The Sun. — London, England, 1825-02-09 00:00:00

'he flonee go into any inquiry ?—although the proceedings and character of the Orange Associations were not half so well known to your Lordships or to the country as the proceedings of the CaOolic Association. ido not now mean to give any opinion upon the proceedings of the Catholic Association—of that hereafter. I shall not now say whether these proceedings were right or wrong; but I repeat that, in the case of the Orange Socities, your Lordships and the Noble Lord acted upon his sole knowledge, and in so doing 1 think he was justi tied. But at that period any advocate of Orange Associations, if they had an advocate in this House, may have risen and asked for inquiry upon the same principles upon which the Noble Lord now demands it for the Catholic Association. But, with respect to the Catholic Association, if the measure to be proposed rested upon official information,—if it rested only on the confidence that ought to be reposed in the Government,—if it rested solely upon the responsibility of his Majesty's Minis ters, it may be a fair case for asking information. Even in this case, however, th e measure should be known ; but how is the case altered hen his Majesty's Ministers can produce no in formation, and bring to your Lordships' knowledge no fact which is not as well known to your Lordships as to oe Execu tive ? It was the peculiar boast of the Catholic Association, and I mention neither as matter for praise nor blame, that all their proceedings were published—that every thing was done openly and in the face of day. I should think that, if Par liament shall think it fitting to adopt any measure which will include the Catholic Association, that measure must be adopted upon the ground of those proceedings which have been ad mitted, published, promulgated, and which no member of the Association can deny. The Noble Lord's motion appears to rue to be without any precedent ; I doubt whether there may be any grounds whatever for adopting it at any time, but parti cularly at this time, when the House is not in possession of the measure which his Majesty's Ministers are about to bring for ward. As to the difficulties which may occur in forming aleg,isla tive enactment to affect this or any other Association, I shall not now enter upon a discussion. We should now discuss it in the dark,anrl had better wait for the light, and not deal with the mea sure as if before theHouse,until the measure actually ikbefore us. But the Noble Lord supposes, I can scarcely conceive upon what grounds, that the measure to be proposed by his Majesty's Mi nisters has been founded upon the contrivance of my Noble and Learned Friend on the Woolsack. There is nothing in my Noble and Learned Friend's station which should lead the Noble Lord to suppose that the measure originated with him. him. As one of his Majesty's servants, my Noble and Learn ed Friend must, of course, have given his concurrence to the measure ; but why the Noble Lord should presume that my Noble and Learned Friend has, as it were, concocted the measure, I repeat I know not how to conceive. If the Noble Lord means to insinuate that the measure is my Noble and Learned Friend's, and not the measure of the Irish Govern ment, I can assure him that he is entirely misinformed. It is the measure of the Irish Government, approved of by the English Government. It is the measure of the Irish Go vernment, founded upon a deep sense of its necessity, and as the only means of maintaining the peace and tranquillity of Ireland. I will not now be led into any discussion, either as to the expediency of the projected measure, or its adequacy to to effect the purpose for which it is intended. If the Bill come up from the other House, that will be the proper period to enter fully upon the subject. Thus much, however, 1 shall say, which I feel,and I am sure every man in the empire must feel, that associations like that which has been alluded to must of necessity produce political and religious animosities, destruc tive of the peace of any country. The Noble Lord has said, what assembly is there that meets for the express purpose of discussion, in which violent and inflamatory speeches have not been heard ? lam as little inclined to fear the effects of inflammatory speeches as the Noble Lord ; they some times serve as vents by which bad feeling evaporates, that, if it had remained pent up, might have eltimately produced considerable evil. I agree with the Noble Lord, that when individuals meet for discussion, professing different religions and political opinions, it is scarcely possible to suppose that warmth and heats will not arise, and that inflammatory speeches will not frequently be heard. Inflammatory speeches under such circumstances are little to be dreaded; but when an assembly meets for the purpose of effecting the same object, when they profess the same faith, and meet with the same views, lam forced to look at their proceedings with feelings something different. I admit, however, that not much weight should rest on inflammatory speeches, except so far as they may he constructive of acts. The measure to be proposed by his Majesty's Ministers should be founded upon proceedings adopted and acted upon. To say more upon the subject now would be premature. The Noble Lord conceives that the Ifouse has some evidence upon which the projected measure is founded, from the prosecution of an able and powerful member of the Association, and because a Grand Jury threw out the bills which were 'sent before them, to support this prosecution, I am at a loss to know why the Noble Lord should draw such an inference from the act of the Grand Jury. That prosecution had been instituted for words spoken in public, and which the Law Officers of the Crown considered libellous ; the Grand Jury ignored the bills, and of course the case was not sent to trial. From this it was' only to be inferred that the Grand Jury did not put the same inter pretation upon the words alleged to have been spoken as the Law Officers did, and in consequence there was no finding. Mr. O'Connell was accused of having publicly uttered certain expressions which the Irish Law Officers considered prima freiJ libellous; the Grand Jury thought that the expres sions proved before them to have been tittered were not libellous : now how did this proceeding lead to any in frrence respecting the measure which his Majesty's Ministers proposed to submit to Parliament ? In my opinion there is no practice more dangerous to the liberty of the subject than that of drawing conclusions from particular trials. By the law of England, the person on trial had the benefit of any doubts which