The Sun. — London, England, 1825-02-19 00:00:00

ceives the Secretary of the Society of Antiquaries, another clay the Secretary of the Bible Society, another day the SecrOta. e fy , of the Society of Arcs, and several others, no one ofwhi n sits the exception of the Society of Arts, is charteredto any wish follow than the Catholic Associatian ; and you his example. Now, Sir, I cannot help thinkingfor my own you com part, that this will be the greatest mistake that ever same mitted. rdo nct mean to say you corn take in 1766. You did not then know he t you hired a whom m acter of Dr. Franklin, a great and illustrious name now' it w e ch i i • the highest price for man to abuse in the Privy Council, giving.. oso not then know that a sarcastic speech against him. V of his countrymen. The tie enjoyed the affections and regard men are unanimously cho p:Si:Opal charge now is, that thesehe ssoci at i on. We know they een as the Representatives of the Association virtually repre sents the Association, bu si t that, you say, is the reason why cents the Catholic Body ; but I say, when these men are known they aiuet be put down ; of the Catholic Association.you ought to to possess the confidence of making a treaty with Ireland through be glad ofanopportunoy these men. This may be done easily and the mediuM f you ° hear their statement. If you examine evi 'PeeallY' if of two things of necessity will happen ; either aence, I say one you will.orent the prayer of the petition, or you will reject it ; kindand taut you will reject it, after a consolatory process. Sow, Sir, I am met with one objection here on the subject; and' lam told there is no precedent. For myself I fairly say, ths.o circumstance would not abate the fervour of my resist ance, because, in my opinion, it is an unprecedented case. PecaOse it is a new case, that makes the necessity greater to . resist it. I dare say we lost America by following a prece dent. -lii 1776, what took place with respect to the Stamp'' Act ? That was a case of petitions against the Stamp Act, which was a general law. Those petitions came from Ameri cans abroad and in London, and were referred to a Committee of the whole House. An examination took place in 1766, when the memorable testimony of Dr. Franklin was given, which was pasied into a literary document. That examina tion ended in the repeal of the odious law. So that the Horse not only 'examined witnesses, but that was followed up by the repeal of the obnoxious measure. Afterwards various petitions and remonstrances were presented against the Bos ton Port Bill. The Learned and Honourable Gentleman here , read an extract from the Journals of the House of Lords, the substance of which, as far as we could collect, was expressive of the motives which induced the House not to accede to the prayer of the petition. He also read the protest of Lord e Fitzwilliam, the Duke of Portland, and L or d Rockingham, on that occasion, and proceeded to the follow ing-effect : —Dr. Franklin, who was here at that time, says, in one of Ills letters home to his friends, " My object is to save the ,elorious fabric of the British Empire from being destroyed by these calumniators," &c. ; and those who preached up in those days, governing men by their affections, were held as fanatics, and wholly unworthy of attention. The consequence was, the prayer of the petition was rejected, and an eminent man was maltreated here. . This, with other causes, had led to the great struggle of that country with this, and it was not -until 7 or 8 years afterwards, and after thousands of lives had been lost in the question, that the Government of this country awoke to its right senses, and that America, as my Honour. able Friend, the Member for Westminster (Sir F. Burdett), had said, obtained its brightest jewel. For my part, I cannot but rejoice that so magnanimous a spirit was then shewn to the world on the other side of the Atlantic, that millions of free men were found to be unanimously struggling for the glories of liberty, and that so noble an instance was then put forth of a great community governing themselves freely and econo mically without tyranny either in Church or State—a people uniting a degree of magnanimity with their acts of legislation, to be paralleled by nothing that was to be met with in modern times, and which went near to wipe ofFthe stains that had blemished the name of a republic. I consider these arguments, Sir, as suffi dent for the support of my motion, but before sitting down may perhaps be allowed to say, that it must be in the re collection of even the youngest Members of the House, that petitions similar to the present have been received with Counsel, and witnesses; and I myself remember, that my first introduction to this House was in the year 1808, when I came betbre its Bar as Counsel for a petition ; and I the more warm ly press this motion on the House, because lam convinced, that, if even the Bill for the Suppression of Societies in Ireland is not successfully proposed o yet, at least, the plan I propose will give such a light to the affairs of Ireland, and create such a glorious feeling between you, as the Representatives of England, and them, as the Representatives of the dis contented of Ireland, as must eventually, I am persuaded, lead to much better and much kinder feelings between the two countries. Surely the house should not oppose this hearing, that is demanded on behalf of six out of seven mil lions of the population of a distressed country—in behalf of a religion that was once your own. It is a favour that once was conceded to the hawkers and pedlers of this country, and all that I ask is, that the same favour should be bestowed on six millions of Roman Catholics that was granted to the pedlars of England. Let them as the pedlcrs have been, be heard by their counsel and witnesses : the cases are not altogether op posed to eack other : each party came before the House com plaining of seievances, and I find in the petition of the h aw k ers a sentence that might have been, with much propriety, copied into the present petition :—" Your petitioners have heard, with the utmost astonishment and affliction, that there is a Bill before your House for their utter extermination, untried, unheard, anti uncondenned ; we claim, therefore, as our birth right, and as free citizens of 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. lam afraid that I have trespassed too long on the patience of the House, but before I conclude I have one request to prefer to both sides of the House. Let us, I intreat them, on this oc casion, to forget all the animosity of faction and party ; let us with one accord seize upon this golden opportunity, remember. log that it is an opportunity sent to us as a God-send, 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 proper to offer, the only way for understanding the ground-work on which :we are proceeding, being an attention to such ground s as may be offered on eithr 