charge—it was enough for hint that his cause was prejudged, that he was held up to the Teeple in a light which MO man untried should be, and :hat the whole proceedings of the Catholic Association in his case tended to the denial or perversion ofjaatice. Ile did not care what interpretation a Right Hon. baronet (Sir John Newport) might put upon the acts of the Asso ciation. When he (Mr. Wyrn) saw a "pelslic meeting put forth a declaration holding this man up to their fellow-subjects r - rrl - U M __ hearsay. Nothing, was known upon the subject—nothing founded upon evidence— nothing supported by fact. The Right Hon. the Secretary for Fo reign Milani would not allow, in his address to the Ileum:, that the Association at all represented the feelings of the Codudie people. The Right Hon. the Attorney. General fur Ireland thought they were so firmly united, it would be impossible to separ.im them. Which of these Right Honourable Gentlemen were we to 'pet our trust in ? Upon which of their assertions were we called upon to legislate ? Who could say that the Learned A ttorney- Meneral is cognizant of what has been done or said in Ireland. when we had lately seen him, in the case of Mr. O'Connell, so ill informed upon the state of parties as to be unable to find an Orange Jury who would find a true Bill against a man charged with sedi tion 7 Every ease brought forward in support of this measure had beet controverted ; every fact, he would say every asserted fact, had been dented or 'disproved. The Learned Gentleman (Mr. Brougham) had instanced the conduit pursued with regard to Ante ricaass a warning and example. In our prevent situation, he, too, would take the liberty of introducing to the House a parallel case in the transactions of America. When the King came down to the House, in the year 1775. he recommended to Parliament, in his speech front the throne, the propriety of taking some measures to put down eerta;n illegal transactions at Boston, which appeared to b:, directed against the royal authority, and subversive of the spirit of the Constitution. Upon the discussion of the question in the Commons, a resolution of a very rebellious tendency, said to have been passed at a meeting in Boston, was read. A Member asked. were they quite certain that such a Resolution was ever passed? They had heard so—lie solemnly denied it : and although he offered to prove at the Bar of the House that nothing of the kind had ever been seid or any such Resolution agreed to ; a majority of the House, at four o'clock in the morning, voted an Address which finally produced the loss of America. The Learned Attor ney-General has not been able to prove in this instance either acts or words. A Learned Gentlenian has said, that the inter ference with the administration of justice should be stopped at once. Had it never been the practice of Parliament to interfere with the administration of justice? Did Honour:biz Gentlemen forget what had been done in the case of Iluut--did they forget how night after night his case was discussed in this House, and •prejudged by the very men who now object so strongly , to the acts of the Catholic Association 7 In a case of libel, too, do not four Judges of the land prejudge a person accused b:fore trial ? In inques , s, does not the Coroner prejudge a criminal ? Had the Association done any thing mare than this? He would beg to observe, that one of the witnesses in this case had been held up to their particular admiration by his Majesty's Attorney-General— that he had been eulogized in no measured terms; no objec tion could, therefore, be made to this individual upon the ground of respectability; but Government, it was plain, had made up their minds to put down the Association. No arguments, no facts could avail, else why did Lord Liverpool, when applied to Mr. Alb Donnell, refuse to hear any explanation of the views and objects of the Association ? Why did he refuse to i hold any correspondence with him ? because they were already re ' solved, and this Bill was to be the answer to all complaint. They reminded him of Vertot, who, when a friend made game objections to a passage in his History of the Siege of Rhodes, observed— "ln fact, have written my history, and nothing you can say will induce me to alter it. (Hear.) He had thought it his duty to ex. press his sentiments to the House on this subject ; and he begged, in conclusion, to observe, that he thought the measure thus pro posed to be carried into execution against this Association, fraught with danger and ruin to the prosperity of the country. (Hear). The SOLICITOR-GENERAL said, that his Hon. Friend op posite (Mr. Hobhouse) had stated his opinion that the House was about to legislate on words. He (the Solicitor-General) would on the contrary say, that the House was about to legislate on facts. He would occupy the attention of those who heard him but furs short time, and would avoid all matter that was not strictly before the House, confining himself merely to a statement as to how far there was sufficient evuleece on which to proceed without hearing either argument or evidence at the bar. There were many facts in up 0. II 111111111111111111111111111 1 ' \ , what be toots r -but what the Honeiurahle Member for West minster hatidemanlnsesd fraeds. He (the