might arise in the minds both of the Grand and Petty Juries, and it would he a gross and most flagitious per version of justice, if an individual acquitted by a Jury, should again be brought forward and subjected to a second trial upon the same charge. I should, therefore, always bow to the deci sion of a Jury upon the only safe grounds upon which such a decision should he considered as just, under the particular cir cumstances, though not perhaps applicable to any general case. Having said so much with respect to the prosecution of Mr. O'Connell, as it was alluded to by the Noble Lord, 1 may be allowed to add, that the measure to be proposed by his Ma jesty's Government is not grounded on the words of indivi deals, but on the general acts of the whole body. It is impos sible to let this subject pass without remarking that if inflam matory speeches have been made in the Catholic Association, as conceded by the Noble Lord. there never was a period when stach speeches were so unjustifiable,—they were unjustifiable, because of the prosperity of the country, and the absence of distress, for distress it cannot be denied has a moral effect upon the feelings of individuals. They were unjustifiable also, be cause of the conduct and character of the Government for I would ask the warmest friends of the Catholics to , admit, I would call upon those Noble Lords who were most decidedly opposed to the system under which Ireland was formerly governed to deny, if they can, that in any country, or at any period, justice, equal justice, was more fairly administered to all parties than by the present Government of Ireland. There never was a period when Government looked with kinder and more friendly feel- ings upon that particular class of persons, of whom the Catholic Association was said to be the organ. In referring to this question, your Lordships will also have to consider another, which I adverted to in a debate a few evenings ago. I then 'stated that the Catholic Association, and those who promoted it, were amongst the greatest enemies to Ireland. That this Association was a check to the prosperity of Ireland, that it alarmed persons out of Ireland, who were inclined to favour the claims of the Catholics; above all, that it prevented the flow of English capital and intelligence, which was just begin ning to direct itself towards Ireland. There can be no q• 2.stion that it had excited those animosities, which it is the objrct of the GoverNment to allay, and has been their constant endea vour to appease. It is impossible for the Irish Government to succeed in securing the permanent tranquillity and happiness of Ireland, unless the Catholic Association can be put down. If this Association cannot be put down, you must permit all As sociations to run their course, to excite feelings of bitterness and hostility between the several classes of his Majesty's subjects, and destroy the peace of the country. In respect for the in terest of the Catholic themselves, some measure ought to be adopted. as much for their sake as for any other ; the proceed. ings of the Catholic Association had made it necessary. A 3 to the motion of the Noble Lord, I believe such a motion at such a stage was never before made. When the House knows no thing of the bill, when they have not heard that it is founded upon any official . correspondence,. I can see no grounds what ever for the Noble Lords motion, and therefore give it my de cided opposition. Earl Usii.OSVENOR said, lie would trouble the House with a f e w words, in consequence of what bad fallen from the Noble E ar l (Liverpool.) It seemed to bins that the Noble Earl had entirely misunderstood the drift of the Noble Marquis's ob servations. They arose out of the Speech from the Throne, which their Lordships heard, and in the principal part of which he (Earl Grosvenor) fully concurred. He concurred on many topics adverted to in the King' s Speech • indeed, the only part which he considered defective wag that relating to the Catholic Association. The Noble Earl had seemed to take it for granted that the Catholic Association were guilty • of many monstrous and horrible offences calculated to dis turb the peace of the country. The House had no evidence that the proceedings of the Catholic Association warranted such. an inference. The Noble Earl quoted the case of the Orange Association, but did not seem to recollect that on that occasion their Lordships had all agreed —on the con limy, they were now much divided in opinion. Some say, with the Noble Earl, that the Association is guilty of all abornina .; *as —others conceive that the speeches of some of the Mein. bers had been violent and intemperate, but that the proceed ings of the Association are not calculated to produce any seri ous evil,—whilst many state, that those proceedings have hitherto produced no mischief, but, on the contrary, an infinite deal of good. The Noble Earl would not find the lionse un animous on this question, as they had been on that of the Orange Association. It was not to be supposed that his Ma jesty's Ministers had not received soni^ communication s from the Irish Government, or that they should come down to propose a penal enactment upon the general knowhdge attain able by any ordinary individual. He had heard something of a Declaration of the Catholic Association, but he could per ceive nothing of a seditious nature in that document. He con entered the Catholic Question as of e of vital importance ; and unless the Government set this question at rest, it would keep Ireland for ever in a state of irritation. Was it wonderful that, in endeavouring to obtain the opinion of the Catholic body—considering the warm and generous character of the Irish nation—they should sometimes speak • with less tem per and moderation than some Noble • Lords might de sire ? Was it wonderful that in their endeavours to obtain the great end in view, the Catholics should have done something apparently intemperate ?... A large proportion of Protestants in Ireland joined with the Catholics, and were anxious to promote their views. lie believed none were ac tually adverse to those views but the Orange faction. This faction the Catholics charged with the spoliation of their pro party —with retaining a bitterness and hostility which affected even their lives. He did not mean to say that these charges were well founded ; but such was the opinion of the Catholics, and was it matter of surprise that they expressed themselves warmly and indignantly. He (Earl Grosvenor) was a Pro testant, attached to the Established Church, from conviction as well as profession, yet lie would say to the Catholics perse vere—never relax until you have attained your object. Earl Grosvenor concluded by supporting the motion of the Marquis of Lansdown. Lord HOLLAND said, the argument upon which the Noble Earl (Liverpool) depended, and which he urged with the greatest force, was, that the proceeding against the Catholic Association was not yet regularly before the House. The Noble Earl seemed prodigiously pleased, as he recapitulated it fre quently in the course of his speech. In the beginning, how ever, he had prudently abstained from letting their Lordships know the precise object of his Noble Friend's motion, nor had he brought it under the consideration of the house, in re ference to the proceeding to be proposed by Government.