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 considera. tion, and whethenthis Bill he passed or rejected, I now give it as my settled and earnest opinion, that on this may be founded a basis of lasting esteem, and of a conciliation, in every respect unexceptionable, with the Roman Catholics of Ireland. I therefore move, Sir, that the petitioners may be beard by them selves, Counsel, agents and witnesses, at tl:e Bar of this House. Sir F. BURDETT seconded the motion. Mr. C. WYNN should object to the motion on general :Parliamentary principles. If a Bill affected any body of in s dividuals by name, or if any body of individuals could state {that they suffered a grievance from the provisions of a Bill, the usual course was to hear them at the bar, although the rule was not general. The lion. and Learned Gentleman had iiomplainetl of the haste with which the present question • was pressed.; but after a debate of four days, and when the second reading was put off for a week, he thought the charge was not well founded. At the suggestion of the Honourable and Learned Alember himself, the next stage of the Bill was deferred from this day to Monday. that it might be in the hands of Members, and under a minute examination. The Bill had been called a condemnation of the Catholic Body, but, if it west: so, he should not support it.---(H ear, hear!)-It was a ge neral measure to put down all Associations and. Societies.— (Cheers.)—lf Societies assuming one garb were not suppressed, rival Societies, assuming a 'different garb, would start, and the contentions between them be acrimonious and intermi nable. The Boston Port and Stamp Act were local measures. The Catholics, on the contrary, were constituents of many of the Members of that House, and might thus prefer their com plaints to Parliament. If this Bill affected Catholics only, and not Protestants likewise, he should never give it his sanc tion. Ile did not like to quote precedents, but he might advert to the Poll Election Act of 1785, and also, to what most sur prised him, the remark of his Hon. and Learned Friend (Mr. Brougham), in favour of a Petition from individuals for a whole Body. He recollected when a Petition was presented on behalf of some slaves who,could not themselves petition against being removed from an island where they bad been born, the Hon. Member for Winchelsea objected to any one coming for-- ward as the next of kin of any set of men, and observed that if • allowed, persons would appear as the next of kin of the people -of England.—( Hear!)—He had no objection that Negroes, r if per mitted by their masters , should themselve s p etition Par !a nent but appearing by their next of kin was fraught with danger. No B ill of general operation was ever opposed by ' or evidence at the *bar, but Bills affecting particular counsel bodies or individuals. The Hon. and Learned Gentleman had referred to the facts in the Hon. Seeretary for Ireland's speech , invalidated. but in these there .wa s n o i His Hon. Friend whether did not/ state the soldier Hanley was a (Mr. Gottlburn) Catholic or Protestant. Even whether he was guilty or Irmo .show that the Ass cent did not affect that w hich went ton of ju He knew .prejudging Association persons interfered in the adminis tratio e knew What the - Hon. before they werearied.—(Cheers opinion of justice was.; but it Baronet's (Sir Francis Burtletes ) .roon to come to trial unpre , was the undoubted . right of every 1 judiced. ' The Bill might rest simply on the declarations of the ts stated in which was to Catholic Association, one of the oh j ecjustice. No statement of - interfere in the administration o f on as to the expediency - facts could alter his (Mr. Mrynn's . 2. o Pin! -- concluded aad justice of the present Bill. The Hon.- Member b 7 benefits which would accrue to Irelan4 f m ‘ n T v t g to the in that country. Sir J. pTeiuting Societies of all descript ions VOßx spea king on Irish, was the habit of not in affairs, altho a h The Catholic ' e gave Association; h e them much attention. down. ,For wever, he thought ought to be put 111 n'f the last 35 years he was used to hear threats of what the Ca- ' tholics would do if not granted their 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 Hon. and Learned Member (Mr. Brougham) when he finished his speech. He remembered when cruising Off Cape Clear, at the ]period 61 the rebellion, he saw th e E mera ld I s l e f or the first time, and having asked a man on board what would benefit Ireland, he answered, that she'd never do any good till she was 24 hours under water.—(A laugh.)—By that it was meant, until shewas cooled and reduced to a moderate temperature. ,He denied that England was not disposed to serve Ireland in any mode. Out of the 54 millions 4-year raised for the State, that country did not contribute more than 1-17th.—(Hear !)—And when the po pulation was starving, did not the people of England volun tarily give them 500,0001. ?—( Hear !)—As to Emancipation, the Catholics 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 for the present Bill. Mr. HOBHOUSE was astonished that, even in moments of hilarity, the Honourable and Gallant Member would go to such lengths as he had just done. He despaired of ever see ing the wrongs of the people redressed while such sentiments were held by their representatives. The Hon. and Gallant Officer could not hope to meet with the approbation of Many Members even of Administration by the tone he assumed. It was with pleasure he heard the Learned and Hon. Attorney- General for Ireland with such glowing expressions bear testi mony to the justice of the Catholic claims—if the AssociatiOn did nothing else, it effected good in drawing out that declara tion. The Right Honourable Secretary for Foreign Affairs, who had always hitherto given such proofs of liberality, and was always listened to with delight, had expressed a conviction that one day Eniancipation would be carried. These were great things for the Association to have achieved. After some fur ther remarks in allusion to the Honourable and Gallant Ad miral's speech, the Honourable Member proceeded to say, that it was an old proverb that the last feather broke the camel's back, and that although the Catholics had hitherto endured so much, more ought not to heaped on them. With respect to' the Right Hon. the President of the Board of Controul, pre cedents were as natural as cases from the Hon. Secretary for Ireland, and was one as good as the other—to dignur et Mc. The parties accused were ready to appear and vindicate them selves, and ought 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 Hon. and Learned Friend (Mr. Brougham) observed, there was a striking analogy between the situation of America and Ireland. In 1768, when the King came down to Parliament, he recom mended the House to take into its consideration the state of Boston, where acts subversive of the Constitution were occur ring. The Address said the recommendation should be car ried into