Solicitor-General) hid been told that this payment of money was not forocd ; and not wlthstaading this black and red book, he would say it was a volun tary subscription. But lie would at the same time say, that the money so raised was equally ageing the privileges of the House and the spirit of the Constitution. lle had stated his reasons why he would vote for putting down the Catholic Association—because it interfered with the administration of justice, and because it be comes the depository of money, levied in opposition to the princi ples of the Constitution. lie would assure the House that he felt little disposition to trouble them much further; he would not now enter upou the subject of Catholic Emancipation, because he anti cipated that an opportunity would be given him at some future time, and because the discussion would be irrelevant now. lle would observe, however, that on this subject he had always been consistent ; and as be had been uniform and consistent, he should not be liable to the observations that had fallen from some lion. Members opposite with respect to other Hon. Members who sat near him. He would state his reasons why he would vote against the pe titibn to hear witnesses at the bar of the 11 ruse. Those witnesses could have no facts to explain of which the House was not in possession. But he entreated the House to consider what was proposed by this pe tition to be done. What was to be adduced by those witnesses at the bar? lie would read one line of the petition, and but one line; it was petitioried that " evidence might be heard at the bar of the House, to show that there had been nothing in the proceedings of the Cathd,tic Association calculated to cache alarm, or to exasperate aninutsities." So, the House war to hear evidence to inform them what the intentina of the Association were, and they did nut want toexcite bad feelings. It was very probable that a witness at the bar of the House, or.that thirty witnesses, for he understood there were so many arrived, might say that hate means love—that ad juring one party to hate another was not calculated to excite ani. mosity. The witnesses, however, were not to prove facts, but simply to state their own opinions. He did not want any witnesses to tell him what was the effect which the conduct of this Associa tion mum produce. The conclusion was matter fur moral mason ing, and not to be found front the information of any man. lie would disbelieve the jesuitry of thirty witnesses, who told him that the word hatred did not mean hate, He would put the case in another way. Perhaps the witnesses might tell him that the sub scription was not in any way to oppose the law ; but lie was still left to draw his own inference from the fee:, he had stated. Ile knew how those facts must operate, and no witness could tell him how he should think. He would take tile liberty of stating to the House that many cases might occur. in which, if they beard evidence at the bar. they would be adopting a bad pelt. eiple. liniesses might be called at the bar to prove whether the !louse ought to go into any inquiry into the state of Ireland, and evidence might be brought forward to state whether or not it would be at any time politic to allow aliens to remain in this country. Then here was a Society, with a Committee of Finance, of Grievances , of Education, and possessing various other powers, and was he to call fifty or sixty witnesses to instruct him that it was consistent with policy, with_ legality, and the spirit of the Constitution? If there were no facts to go upon, then the evidence might be fairly brought forward ; but as there were facts. the case was very different. Ile was sure that he had stated nothing as tact that had been denied by the Honourable Gentlemen opposite. Ile regretted the absence of his Honourable and Learned Friend (Sir James Mackintosh), who possessed the happy art of connecting things that were not in any way connected. That Honourable Gentleman had alluded to the delays in the Court of Chancery ; and it had been matter of astonishment how he had been able to introduce the Court of Chancery into a discus. lion on the policy of putting down unconstitutional Associations in Ireland; but he (the Solicitnr-General) would tell that Hon. 31en".cr and the lion. Member for Lincoln, that if they were to examine fifty or sixty witnesses at the Bar of the House, the delays in the Court of Chancery would be trifling to the delays in the House of Commons. He could draw no line of demarcation between those petitions : all or none must be received, and on those grounds be should object to , P ee t , • e eel It * ‘ in point; nor do I think it Is necessary 1%l the House by isolated precedents, When certainly the stream of t against his argument, and the convenience of the . more so. If Connael were admitted to be heard on would atilt what future Bill could ever be introduced to Parliament without the same indulgence being granted to the opponents of it ? The Habeas Corpus Suspension, for instance— a subject mast interesting to every class of his Slajesty's subjects— should that, I say, come before the consideration of Parliament, with what face could the House of Commons refuse Counsel at their bar against it, if they acceded to the request of the peti tioners ? I sin ready to maintain that every Bill that has passed this House within the last ten years might have been opposed by Counsel at the bar, upon the stone grounds as it is proposed that this should be. If we give a privilege of this kind, the time of the House, instead of being occupied in its deliberative functions, would be wholly taken up in hearing, I w ill admit most eloquent, speeches of Counsel ; and I beg the House to bear in mind that Counsel are bound to attend to the interests of their clients, and cannot therefore take a comprehensive stew of the interests of the country. It istheir bounden ditty to attend to the views of their clients, and all other considerations arc involved in them. I can not illustrate this position more strongly than by referring to the answer 1 received from the Honourable and Learned Gentleman opposite, respecting her late Majesty. Be said, let the danger be what it might to the country, he had a paramount duty to perform to his client, and he would perform it, let the risk be what it might. (Hear, hear, hear.) Besides. Sir, I will ask, what would be the situation of the independent Mem bers of this House if the practice were to preval of admitting Counsel to its bar on all occasions, which the reception of this peti tion would open the door to? They would be overawed by the eloquence of Counsel, contending for the interests of their clients, and would completely prevent general discussion in the House. I well remember, during the last Session. the array of Counsel I saw below the bar, Sir, to be heard against the Marine Insurance Com pang. I saw six large wigs on the Marine Insurance question, and by the rule of three I should say, if six Counsel are nesessary to ' argue such a question as the Marine Insurance, how many trill be accessary to argue the Catholic Question ? (A laugh.) I remember well, too, after four of the Learned Gentlemen had been heard, how pitifully lion. Members looked at the other two who were still to argue their ease, and with inquiring eyes endeavouring to lied out whether they meant to speak long or short; and it was not until the House had heard speeches of Counsel for seven or eight hours, that they were relieved from the formidable sight of six large wigs, and that, too, on an uninteresting subject—the Marine Insurance. But in the instance I have referred to, invested rights were inter fered with. Persons prayed to be heard by Counsel , - who had been themselves engaged in an undertaking probably the whole of their lives, and who felt that they would be sensibly injured in a pecu niary point of view by the new enactment. The lion. Clentleman opposite had objected, and I think rightly, to the admission of 31r. Stephens at the bar last Session, in me case of some blacks in the West Indies. lie said, if you admit Mr. Stephens you must after ward. admit Counsel in behalf of the next of kin of half the blacks in the Colonies. But observe the peculiarity of this Bill :—lt was a Bill introduced to remove certain slaves from one island to an other, and a gentleman, a great philanthropist, desired to appear at that bar to object to the Bill, but the House refused his request. But it is upon general principles, and not upon dry reference to precedents, that I require the House to act. I rely on the good sense and prudence of the Catholics of Ireland, that they will be satisfied when they know their petition militates against the usages of Parlia ment, and would, if agreed to, lead to a most inconvenient precedent. I never will concur in the bad opinion of the Catholics, which those who call themselves their friends seem to entertain of them. Thew hold out the threat, that the Catholics would, by the rejection of their claims, be driven to desperation, declare their independence, and follow the example of the American provinces. No, no; will never think so badly of the Catholics as that. If I could be lieve them guilty of such conduct. my opposition to their claims would be greatly strengthened. Is there, I would ask, any reason on the last ground, viz. In order to supply the defective evidence laid before the House, that we should consent to the prayer of the peti tioners ? And now one word on the Parliamentary Papers of htst Session. The Habeas Corpus Suspension Act was suspended with out any communication of papers. In 1793 the Convention Act as me lion. Friend Mr. S. Rice is so fond of Irish nrecedents was . o . tight ,;.... A ..A. T HE BRITISH APRES. in t Rood ? The naly pwint of similitude between the precedent of the I free, mother—and the one wain lees it breach of the privilege of are exactly in pea Right Hon. %mailman and the question now before the House is, Parliament than the odor,. Tbo Sergeant-at-Anna, therefore, to be guidedl ere that the petitioners in both were equally ill-treated—both equally l ought to arrest the individual wiri proposed to violate a privilege precedents is the slaves. (Hear, hear.) From the beginning to the end of these lof the House, by proposing a voluntary supply." lie (the Soh. House much I vivo discossiona, the House bad proceeded on hearsay. Nothing serails cit seirdsi now take the liberty of stating to the House this Bill, Iwe pc- was known upon the subject—nothing founded upon evidence— what be call facts—but what