— Their Lordships were told they knew nothing of the proposed measure; they did know something, however, through the King s Speech, and he (Lord H.)conceived the denial of theinfonnation moved for by his Noble Friend unprecedented, indecent, and un just. The Noble Ea:l had often come down with papers on which to found laws at rideng the liberty of the subject ; he had come down wi h abom Labia green begs, and with volumes of papers libelling the character of the country; and yet no man was heard to say that the bill was not before the H ouse— that their Lordships should wait until the bill came up from the House of Commons. The Noble Lord had never before said, " the proceedings are not yet before you, you are called upon to do something, upon the allegation. of a great evil, but there is to be no inquiry." How were they, he would ask, to know the character and extent of the evil ? how to get at the re medy if the information desired was withLeld ? It was impossi ble that their Lordshipsshould not agree to it, if they considered the object of his Noble Friend's motion. The Noble Earl said that the preseut proceeding had a precedent. He (Lord H.) denied that there was any precedent. The Noble Earl was fond of precedents. On the occasion of the measure for the suppres sion of Orange Societies, he (Lord 11.1 had said, "not con tent." He took blame to himself for not having more fully stated his opinions at that time; but although he ad no great predilection for the Associations at whom that measure was aimed, he had said " not content" because he disapproves! of the principle. It was not true, however, that the measure was taken up without inquiry. It was urged that it was only, the extension of a law already in force in England, and which was found effective in that country. Lord Melville, when Mr. Secretary Dundas, when introducing the measure, said, that after considering the subject he had concluded, that as the mea sure was found to be useful in England, he thought it would be equally so,in Ireland. He supposed it was not intended that their Lordships should take the King's Speech into consi deration ; they must not speculate on any proceedings until they should be introduced by Minsters. It appeared that the Irish Convention Act was to be the model for tail new penal enact ment. He was no great admirer of that law, nor if he desired to make a new law, would he consult the Irish Statute book for precedents, and particularly not at the frightful epoch of 1793- In justice to the Irish Parliament, however, he would say, that the period to which he had adverted was one of great alarm. It was the time of the delegates, when there was an intention of actually calling a rival Parliament at Athlone; and, in ad dition to this, it was on the eve of a foreign war. He was glad to see the Noble Earl, who still held the Privy Seals (West. morland), in his place. That Noble Ford was not particularly squeamish in the measures which he introduced to support Government; nor was he particularly mealy-mouthed in ex pressing his indignation at the schemes of the disaffected against the Government. But did the Noble Lord mark out the Convention ? Did he advise in the King's Speech that it should be put down ? He recommended conciliation and con cession, and the Convention Act stands on the Statute Book immediately preceding the only act of real concession ever granted to the Catholics. They were now advised to mark Out the Association as a tit subject for new penal acts. But how could their Lordships decide upon the re nedy without sufficient information ? The King's Speech supplied them with very un satisfactory information on the subject. He had read the words which alluded to the Catholic Association many times, but could ' not perceive that any case was made out by those words. The Speech sets out with a statement of the proven• y of Ireland, and also of its tranquillity ; it then goes on o state t tat associations exist, and recommende Parliament to ; institute an inquiry, in ' order to apply an adequate remedy. How is the r emedy to be got at unless Parliament shall have a clear and correct view of the extent and character of the evil ? But whet d >ex the Mini ster say? He says, " Good God ! it is irregular, it is unparl'a mentary, to inquire : you want to get information before the Bill comes up." What is the general proceeding in such cases ? To ask questions of the Judges. But on this par ticular question the House was not at liberty to ask questions of the Judges, but was immediately to proceed to the re netly. At all events, if a penal enactment was necess try, their Lord ships should not act rashly. If there were sufficient grounds, there could be no r •asoas for extraordir ary haste ; because Ire land was prosperous and undisturbed, therefore their Lordships would have sufficient time for inquiry.—('!ere Lord H. read the consecutive passages of the King's Speech relating to Ire- land.)—His L - trdship resumed. There was nothing of emer gency, no eread of immediate danger. The Speech could not satisfy Parliament -hat any measure was necessary ; nor had the 3linister affbrded any materials for judging of the nature of the evil. The passage which relates to Associations incompatible with the spirit of the Constitution, might as well answer for the Irish Cabinet, or perhaps for the English, as for the Catholic Association. The Speech sail, " those Associa tions had adopted proceedings irreconcileable with the spirit of the Constitution." Most true ; the spirit of the Con stitution was, that a Cabinet should act in concert, or at least agree, on all questions of vital interest; but this Cabinet , was formed out of disunion and a spirit of incessant counterac tion. It used to be the custom to take one white and one black man. This was now carried much further; it was not applied , to the Cabinet, but to the movers and seconders of the Ad dresses, and to the passages of the King's Speech. The foolish prosecutions in Ireland were a