effect, and a resolution of the Congress contained ex pressions unquestionably rebellious. • Governor Pownal rose, however, and said that if true the House ought to proceed—bur he was satisfied they had never been employed. The Right Hon. the President of the Board of Controul had complained that the Association pre-judged cases before trial, but when ex officio informations were .fled, did not four Judges first pro nounce that they thought sufficient guilt established to justify the proceedings. The Hon. Member supported the motion. The SOLICITOR-GENERAL was content to look at the' question as to hearing counsel upon the measure in this way— had the House already before it, or had it not, materials suffi 'cient to warrant its coming to a decision ? He thought that the House had amply sufficient; and that without resorting to a single fact which was not admitted by the Hon. Gentlemen on the other side. First, it was not denied that the Catholic As sociation represented the people of Ireland ; next, it was ad mitted, that this Association, upon its own showing, was form ed for the redress of all grievances, whether local or general, which affected the Irish people. The Hon. Member for West minster might call these things words; but lie (the Solicitor- General) must be allowed to consider them as facts. The As sociation took upon itself, farthcr,a direct financial character ; and whether its levies were mad e by t a xe s , or is th e s h a p e o f a voluntary contribution, he should show to be a flimsy and frivolous distinction. By the law of the country (here the Honourable and Learned Member alluded to the case of " The King v. Dolby") no person contributing to the fund s of the Catholic Association could sit as a juror on any trial in which that Association interfered or was concerned. This was one proposition entirely trodeniable ; and a second, no less certain, was, that no person similiarly situated could be examined as a witness. Then, as almost every Catholic in Ire land was declared to be a subscriber to the rent, it followed that scarcely one in a hundred could be in a condition already either to sit as a juror, or to give evidence as a witness, in any cause, civil or criminal, in which the Association mightl take ' part. If counter-associations arose on the part of the Protestants, disabilities on their part would be equally created, until the thing would end in a stoppage of all administration of justice throughout the country ;—and now, referring to the doctrine of " conflicting vices" laid down a few nights since by the Hon. Member for Knaresborough (Sir J. Mackintosh), he would put it to that Hon. Member if this was a case in which, from such conflict, any advantage was likely to be derived—whether the subscription paid to this Association was voluntary or compelled, he took to be a matter of no consequence.— Taken in any way, it was illegal and unconstitutional ; but it was said to be voluntary : let the House see how it was collected. A register was kept of those who gave, and of those who refused to give ; and this register was exhibited at every general meeting. Those who did not give, it would be remembered, the priest who went round had power to excommunicate. He (the Solicitor-General) did not mean to assert that any such power was commonly exercised, but the power existed; and itavas one of his strongest objec tions against the measure called Catholic Emancipation, that the priests of that faith held a power over their people which they chose to call spiritual, but which it was impossible for men of ordinary understandings to consider as any thing else than temporal and civil. But if there was no fear of offence given to the priests by a refusal to contribute, was there no dislike on the part of men in general to be made marked characters—to be put down in the Black Book ? lie should be inclined to say of this voluntary contri'aition what Dr. Johnson had said of the recommendation to choose a bishop—" the congi d'elire"— that it was as much a matter of choice as when you threw a man out of a two pair of stairs window, to recommend him to fall to the ground.—(Hear! and laughter.)—Now, there was no person at all responsible for the disposal of the money col lected in this manner ' • it all went, voluntary or compulsory, into the hands direct of the Association ; but his present business was to shew that, voluntary or compelled, the effect in law was the same. Voluntary contributions in general were not lawful, with out a licence from the Crown. In the time of Bishop Atterbury, who was known to have had friendships at the Court of St. Ger mains, certain sums of money had been collected by the scheme of a charity sermon, and the Bishop was believed to have dis posed of them in that quarter. Now, for preaching that charity sermon a clergyman had been prosecuted ; and the charge of the Judge to the Jury on that occasion, he (the Learned Solici tor) had before him. The Judge said, " I told the Jury that this practice was dangerous, and that it was an invasion of the prerogative of the Crown and of the Legislature ; and that, in my opinion, the defendant was guilty." What he stated was borne out by this case : the broad law was, that it was il legal to raise money by contribution in a church—to raise it even for the purpose of charity, unless for the use of the place in which the church was situated—it was unconstitutional to do this, and illegal, except by the King's licence. The Crown had not the power of the purse against the people ; and therefore it was unconstitutional that the people should have the power of the purse against the Crown. And he had ~o ne back to the time of Atterbury for this case ; but the principle of the law had been acknowledged at a much later period. High as the judgment stood of several gentlemen whom he saw on the opposite benches, there was scarcely one, perhaps, whose facul ties would .stand higher than those had done of Mr. Sheridan. Mr. Sheridan, himself, in the year 1724, when the question had been whether die Crown could receive a voluntary contribution —.Mr. Sheridan had been the first to declare such a course un .constitutional. That money was to have been paid . into the hands of ministers; it was for a purpose which Parliament had already recognized—the furnishing equipment for the war; and yet Mr. Sheridan had said " Compulsory gifts are one offence, and gifts however free are another; but one course, no less than the other, amounts to a breach of the privilege of this House; and therefore I think that the Serjeant at Arms ought to be sent to take the chairman of any meeting attempting such a course into custody." All these dings the Honoura ble Member for Westminster might call words.; but lie (the Solicitor-General) called them facts: and they were facts suffi cient to warrant him in voting to put clown the Catholic Associ ation. Upon the general question of Catholic claims, he would say nothing at present; there might be an opportunity, perhaps, ofdiscussing thatsubject more fully before the close of the session. At all events, the.present time would not he a very convenient one for going into it.