the Honourable Member for West- Parliament w Lice nothing supported by fact. The Right lion. the.Seaettry for I's. minsterltirl denominated *fords. Ile (the Solicitor-General) hid opponents of 1 _ _ f ` ` ` . <\ Son of justice? This body proposes to levy monthly econtribu. tions by means of Committees in each parish, regularly ap. pointed to collect it. This of itself would raise suspicion, even if not coupled with the other facts which I have detailed. Am [ to trust to the integrity of a body for whose responsibility I have no Mr:her warrant than the payment of a guinea? Am I not to feel alarm at the proceedings of a body who order that all lists of subscribers, with the amount of subscription, should be posted up as near the church as the clergy would allow, in order that every_ body might see those whd subacribecl and those who did not ? Am I not to feel anxious on account of my country when I see such a body devote a portion of its funds to the support of the liberal press, as it was called. This Association, in this petition, is stated to be composed of prelates, noblemen, merchant'', lawyers, &c. includ ing all the resptctable part of the community. This showed it! respectability ; but I say the more respectable it is the stronger are my objections. This body is not only not content with instituting a prosecution, but mast also pub. dish every statement it receives against the accused, and then send him to trial with a prejudice ea isting against him in the minds of his fellow citizens, which on his trial might tend to his conviction. It is no answer to me. to say that there have been in stances uf a man having been acquitted under these circumstances; for It does not lessen the offence against the spirit of the constitu tion. It is upon these reasons, Sir, drawn from the public acts and resolutions of the Association itself, that I ground my assent to the passing of tbis Bill. These reasons also influence me to reject this petition ; and with this sense of right, I will boldly end manfully give my vote against it.—The Honourable Gentleman sat down amidst continued cheering. 31r. C. H CTC H INSON.—On account of the noise which pre railed for sonic time after the Hon. Gentleman rose, we were not at first able to catch his line of argument ; but we understood him to reprobate the practice, which too much prevailed in that House, of introducing the names of individuals who were absent, and in con. sequence not able to defend themselves. He would therefore give his feeble testimony in favour of one individual who had been attacked, be meant Mr. Hamilton Rowan. He (Mr. Hutchinson) was in Dublin at the sime 31e. Bowan fled the country ; and he would say in his favour, that no man ever left Ireland more re- spected, end he did not think there was a better man ; although he had not the honour of knowing him personally, and was not inte rested in his testimony, he thought it but justice to say, that the • Association io the expression of its sentiments towards him did but echo the general feeling of the people of Ireland. He would not attempt is defend the conduct of those who have been condemned as traitors; but he merely gave the House the information he thought it should possess. An Honourable Member (Mr. Peel) had alluded to the years 1793 and 1793, but he would tell him that at that period some of the most respected names in the country were enrolled in the Society of United Irishmen, who endeaveure I to di all the good in their power to their country, and had tried to tura aside the current of discord which led to the rebellion of 17118. The losing party were always stigmatized ; some of the greatest cha racters in history—as Sydney, Hamptleo, and Russell, if their party had not eventuall) , succeeded, would have been branded as whore. The Orange Societies and the Association were essen tially different in character ; nobody denied the illegality of the former, and they were put down. It hhd been found that the ('a:hulic Association was not illegal ; but as the law would not resell it at present they Were about td extend it, for the purpose of abridging the subject of the liberty of petitioning Parliament. The Association justly complained that Ministek. had libelled the people of Ireland anti them ; and were now, under the pretence of' putting down all aasociations, about to press and gall the people of Ireland. in bringing in the Bill alinimers had atieted what was false against the people of Ireland, and when Gentlemen came from Ire. land to vindicate t heir proceedings they refused them a hearing before the passing of this Bill of Pains and Penalties, which was founded id error ; but the fact was, the liberal part of the Cabinet had been dragged into the mire, from which it would be impossible for their frinds to draw titan unsoiled. The Ministers had come forward to make war upon the population of Ireland. (Hear.) Lord 11"ellesley Would not persecute the Catholics, but that the illiberal Orange faction had succeeded in their aim, and *ere now carrying into effect the notasur r they bad planned fur putting down thr, Catholic millions of Ireland, for whom he now pleaded. It had been said that the Protestants of Ireland were hostile to this measure • this he was reuared to deny. T. is -now ethic tv. ifir ^ ie l