proof of it. The Irish Crown Lawyers called out both " Cronn-a-boo" and " Butler-a-boo." It was said the Association would excite animosities. There was nothing more likely than that such a diviled and distracted Cabinet would perpetuate animosities. The spirit of disunion pervades all their actions, even to the King's Speech. They had set out upon the professed principle of giving no triumph to . either party, instead of which they had given a triumph to both. The new measure, if it was founded on the Convention Act, would probably afford a second triumph to the party which it was intended to affect. He ( Lord Holland) affirmed, that when that Act was passed it was called an Act to gratify spleen, to distort the most brilliant period of our history, and that it would give power to seditious associations, and would enable them to order a man to enter the House of Commons, and bid him take the mace fr)rn the Speaker's table. The Act enacted that none should so debate, save and except the Knights and Burgesses to serve in the Parliament there assem bled ; but it did rot so save them. The Act then went on to save and except the House of Convocation, duly and legally assemblei. When a similar Bill is introduced, it ought to save and except the Privy Council appointed by his Majesty to consider of the affairs of state. Ile (Lord Holland) was sorry to detain them longer, considering the narrow ground on which the question rested. They had been told to proceed with care till further evidence was before them—till the remedy came up from the House of Commons. That would be proper enough, if they were to take for granted, contrary to uniform usage, that the Act itself was founded in justice. If the measure did pass, it must be on the plea of necessity ' • but he should be loth to believe that the necessity did exist; for it would most cer tainly have the effect of abridging the liberties of that part of the kingdom where so large a portion of the subjects were al ready excluded from the benefits of the Constitution:; but he conjured them, for the safety of the empire, for the sake of their own characters, as they would go down to posterity, not to suffer this proceeding to go forward, as it would render their duty both painful and disgusting. Earl BATHURST said, that from the statement of his Noble Friend (Lord Liverpool) he did not at all wish that the proposed measure should be proceeded in on other information than that with which every body was amply provided- It was on the ptsblio proceeding:of a public body that they were-called' to adopt this measure. ft had been said in the course of the evening by a Noble Lord (Grosvenor) that in this measure they could not reckon on his support, and they did not wish it if he did not grant it when it wouhl be shewn that it was necessary for the tranquillity of Ireland that the Association should be put down. His Noble Friend (Lord Liverpool) had said that he would not be drawn into a discussion of a question relating to the Association, till the proper time ; for it was not then the time to take into consideration what measures were to be adopted. The Noble Baron had said it was an Irish measure. Lord HOLLAND begged to say that it must be a misappre hension on the part of the Noble Earl, for lie had not said any such thing. Earl BATHURST said, that the facts of the case were, that the individual who brought this Bill forward was the Secretary for Ireland ; this he stated, that it might not be considered as a measure of the Noble Lord to whom it had been imputed (the Lord Chancellor). If their Lordships thought further informa tion was necessary, they would wait till they saw whether this measure really did encroach on the liberty of the subject. Lord GitosvExon. and Lord HOLLAND explained. The Eati of CARNIRVON said, that the Noble Earl had talked of statements, but he (Lord Carnarvon) had heard nothing stated. He thought the Noble Earl would, as upon other occasions, have produced some documents on reasons of his own to justify the strong recommendation which had been put into the mouth of his Majesty. He, however, did no such thing, whilst another Noble Lord actually apologized for the little he was going to say upon the subject. Be tween both, in what a condition were their Lordships placed ? In the Royal Speech, which no doubt was composed by all the members of the Cabinet, each composing a part in his turn, the House was called upon 'o impose new laws upon the liberty of the subject. The Address which followed was, as usual., nothing more than an echo of it. He did not enter his dis sent from that Address, because it did sot pledge them to adopt such measures. But it pledged them to take into coasideratlon that with which they were not acquainted.— Well, when they came to ask for information on the subject, what were they told ? That they had the King's Speech ! The Noble Earl (Liverpool) said, " What, will you proceed in the dark ?" and at the same time he left them in the dark. How were they to receive the light which he promised them hereafter ? Were they to legislate on the preamble of the Bill to be introduced on a future day upon a measure which might lift necessary—for necessary it certainly might be for all he knew, kept as he was in the dark. Were they to say" content" or" not content" on an Bill which the House of Commons might send up, without having any information to guide them, and that upon a Bill which might be of the most vital interest to the welfare and safety of the country ? Were they to proceed in this way upon such a measure as this, when they would re quire evidence before them in support of the most unimportant private Bill. The Noble Earl said, that all the information was to be derived from the newspapers, and in the same breath he stated that the proposed measure was to be founded on the dispatches received from the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, and not on the notoriety of the circumstance which called for it. The Ministers said to the House, " We act on dispatches; the newspapers are enough for you." if the members of this Association wished for rebellion, they knew that Captain Rock was in the field ; they also knew there would be enough of green bags and insurrection acts here. They adopted legal measures, and so disconcerted his Majesty's Ministers, who were therefore contented to give the Hous. cns or two sentences on the subject, contradicting each other, and then fly from argument as well as from inquiry. The Noble Earl at the head of the law department, notwithstanding his legal ingenuity, would find it impossible to frame any bill capable of meeting the case ; and therefore they refused all in. formation on the subject, on the supposition, that if their Lord. ships waited for the decision of the House of Commons, it would be unnecessary to proceed further with the measure in this House. However, as lie (Lord C.) did not know what might be the degree of despair which this bill, if introduced, might occasion hereafter, and as he was totally in the dark upon the , übject ' lie felt he should be wanting in his duty to his ctuntry if he did not ask Ministers for the necessary informa tion to guide his judgment respecting so important aproceeding. The H 'use then divided, when there were— Contents . . 