—(Hear, hear ! from the Opposition.)-- .He.understood that cheer perfectly; but certainly it affected him 'nothing. His conduct had, at least, been always con sistent upon the question.—(Hear, hear !)—Whatever his opi nions were, they were sincere,. and he had never wavered in his expression of them : he therefore had no explanations to make. But with respect to the immediate question—the petition before the House—did Hon. Gentlemen observe what it was that the petitioners desired ? because the prayer was to be heard, not merely by Counsel but by witnesses. And what was the evi dence which they desired to give p Why, they would call wit nesses to shew that, since the commencement of the proceed ings of the Association, it had never done any act, or made any declaration, calculated to excite alarm or exasperate ani. mosity. What, then, _these witnesses were to give evidence, not as to facts, but as. to intentions ! They were to furnish the House with their opinions, not with accounts of that which actually had been done ! He wanted nothing of this kind —it was attentive ; but he " rea lly wan t e d no wit nesses who were to giVe the House arguments and deduc tions. There might be thirty witnesses, or twice thirty for aught he knew ; but he did not want to have it proved by those persons that to " hate" meant to like." Hon. Gentle men talked of precedent in the case; but what Counsel had been waited for three years ago, Wen a Bill to limit the estab lishment of societies in Ireland had been passed ? If was wild 4 talk of privileges by the letter ; by the Bill 'of Rights it was said that the subjects of England might arm ; but who would have thought of calling witnesses, some years hack, to show that bodies of men might assemble to practise military exercise ? Now, in his short address to' the House, he had assumed no thing—he repeated this—Las a fact which was denied by the members of the Association. He admitted that witnesses had frequently been heard, and Counsel, in cases depending upoa general principles ; but that had always been in cases where the House had not facts sufficient to legislate upon before it. In conclusion, he opposed the hearing of Counsel in the present case as an unnecessary consumption of the time of lion. Mem hers. _ 31r. S. RiCE. stated, that there were persons in town ready to give oral evidence OA the conduct of the Association, and to submit to the House every document of their's from the first moment of the constitution of that Body. They were within reach of the House. The ?louse ought not to take the first given evidence alone, but ought to accept the acts of the Asso ciation also. It had been said, that if the Bill was aimed at the Catholics alone, their evidence would be admissible ; but when the supporters of Orangentm supported it, could it be doubted that it was intended for the Catholics, and the Catholics alone ? If Orangemen felt aggrieved by the Bill, they also might petition to be heard against it. It had been objected that there were no precederltS in favour of the moti o n ; b u t there were several Irish questions, and on the occasion of an Irish measure, an Irish precedent was most applicable— (Hear !)—in the reign of King Anne.—(Roars of laughter, and cries of Irish ! from all parts.)—King Anne ! I meant Queen Anne.—( Laughter again.)—No, I was right.—(Re peated roars.)—Will Hon. Members recollect the war cry of the Hungarians ?—" Moriantur pro rege nosiro Mut ia Theresa !" (Cheers.)—[Here the Hon. Member quoted precedents from the reigns of King William, Queen Anne, and Geo. I. of Irish Catholics having been heard by their Counsel at the Bar of the Irish House of Commons against Penal Bills.l The Catholics of Ireland had no connection with the lion. Member for Aberdeen's Resolutions relative to the property of the Irish Church establishment. They ought not to be censured for those resolutions. Even on the Tithe Commutation Bill Lord Kenmure refused as a Catholic to interfere through a re luctance to do any thing which could affect the property of the Church ; and a Catholic Clergyman, on being examined before that House, denied any intention or design on the part of the Catholic Clergy on the Protestant Ecclesiastical property of Ireland. Catholic Ireland was that night at the Bar of the 1 - louse; and if their petition were rejected, the solemn respon sibility would rest on the Ministers of the Government. Mr.. PEEL said, in addressing the House, he should studi ously avoid those topics which were connected with the general question that had occupied their attention for 4 nights, and pro bably would fo - e more than one in the next week ; and he should also dismiss from his consideration other topics which had been referred to in no very discreet terms, such as the case of the United Provinces, and the number and power of the Ca tholics.—(Bear, hear!)—He must first ask himself, is the claim of the petitioners founded in justice ? Is it consistent with Par liamentary usage ? Is it demanded in equity ? and if he should find that the demand was not- supported on either of these grounds, he was prepared to resist it, and take upon himself the responsibility. He wished to meet the question fairly— was the claim consistent with justice—with Parliamentary usage, or was a compliance required to supply the defects of evidence ? With respect to precedents, although he did not think this should be conclusive, yet, if he found they ran in one uniform stream, it was a strong implication that the general conduct of the House had been regulated with a due regard to the interests of the country. The Gentle men opposite had, in his judgment, completely failed in ad ducing a strict instance of precedent applicable to the case.— He conceiVed the general rule to be this—if a general measure be introduced to the house of Commons, in which parties feel ther pecuniary interests affected, they have a right to be heard ; the House is then like a Court of Judicature, adjudicating on civil rights, and they would not proceed without hearing the parties. That splendid precedent adduced by the lion. and Learned Gentleman opposite (Mr. Brougham), of the hawkers and pedlers, which was considered so fine as to crown the climax, had, in his opinion, completely failed. What was the fact ? A Bill was introduced, affecting the interests of a cer tain class of subjects, and they prayed—to do what ?to exempt them from certain penalties that all the rest of the community were subject to ? No, but which actually deprived them of bread. But so fay from this being a case in point, the House refused to hear them. Mr. BROUGHAM interposed, and said the Petitioners were heard, as it would be found on reference to the Journals, 41, 30th June, 1785. _ _ _ Mr. PEEL having referred to the Journals, admitted his mistake ; but this had no