20 Not Contents 43 _ Maim -ay against the Motion . -22 The House adjourned at a quarter past Eight o'Clock. HOUSE OF COMMONS. Leave was granted to Lord STANLEY to bring in a bill to establish a rail-road between Liverpool and Manchester; and to Colonel DAY rs, to bring in the equitable loan bank bill. Mr. DUNDAS presented a petition from the Chamber of Commerce in Edinburgh, against the high tate of duties pay able on losurances against fire.. _ _ _ Sir J. N W PORT presented a petition from the Chamber of Commerce in Waterford, praying for easier communication with England. Sir E. KNATCH BULL presented a petition from the town or Deal, agni:lat the duties on sea-borne coals. C lonel PALMERpresented two petitions from parishes in lath, against the inhabited house-tax. The SOLICITOR-GENERAL presented a petition from he parish of St. Peter in the East, Oxford, against the house i.nd windo tax. USURY LAWS. M-. Serj -ant ONSLO %V rose, pursuant to his notice, to bring in a bill to repeal the usury laws. Ila did not feel himself call ed upon to say any thing in defence of it, since the House had shown their approbation of it in a division during the last Set s on, when there appeared 120 for it, and only 23 against hit Bill was ultimately defeated, lie had not heard during Vie last session any solid objection to the principle of it. lie had, indeed, heard several predictions of the evil conse quence which might arise from it; but in legislating for the country, Viey ought not to consider whether some inconve niences might not accrue from it, whether the advantages it was c.dculated to produce were not far superior to any temporary inconvenience it might create. The state of the money-ma •ket was at present such as to obviate many of the in convenien •es which were formerly anticipated from his bill, and theref 're he trusted that those gentlemen who had formerly opposed it would now withdraw their opposition. The Learned Sergeant, after taking a brief review of the arguments used by the oppone Its of his bill, which were nearly inaudible in the gallery, moied for leave to bring in a Bill to repeal the laws p -chib ting the taking interest for money, or limiting the rate tt e Tot. .11r. DAVENPORT declared his intention of opposing the motion, as he considered the Learned Sergeant's Bill to be preg ant with ruin to the landed interest. . . Sir. JOHN SMITH was sorry to observe in the Hon. Meinber opposite a disposition to oppose the introduction of this Bill. It was certainly in the Hon. Member's power to do so, ough the practice 7as now extremely rare. Indeed, he 1 oked upon this species of opposition as a triumphant proof of the excAlence of his Learned Friend's Bill, which had been supporte I by arguments which he had never heard answered. He trusted that his Learned Friend would not pursue the course which he did last year. That course, he spoke it without the slightest in'ention to blame his Hon. and Learned Friend— that course had led to the ultimate defeat of his Bill. His Learned Fiiend had deterred his measure, not once or twice, but a dozen times at least, to meet the convenience of the Gen tlernrn who opposed it; and the result of his conciliatory con duct had been, that they had assembled one night, when no discussion was expected, in numbers sufficient to throw it out. He hoped that if his Learned Friend carried his motion to night, he would bring forward the second reading of his Bill on a very early night, when there was certain to be a full at tendance of Members. He was convinced that the opposi tion which some Gentlemen made to this Bill arose entirely from mistake. Mr. C WOVEN would hold by the old laws, and would even propose t.) enact them, if they did not exist, in consequence of the numerous speculations now abroad, which were such as even to stagger credibility. If he was rightly informed, these speculations would require a capital of 160,000,0001. to carry them into effect. Mr. S'crjeant ONSLOW considered the argument just ad vanced by the Hon. Member for Cumberland, to be the most extraordinary of all he had ever heard in support of the usury laws. If the Hon. Member for Cheshire thought fit to take the sense of the House upon his motion, it was, though not very courteous, certainly parliamentary for him to do so. The House then divided, when there appeared.— For the motion, 52 I Against it, 45. I Majority, 7. SMALL DEBTS' BILL. _ _ „ Lord ALTHORP rose to move for leave to bring in a Bill to facilitate the recovery of small debts in England and Wales, and observed that it would be unnecessary for him to go into detail upon this measure, as he had during the last Session fully expli.in•d his object, when a similar Bill was rejected elsewhere, in c3nsequence of his refusal to allow compensation for certain sinecure offices which It was said would be affected. He now consented to introduce a clause for the purpose of al. lowing such compensations, although he retained his former opinion that the Bill would be better without such clause, yet he yielded to the wishes of others, and was anxious even at this expence to carry forward the measure. After the second read. ing of the Bill, to which he understood In its new form there would be no objection, took place, he should move for the ap pointment of a Committee to consider of the sinecure claims, which he believed would be found smaller than he had at first apprehended. The Noble Lord then obtained leave, and broughtin this Bill, which was read a first time, and ordered for a second reading on Friday nest, and to be printed. BANISHMENTS FROM INDIA. Mr. HUME postponed, 'mil Iruesday next, his motion for a return -of the muuber of British subjects mho 4tave been banished from British India, without trial, since the year 1813, for the purpose of enabling the Right Hon. Gentleman opposite to consider what part of so extended a motion he could consist ently concede. STATE OF IRELAND. Lord ALTHORP wished to know when his Majesty's Go vernment meant to propose a renewal of the Committee of In quiry into the State of Ireland ? Mr. NVYNN replied, that the Secretary for Ireland intended on Tuesday next to move for a renewal of that Committee. IRISH MARRIAGE ACT. Dr. LUSHINGTON rose, in pursuance of the notic,e which ho had given, to move for a copy of the committal of \Wiliam Quigley, Cockayne, and Ann and Martha Lowten, to the gaol of the county and city of Londonderry in the month of November last. He would shortly state the facts upon which he grounded this motion, and he had every reason to believe that the information which he had received upon this subject was perfectly correct. In the course of the last year, two per sons professing the Roman Catholic religion were married by a Catholic priest to two persons professing the religion of - the Church of Scotland. It subsequently appeared that some information respecting this marriage had been laid before some Magistrates of Londonderry, who declared the marriage illegal under the statute law of Ireland. It further appeared, that on the Magistrates receiving this information, they or dered the parties who were so married before them, and ulti mately committed them to separate places of confinement, where they were detained and kept apart for several weeks. The war rants for their commitment set forth that they were so dealt with, because of their refusal to give the necessary evidence re quired by the statute against the priest, which refusal subjected them to three years' imprisonment, without bail or mainprise : and for the act the priest was liable to capital punishment as a felon. The persons so committed had afterwards given some of the requisite information, and were, he believed, released from custody by an order from the Irish Government. These were shortly the facts of the case. This proceeding was founded upon a melancholy example of Irish statute law, well calculated to keep alive in that unfortunate country a constant source of ex citement and irritation among the Catholic population. It was a statute pregnant with injustice, and which struck at the root of all moral feeling : it wAs, besides, a violation of every sound principle of reason and law—a stimulus to disaffection and dis turbance; and ought,. he thought, to be no longer permitted to operate.—(Hear, hear !)—The Hon. and Learned Gentleman then took a review of the Statute law of Ireland respecting this class of marriages. By the act of Queen Anne, it was provid ed, that any Popish priest who should marry a Protestant should be subject to heavy penalties therein specified. Year after year, however, these penalties were increased, and by another act, in the 13th of Queen Anne. the priest so marry ing a Protestant was made guilty, not of a transportable of fence as before, but of a capital felony, punishable by death. This was not all—it was expressly stipulated that if the party were known to be a Protestant at the time of the marriage, "it should be presumed, allowed, and concluded, to all intents and purposes" that the said priest himself knew the fact to have been so, and upon that assumption proof was to pass against him.—(Hear, hear !)—A mong all the absurd and oppressive enactments, he never met such another as this : it was impos e sible to find one in which the first principle of reason and jus tice, that a man should be deemed innocent until the contrary were proved in due course of law, was so entirely abrogated.— (Hear !)—ln the 12th of Geo. I. c. 3, the preamble ran thus : Whereas clandestine marriages are mostly celebrated by Popish, priests, to the manifest ruin of several families, who are exposed to much inconvenience thereby, &c." not that it was absolutely necessary for the gene;ll security to do such a thing, but to prevent " inconvenience" to " several families." This was the basis of the new Law, and it went to enact, that it should be lawful for any two Justices of Peace to summon before them such persons as were—what ? —" suspected of being married by any Popish Priest;" and on the appearance of the said persons, " to examine them upon oath," that is, to compel them to iclose the name of the Clergyman who had so married them, and to whom they must themselves have necessarily applied to have their marriage ce lebrated—to betray the individual they had themselves in duced to commit the act for their own purposes ; and if either of the parties so summoned, refused to be bound over in a spe cial recognizance to prosecute the clergyman who had married them, they should be committed to the county gaol where the offence was committed, for the term of three years, without hail or mainprise.—( Hear, hear !)--There were six or seven other acts relating to these marriages : by some of them the marriages were rendered null and void, and the priest ex posed to a penalty of 300/. Now, it did not appear that the act which inflicted the pecuniary penalty repealed the capital felony of the previous acts ; so that, as the law was represented to stand, the Priest wasliable to be hanged first, and then fined 5001. (A was the bountiful and merciful intention of the Legislature in these statutes.—(Hear, hear !)—He knew that some differences of opinion prevailed among lawyers, whether the pecuniary penalty was not intended by the legislature as a substitute for the capital felony, and he thought it time that the matter should be set at rest by a clear and explanatory re vision of the whole law on this subject. Ile wished to persuade the house of the propriety of revoking all such unjustifiable provisions of the Irish marriage law as were repugnant to true morality and justice, and so full of enormity, as some of those which he had quoted.—(Hear, hear !)—lt was true, that some alteration should be made in statutes which had no other effect than to keep alive animosity and irritation among the Catholic population of Ireland, to aggravate religious differences, and which were absolutely nugatory even for working the bad pur poses intended by their enactments. Ile cordially trusted that the house would go with him in clearing away such excres cences, which touched and afflicted the sacred and religious in stitution of marriage--an institution so nearly allied to the warmest instincts of the heart of man, and which surely ought not to be subject to revolting conditions of so exasperating, ex citing, and unjustifiable a description as he had already de tailed to the house. lie concluded by repeating his motion for a copy of the commital of these parties.—(Hear, hear !) Sir JOHN NEWPORT seconded the motion. Sir GEORGE HILL warmly defended the conduct of the magistrates alluded to in this transaction, who were the most respectable and honourable individuals in that part of the coun try where they had resided, and than whom there were none more incapable of commit irg any unworthy or oppressive act, in either their magisterial or their private characters.