referrence whatever to the present question, for there was a measure to impose a great additional duty upon a certain class of persons, and in conformity with the general usage of the House, the parties were heard. If the present prayer was complied with, it would be impossible here after to refuse when any measure was proposed for the tranquil lity the country. When it was proposed to suspend the habeas Corpus Act—a measure of great importance, a similar application might be made, and could not be refused. The consequence would be, that instead of discharging their delibe rative functions, the time of the House would be occupied in hearing the eloquent speeches of Counsel. It was well known general interest, or any enlarged principles, but the in that the paramount object with every Counsel was not any terests and designs of his client. The propriety and absolute necessity of this practice bad been maintained by the best and highest authority ; and had not the House beard from an eminent Counsel, that he would not submit the interests of his client to those of his country ? Had they not beard him maintain that he owed a paramount obligation to his client ? .1 nd was not this very doctrine and argument pressed against himself ( 3I r. Peel) in the case of the Qu e en ? If this doctrine we re sound, was it not prudent not t o a d m it t o th e bar of this House Counsel, that would be urgin g th e i n di v id ua l or partial views of their employers, instead of discussing those matters upon which ourselves might properly pronounce? If the bar of this House were, upon every occasion like the present, to be thronged by Counsel pleading for particular and partial inte rests, there would be no opportunity for the display of the elo quence of those Gentlemen who compose the Legislature, and popular assemblies would be overborne by the splendid elo quence of Gentlemen who are called upon to advocate the causes and interests of their clients. He remembered well when the bar of this House was occupied by six large wigs pleading for the interests of a Private Company (the Maritime Association); and he was justified in calculating by the rule of three, that if a Marine Insurance Association gave six large wigs, how many wigs would the Catholic Association give ? But although it had been the practice to hear Counsel at the bar on private Bills, if this practice were applied to public matters, what would be th e consequence ? He remembered having heard it urged in that House, that if the House received Mr. Stephens as an advocate for the Blacks of St. Antigua, some other Counsel would present himself at their Bar as the Counsel for all England—(Hear, hear !), and the privilege of discussing all public measures and proceedings would be en tirely taken out of the hands of the Members of the House. Ile remembered when a certain Bill was introduced relating to the slaves of an island in the West Indies, who were then perfectly satisfied, and in a state of subordination and quiet. The object of the Bill was merely to enable the owner of the slaves to re move them to another island, and a gentleman appeared on behalf of the Blacks to argue against the measure; but it was determined that the gentl eman ' had received no authority from the negroes to appear i n t h e i r behalf, and amongst those who opposed his being heard, was the Right Honourable Gentle man (Mr. Brougham). There was a danger of establishing a precedent against general p r i nc i p l es, a nd if neither general principles nor the nec ess i ty and justice of the case obliged the House to receive th e petition, it was incumbent upon the House not to receive it ; and if their rejection of the petition were sufficiently Explained to the Roman Catholics of Ireland, they would be convinced of the justice and strict propriety of the determination. He for one would never entertain the bad opinion of the Roman Catholics which he heard perpetually propagated in th at H ouse, that although Parliament might act upon the most so un d principles , they would be dissatisfied, and would imitate th e example of the United Provinces of Ame rica, and separate themselves from England. lie would enter into no such views, and could not believe that this could pos sibly be the case. The course the House was now pursuing was founded on good sense, and was called for by the nature of the case, and arose particularly out of a well-founded fe a r of establishing a most inconvenient precedent. The Catholic s of Ireland w ou ld appreciate the motives of the House , a nd would willingly su b m i t to the voice of reason, a nd in saying this he was o n ly g i v i ng credit to their own assertions o f t h eir loyalty and di s p os i t i on to obey the laws. Looking at the sub ject as a mer e question relating to the receiving of the peti tion, he could no t conceive that there was any case made out, that there were any grounds whatever for receiving th e p etition, for the purpos e o f supplying defective evidence. A great art, if not the gr ea t est part of the Hon Gentleman's speech (Mr. Sitring Ric e ) was entirely applied to . this principle and object. lie would s a y b ut a few words upon the Parliamentary pro ceedings relatin g to tl • ,h p re cedent was very ma terial in this poi nt o f view. p The Gentlemen on the other side of the goose had asserted, that there never was an instance of a. Bill of this sort having passed without a Committee of the House, or without some communication from the Crown. He begged leave to say,• that this was not the fact, and that no assertion could be moreerroneous.. To..prove it so, he would only refer to well-known instances to the contrary. In last century, the Habeas Corpus Act was suspended without any Committee or communication to the House from the Crown. The notoriety of the danger was thought to warrant and fully authorize the Legislature to act without any Committee, without any mes- NO from the Crown, and without the production of any . papers. The Convention Act passed the Irish House of Com mons without the appointment of any secret Committee, and if Irish precedents were good on oae sid e of th e H ouse , th e y were equally Food on the other. True it was, that there was a Com mittee sitting on the subject in the house of Lords, and they came to a resolution, that a self constituted body, interfering with the administration of justice, and receiving private sub scriptions for the attainment of that and similar objects, was an evil not to be tolerated by Government, and the House con cluded that it ought to be suppressed. There was then no tittle of evidence before the House, but Parliament conceived the Society to be a great evil, and upon the notoriety of that evil, and upon that alone, did they found their resolutions and pass their Bill. Parliament also enacted the Bill of 1795, for suppressing seditious societies, witho u t an y S ecre t C omm itte e , or the production of any papers, or any direct communication whatever. The prearnbleof that Act fully proved the fact, and the doctrine he was now holding. After all the condemnation of the proceedings of Secret Committees, and the declamation that had been sent forth upon the subject of Green Bag Commit tees, now that Government came forward manfully, and stand ing upon their own responsibility, without any Select Commit tee, without any Secret Committee, without partial or garbled extracts, they were assailed by the other side of the House for departing from precedents and general principles. He conceiv:d that the only question was, whether the evil of this Catholic Association, and of other associations of the same nature, were notorious or not ?