—(Hear !f—He had with justice to complain, that this case had been already brought before another tribunal—a tribunal which presumed to sit in judgment in Ireland upon every man who discharged his pub lic duties in a conscientious manner. These respectable magis trates had been already dragged before the Catholic Association, where their conduct had been arraigned, reproached, abused, and overcharged with every term of animadversion; they were held up as men incapable of any confidence or respect, and this Popish Parliament, atter visiting them with contumely and abuse, had ordered a prosecution to be instituted against them for their act. Ile wished to take this opportunity, after so much prima facie misrepresentation, to set the matter at rest in the mind of that House. The facts were these :—ln the last sum mer there was a Popish priest at Londonderry, who was re markable for celebrating marriages of Catholic males with Pro testant females, and this had led to extraordinary uneasiness in the neighbourhood.—(Hear, and a laugh from the Opposition benches.)—He begged not to be understood as expressing his own opinion, but that of others on this occasion ; it did certainly give uneasiness to many parents, and the Presbytery felt bound to notice the fact ; they remonstrated with Mr. O'Flaherty, the priest, upon the illegality of his conduct, he pleaded ignorance of the law, and thought that it only applied to Protestant, not Presbyterian marriages; he entreated forgiveness for the past, and promised that he would not again transgress in this respect, and there the matter with him ended. In the course of the last autumn, however, this priest had a curate, named O'Hagan, who celebrated similar marriages. On the 4th, sth, or 6th of last November, whilst the magistrates alluded to were sitting at petty sessions, a complaint against O'Hagan was formally laid before them : they felt that the subject of complaint was unusual, and as the parents who complained had brought an attorney with them, it was necessary to proceed legally and ' refer to the Statute-book, where it was found that in this parti ' cular infringement of the law the Magistrates were not invested with any discretion—that the enactment was imperative, and the proceeding explicitly defined in the Statute-book. The Magistrates, therefore, had only obeyed an imperative law, and there was no power but that of the Government which could interfere to mitigate the penalty; and that interference was spee dily had in this business. Such was the case which had brought down upon some of the most respectable Magis trates in the country the vengeance of the Catholic Association, which sat for the purpose of interfering with the constituted authorities of the land.—(llear !)—" Bless me, Mr. Speaker," continued the Right Hon. Bart. " is this self-constituted body to ' sit in judgment upon and try whom they please, and hold people up to the animosity of the Catholic part of the population ?" He hoped that such proceedings would no longer be tolerated by the Legislature—( Hear !)—and concluded by repeating his vindication of the particular 31agistrates whose conduct had been so unjustly stiginatized.—(Hear !) Mr. JOHN 83I1TH wished that the Right Hon. Baronet would explain what he meant when he charged the Catholic Association with having excited the vengeance of the Catholic population against particular individuals. What act had they committed, what language had they used, to excite such hos tility ? because he apprehended that others had as well as him self read the reports of the proceedings of the Catholic Associa tion, and his recollections did not furnish him with any fact to justify so harsh an imputation.—(Hear!),—They were, he knew, disposed to apply a part of the Catholic rent to some ob jects of prosecution for a redress of individual grievances—an application of it which he thought was not only right, but most excellent; for he could not conceive a better mode of disposing ,of public money in Ireland, than in fairly enabling individuals th' who were oppressed to obt a in j us ti ce i n d ue course o f iaW,s yl i i e out incurring private ruin by the expence.—(ilear, hear t o repeated his call upon the Right lion. Baronet for any fa c ` g a Justify his imputation that the Catholic Association had enca to raged private vengeance against those who were o pposed them. i%lr. DAIVSON defended the magistrates whose conduct b aci vt been alluded to, and arraigned the Roman Catholi c Parliament who had impugned them through the mouth of one of its VW% furious demagogue s . Th e reports o f t h e speec h es o f that a ; sembly had been circulated throughout the country in oni i i 3 thentic shape, and been p ro d uct i ve o f i n fi n i te m i sc hi e f ill o r and many other instance s . Th ere were no t i n t h e countla ot magistrates more able, more respectable, intelligent, a ctive, f , entitled to the thanks o f t h e i r countr y. t h an t h ose who o ", e , thus held up to the t aunts o f t h e C at h o li c popu l at i on of I re , land.—(Hear, hear, hear !)—Their characters, indeed, had b ee previously well ' known, and admired by their Catholic felw e j countrymen, until the moment when they were arrair. by O'Connell, Shi e l, an d ot h er d emagogues , at the Catl o , Association, and th en t h e y were v i ewe d wit h' distrust And n j content. This Association was the came of much mischief a !great distrust in Irel an d : it create d di ssat i s f act i on an d disco s ' , e , ' tent throughout the co un t r y. H e did no t w i s h t o p ro voke °.