—(Hear, hear, hear !)—He was not in the least affected by those cheers ; if they meant any thing, he supposed them to allude to his support of the Orange So cieties, and to amount to a charge against him of inconsis tency. But he could truly say, that he disapproved of all secret associations, whether bound by secret signs or not.— From his very first connexion with Ireland, he had ever uniformly expressed his disapprobation of such societies. It Was well known to the greater part of those whom he now addressed, that in 1822 he had consented to a measure in tended to put an end to all such associations. When that all sl a j its s t 3 s , . t s a stages, a s it subjects, h related e heardto onlynone n n eo ofe ctilieliroltisaeiPna objections ss c e l a d s sti'orfou which were now so dwelt upon by the Gen tlemen opposite. Political combinations were then held in great obloquy, and were suppressed with almost unanimous exclamation by Parliament. If the Bill for their suppres sion was evaded by any subterfuge or artifice, or if its pro visions were in any respect abused, he, for one, was per fectly ready to accede to any measure which should have for its object the putting of them down. But in passing the Bill for the suppression of Orange Societies in 1822, the House acted entirely upon the notoriety of the existing evil, and did not proceed upon a Committee, nor upon any Papers laid before it. at t p t o h n e that ßar o o f c rca ornh %, if - QuidAlderman theGe K t i t Gentlemen a o p p p p l the House in favour of himself or of his Orange Associations ? Would not the Hon. Gentlemen opposite have treated the pro 7ssailt e to b b a e v h e e s a a r l c ( 1 1 posal with the utmost contempt and indignation ? And where was their consistency, when they were now so vociferous in fa vour of the opposite association being represented at their bar? Would they say, give that Association.an opportunity of being heard by Counsel at the Bar, enable them to indulge in splendid declamation about the right of Parliament to legislate generally against what had been called a condemnatory Bill? Withrespect to the present measure, be denied that it was a condemnatory Bill. If it was a Bill of pains and penal ites, no person could doubt the right of the Association affected by it to be heard at the bar by Counsel. But such was net its Character, and yet the Hon. and Learned Gentleman had thought proper to give the Bill a wrong appellation, the appellation of a condemnatory Bill, in order to make out the title of the Petitioners to the privilege for which they had applied. Again, with respect to tithes ; if, when the Bill upon that subject wa s i n progress through the House, the Clergy had applied to be heard by Counsel on the subject of Tithes, as well as on the general affairs of the Church, would their application have been acceeded to ? If it had, what delay must have resulted from the long speeches of that might be expected from a subject so extensive and import ant ? But no one could think that the prayer of such a Petition would be granted by the House. His Hon. Friend who spoke last had asked how they could have more satisfactory evidence on the subject of the Association than that of the petitioners themselves ? But he (Mr. Peel) would ask in return, had they not already the admissions of the Association ? He would be able to shew, taking their public acts and declarations, and the 1 i tnssio parliamentary proceedings of the A ssoc i ation, that the House had ample grounds for passin g th e Bil l, without hearing a single word more in evidence. H e h e ld a Petition in his hand 7t a h t ofol c,, of Ireland February, felt h t b he e had necessity e c e receivedf yesterday. bestirring which It was the last act of the Associ a ti on. T hey had thereset forth date dthat the i Catholics the themselves in their own affairs, and it was deemed right to enter • into an Association to promote the general in terest of their body, and to bring under the frequent conside ration of Parliament the various and heavy grievances of which the Catholic people of Ireland complain." Was not that like an avowal of their representative power—(Cries of " No, no!" from the Opposstion side ; " Bear, hear, hear !" f rom the Ministerial) ? To his mind it admitted of that interpreta tion. The petition concluded with a prayer, " that no mea sure should be adopted against the Catholic AssociatiOn, or against any portion of the Catholic people of Irelands without first atibrding to petitioners a full opportunity of vindicating their principles and conduct at the Bar of the Ilouse, and to be heard, if necessary, as well by witness as by their Coun sel." That passage, he maintained, amounted to an admission of their represeatative capacity a t once —(Cries of No, no Hear, hear !)-1 - 1e did not admit th e di st i nction that had been taken as to direct and virtual representation, hut claimed for Parliament the right to pass what laws they pleased. In avowing their intention publicly of addressing and petitioning Parliamera for the redress of grievances, they af}urd d e at least an admission of their existence as a body, and the House should never forget that they were a body who had assem bled twenty times since the month of October. They were also a body who appointed Committees of Finance, Committees of Grievance, and Committees of Education, and who required no other qualification in persons desirous of becoming me m . bers, than the payment of one guinea on their admissi on. _ (Hear, hear! from the Ministerial side.)—lf Parliament con sented to recognize them in such a character, they might de pend upon it, that the interval would not be far distant between such recognition and their assumption of all the functions of Parliament. The had also professed, in their petition, " to procure for the poor, the ignorant, and the de_ fenceless, redress from the known tribunals of the law, for out rages and injuries arising from party-spirit." That p r i v il ege he also considered highly objectionable, for it was contrary to the spirit of justice that the same body which exercised the other acknowledged functions, should institute prosecutions against individuals. The petitioners denied that they levied contributions on their fellow-citizens. It was true, he would admit, that they had no legal mode of enforcing subscriptions, but if they could not exercise a legal, they had exercised moral compulsion.—(Hear, hear !)—Was there no moral com pulsion in the fear of being registered in their black-book, as an lion. and Learned Gentleman had called it ? W ou ld any man say that the threat of having one's name inscribed by the Priest in a book, after Divine Service, on refusing to sub scribe, left that person at liberty to choose whether he would subscribe or net ? One word more with respect to that leysawhich was by far the most important part of the question. Did that body admit, or did it not, that they received funds from the p eop le ? He held in his hand the Report of a Committee, signed " D. O'Connell," which stated that, in order the more effectually to exert the energies of the Irish people, it was necessary that money should be collected. To that assertion he objected. The intentions of the Association might be innocent, but to say the best of them, they were very equivocal, and lie would say that some acts of the Association, even giving them full credit for the motives they avowed, ought never to have taken place---(Hear, hear!) He could perfectly understand why words spoken in the heat of debate by individuals who, in their cooler moments, might be willing to retract them, ought not to be charged upon the Catholic body; but the frequent use of such expressions formed a strong objection to the existence of such meetings, and could not fail to be prejudicial to the cause of the Catho lics themselves. However, as he was no friend to that cause, he would dwell no longer on that topic. There was one Reso lotion passed by the Association, which he thou g ht o f consi derable importance. By that Resolution Mr. Hamilton Rowan was admitted as a 31 em her of the Association. He would ask, was not such proceeding likely to excite suspicion, and exasperate animosities ? The Secretary of the Association had addressed a letter to Mr. Hamilton Rowan, apprizing him of the fact, and stating that the Resolution had been passed with more enthusiasm than he bad ever witnessed on any former oc casion. That, on the mention of his honoured and beloved name, it was hailed with the applause which formed, at once, the testimony and the reward of a life that had been de voted to the service of his country. It was possible that the individuals who had voted such an Address might not have been aware of all the circumstances connected with the life they bad so described ; but if a public body, collecting money to di rect the energies of the Irish people.; had been so unfortunate as to propose that address, and to exult at the mention of that ho noured and beloved name, on the very day on which they had adjured the Catholics by the hate they bore to Orangemen, was it not a reason sufficient to excite suspicion in the most candid mind ? With respect to the name and the political character 0 Mr. Rowan f he should say no more than what ha found in the Report of the Secret Committee of the Irish House of Lords in 1799. It appeared from their Report, that an English cler gyman, of the name of Ja c k son , h a d procee d e d f rom F rance t o Ireland, tbr the purpose of conducting a treasonable conspi racy, with a view to the invasion of Ireland by France. That in 1794 he had commenced a correspondence, and held fre quent interviews with Mr. Hamilton Rowan, as the leader of the United Irishmen, who shortly afterwards was committed to prison, but had subsequently escaped, and was attainted for high treason: Vat he and Mr. Theobatd Wolf Toneand Mt- Lewins had frequent conferences, the former of whom wa ,, taken in a French vessel, called the Hoche, on the coast of Ireland ; and the latter escaped to France, where he acted a% Envoy of the United Irishmen. After such a statement, would the Association maintain that the Resolution to which he had alluded, had no tendency to excite suspicion or alarat'? Whatever they might think, or however they might reason ? they might depend on it, that even if they had the power to bring the whole body of the Catholics to the bar of that House; the united testimony of six millions of men could not satisfy the Protestants of Ireland or the people of this country that there was no ground for suspicion or alarm in such a proceed. ing.—(Hear, hear, hear! from the Ministerial side.)—That an Association professing to haye 40,0001. a year, and six mil lions of people at their command, should hail the beloved name of an attainted traitor, and adjure the Catholics by the hated they bore to Orangemen, as their natural enemy, was a fact which he would say afforded ground for suspicion and alarm that could never be overstated.—(Hear, hear!)—lf they took credit for such an act, the voice that informed them of the danger of such a course, was a friendly voice; the man who cautioned them against the indiscreet course they were pur suing, by holding forth such a resolution as the act of the deliberative body, was a friend to the peace of Ireland. Ile would appeal to every man who pretended to the least re gard for the pure administration of justice, to put them-, selves in the place of the individuals who might be pro secuted by the Association, and ask themselves whether, against such prosecution, they could think it safe to go to trial ? The Hon. Member for Knaresborough ; might mo ralize upon the advantage of keeping up the civil war of the passions, but would he tell him that it would contribute to the pure administration of justice, to have that body conducting prosecutions, and prejudicing the minds of the people ? A re solution of the Association stated, that the Secietary had opened an account with every parish in Ireland, in order to collect sub scriptions for the purposes alleged in their petition. Was not that a ground of suspicion and alarm ? Could a body, con sisting of 3,000 men, for whose character they had no better se curity than the fact of being able to pay one guinea for admis sion, proceed in the exercise of such functions without awaltirs.. ing that sound constitutional jealousy with which it was their duty to view every political measure ? After the Pro= clamations that have been issued, the House was bound to regard them with ten-fold jealousy. One of those Proclamations set forth that care should be taken to pube lish the sums subscribed, together with the name of each subscriber, unless where the subscriber wished to remain anonymous, and that with respect to a monthly Catholic rent collected by three or twelve individuals in each parish, no such body would be recognised by Parliament. But to return to their petition—it represented their body as consisting of " Ca tholic Prelates, Peers, and Baronets—of many. Protestants of noble families and great possessions —of many distinguished members of high and learned professions—of commercial men of great wealth and character—of country gentlemen, farmers, traders, and substantial citizens." That it consisted of many respectable persons, lie did not mean to deny ; but the more important they were, the more did he object to their undertak ing the conduct of prosecutions. If Prelates and Peers and Baronets were of their number—if even the venerated name of Earl Fitzwilliam appeared amongst them, the more was it unfit that they should institute prosecutions, because the prejudice excited against the defendants were likely to be more strong. It was possible that they might be acquitted; even under such circumstances, but they had no right to send any man to take his trial with such a weight of prejudice operating to his disad vantage. lie had shewn the foundation of his opinions by reading extracts from public and official papers; and on these public documents he meant to call on the House to support the Bill, without hearing any evidence against it. He was satisfied there were good and Parliamentary grounds for the measures and he would vote for it without listening to any petition. His sense of right and his sense of justice dictated to him boldly and manfully to give his vote against the prayer of the Peti.. don. The Right Honourable Gentleman sat down amidst loud cheers. Mr. C. HUTCHINSON rose to defend the character of party who was not then present to defend himself. The allusion s made to Mr. H. Rowan he would not pass over. He had been in Ireland wh en M r . R owan was obliged to leave it, and he was accompanied by the regret of all lovers of his country. The ob ject of the United Irishmen of his day was to relieve.lreland from the effects of misgovernment and the foul misconduct of official and judicial characters. lndeed they only attempt ed to do hastily that which the *sent Ministers were trying day by day to effect more slowly and cautiously. It could not be doubted that the present Bill was directed solely again: { the Catholic Association. That body had been grossly libelled , and the Counsel had a right to be heard at that Bar to remove the unfavourable impressions that had been excited against• them by those libels—the liberal part of the Ministry had beer dragged into the line, and they would find it difficult to extricate themsel4s. The Ministry were making war against the whole Population of Ireland. He denied that the Protestant feeling in Ireland was against the Catholics, although it appeared to be the wish of Government to create that feeling among them. begged of the House not to sh u t th e i r ears aga i nst t h e pe tition' , of the insulted Catholics, for if it did, he would not answer for what they might be driven to. Mr. PEEL rose to explain. He wished to meet the question by fair arguments, and felt convinced, that there was nothing in what he had said which could be construed into insulting the Catholics. The Hon. L. C. CLARKE, the Member for Kilkenny, sai d he thought Ireland would he perfectly tranquil, except for the Catholic Association, which produced, not actual disturbance, but agitation. He would support the Bill, and vote againsl - Petition. Sir JOHN SEBRIGHT was ready to give his support to the Bill. He th oug ht some measure s h ou ld b e adopte d for" putting d own t h e A ssoc i at i on ; b ut h e felt that the British' House of Commons was acting unworthy of the greatest BodY, in the w or ld, when they refused the petitioners the right 0f . being h ear d at t h e B ar. I-l e could not lay his hand on his hear t and say, th e C a th o li cs o f I re l an d were not i nsu l ted and degrad ed., He had never heard any argument against Catholic Eman cipation, which was not fo un d e d i n error . Mr. S : CARLErr rose in consequence of an allusion to his opinion on the Constitutional Association having been made by a Ri g h t H onourable Gentleman in the course of a for mer debate. He was ready to admit that he did think the Constitution a l A ssoc i at i on was not supported by law. It was .l an association t o p rosecute po li t i ca l of f ences. I t usurped g power of the Att orney- G enera l , b ut the Cat h ol i c Associat i o n acted on different principles. The Attorney-General had, done himself ho nour i n not prosecuting upon the suggest i on o f that society. He came to the House unprejudiced, with re s_pect to the question, but the speech lie had heard from the Honourable and Learned Gentleman who opened the debate, had induced him to vote tbr calling in Counsel. He gave his vote conscientiously for hearing witnesses at the bar, because the object of their errand was to prove to the House that their desire was to have equal laws, and a fairer participation in the privileges of the Constitution. Ile should always consider the petition of the Roman Catholics of Ireland founded on justice. The ATTORNEYGNRL did not rise to occupY much of the time of the House. He was only desirous of making a few observations in answer to his Honourable and Learned Friend (Mr. Scarleti). On a former occasion he con sidered the prosecutions of the Constitutional Association illegal, and his Hon. and Learned Friend complained of all Associations having the power to prosecute. Tlie Con stitutional Association, bad as it might be . , could not be co mpared with the Catholic Association. The Constitutional Association was governed by persons of respectability, but their proceedings were carried on by practitioners, who be came odious ; so much so, that persons considered themselves fortunate because they were prosecuted by the Association. It could not be said there was the least similary between the two Associations. Who were the Catholic Association ? were virtually three-fourths of the population of Ireland. y could wield the whole fhrce of the Catholic population of Ireland, and no person could deny that they were acting to s atisfaction o f t h e Irish Catholics. That being so, what must bee effect of prosecutions preferred by the Association, with the whole population looking at them ? Could any thi ng be. rare pernicious than a system of this description ? had The against the effect of public interest in prosecu tiownasY.3 likel The system of the Catholic Association was not only form y to produce injustice, but to introduce spies and in ers,,xnd to prejudice all' nals. cases which came before the tribu e very documents which constituted the prosecution, werereceived by the Association, and referred to a Committee, which ordered a prosecution. Every man who valued the ad ministration of Justice, ought; to vote for putting down . the Catholic A ssociation. The evils arising from this Association werereater than any which had proceeded from the Constitu tional Association. Every prosecution promoted by the Ca tholic Association becam e a party question, and no man could doubt the mischievous effects all their proceedings would produce. The call for question was very general,when BILDROUGHAM rose to reply. He said, he reater anxiety, never rose to discharge his d u ty w ith gecretar than at that moment. Th e Ri g h t H on . t h e Sy for the Home Department had, most undoubtedly,