„ bate by going into the many instances which he could offer!, proof of this opinion ; b u t on a f uture occas i on h e s h ou ld gi / l it , full account of the viol en t con d uc t o f t h a t mos t ill ega l assec„e" tion. He thanked the H on . an d L earne d D oc t or f or the teased manner in which h e h a d i n t ro d uce d thi s su bj ec t to the no te d, of the House, and particularly for his considerate and conimear able delicacy in withholding the names of the particular lllts,, trates, a feeling which w a s p ro p er ly con t ras t e d w ith th a t of the l t i t tholic Association, who had held them up to public notice, !ion every term of invidious reproach. He entirely coincided in OPP i s with the Hon. and Learned Doctor, that the marriage- 13 %0 Ireland ought to be m a d e c l ear an d conc l us i ve , an d was ac e that there were some differences of opinion among the Irishl°,,, yens, whether or no the Act of the 33d George lIL had t i c s pealed all the previous statutes, and substituted for them,. penalty of 5001. With re s p ec t t o th e particular case at 1- 0 ;;, donderry, he could state that O'Hagan knew of O'Flaher t o promise. not to repeat the offence, and was so consciouB or own misconduct when lie married one of these young vi olll 4 l that he actually bound he r over by a so l emn pl e d ge of s eer not to mention the occurrence. The parties did afterwards w it ! the evidence which led to th e i r re l ease f rom i mpr i sonm ent, s", O'Hagan fled the country, lik e a m a n wh o k new h e had to a ° ewer for a criminal offence. of Mr. NORTH could not refrain from alluding to the cheers reprobation, as he thought, with which some gentlemen °Pre site had met a part of hi s Ri g ht lion. Friend's (Sir 6°4 Hill's) spetch, when h e s p o k e o f t h e uneas i ness w hich marriages had caused in the country. Was not that Illl e 7, ness perfectly natural ? These marriages were not, he regre t o l uncommon in Ireland ; th ere were Ilene, however, which ealbi worse consequences in thei r train; th e y were n u ll an d void r , law, and the progeny of them bastardized—their ultimate c a n , sequences in nine out of every ten cases was the desertion, silo donment, and destitution of the unfortunate women who O h , the victims of t)tem.—(Hear !)—On the subject of the law , 00 denied that there was the diff e ren c e of opinion whi c h had b alluded to. The Hon. and Learned Gent. (Dr. Lushing t ? ne o , had joked upon the Irish s t a t u t e l aw , a nd sa id t h a t it firsqo flicted in these cases the punishment of death, and then 32,;,0 of 5001. The joke was, however, r a ther stale, and had imported from the Catholic Association, for the amusement , supposed, of the faculty of Doctors'-Commons.—(A latiel•L i a But lie could assure the Hon. and Learned Doctor, that it perfectly unde stood by the profession in Ireland, that the iy , of the late King had repeated the previous statutahle lon t of which rmde the crime a captial felony. Upon the po''''', / ed these statutes he did not mean to give any opinion, but reset ht to himself hereafter the right of considering what penalty o a t' o f to a tsc:i to an offence certainly most injurious to interesla,be society. Neither would lie give any opinion now uponl ii t conduct of the Catholic Association, although he thought l i p in this particular instance, it was quite of a piece with all he had heard of their other conduct. vii Mr. GRATTAN defended the Catholic Association , t he denied that they had excited popular prejudice against ea t Magistracy : on the contrary, he believed they had done, g i me good to the country, which had never b een more tranquil take since their interference. Was it fair, he w ou ld as k, to I p ," to personal attacks upon individuals who could no t b e preserl' o i defend themselves, and who were men of as mu c h honour 0 to ' worth as any in the kingdom ? He begged particularlio , speak of Mr. Shiel, who, as well as Mr. O'Connell, did no t serve such personal reflections.—(Hear !g Dr. LUSH INGTON, in reply, said, ) that notwithstanajo what had been said of the general understanding of the Is le i al Ireland, he knew that strange practice prev a il e d th er e, not 1, 1 1 in civil but in criminal cases, where he knew that statutes 20 , in the administration of justice been disposed o f by whole!oaP and the common law resorted to in particular p ro secut,l o f With respect to the particular case b e f ore th em , could thing be inure intolerable than to compel the party to give deuce against his own act?—{Hear !)—A s to the mag . s," r e; and their conduct, he could not help m a ki ng t hi s singl e , or mark—that there never was a case in w hi c h th e act of 011;et• that hotly was impugned, without their being at o nce 0 t he whelined with the weight of the eulogiums flung upon It mag!stracy for the possession of every virtue.—((iheers.r . .,, t e4 was singular eneugh, th a t i n thi s case , w h ere t h e mailistqhiS . were represented to be popular with the Catholics before,i,, , act, they became th e reverse afterwards, which was a con; v o elusive proof of the impolicy of the s t a t u t e th a t cou ld lestil g a such a spirit of animosity.—(licar !)—The motion was agreed to. SUPPLY. On the motion of the CHANCELLOR of the QUER, the House resolved itself into a Committee of SuP . ral when a resolution was agreed to, that in pursuance of a POO , in the King's Speech, a supply shoald be granted to his jesty.—The House then resumed. LI CATOC A S SOC IA TIN rro ie ' Mr. SPRING RICE gave notice of a mot O ion . for to.mo ro f f r copies or extracts from all the di s p a t c h es f rom t h e Vi ce of Ireland relative to the Catholic Association. ASSESSED TAXES. ( al Mr. MABERLY gave notice, that on Thursday, the °— March, ke would move for a repeal of the assessed taxelL p. Mr. HART DAVIS presented a petition from the par is P i t ioit ers of St. Thomas's, Bristol, against the Catholic Amioci l- oa In Ireland. The p: titioners, professing much liberality ° c o toleration in religious affairs, could not but look with the l r o jf serious a'arrn on the proceedin g s o f a b o dy o f men , whose 01 , to being unler a b on d o f i mp li c i t an d superstitious obe dienc`ci% their priests, were engaged, not in tho attainment of enri l tb e pation, bit in bringing about Parliamentary , reform, which petitioners considered as only another name for revo l u tior. Mr. HUME com pl a i ne d o f th e t i me i n w hi c h this Petro was put forward (th e Hou se was a l most c l eare d ) , w h e n tP i ej were no Members present who mi g ht m ee t th e p e tition v i ew explanatory statements. He himself could g i ve an i ns tant nial to most of the allegations in it. lie denied that the P c ti 40 , tioners were either liberal or tolerant, or th a t d ie C a th o lic As„ se ciation entertained any revolutionary design s . H e me rely ru i , for the purpose of protesting against the introduction of 1 20 tions touching upon matters of such momentous i n t er est, W the House was almost empty. Mr. BRIGHT defended the petitioners, who had only s- - „ s t their participation in a feeling very gener a lly p reva l en t, agar ." the existence aid transactions of the Catholic As4ociation. Mr. H. DAVIS excused himself for not bringing on the tition earlier in the evening, for which purpose he had been f' ti ticularly early in his attend a n ce , b u t cou ld get no opportun,lbe before. He had felt som ew h at l ess earnest , h owever , froin re knowledge that there were 30 or 40 petitions of the same nat't, coming up from the other parishes and corporations of Brist° n on which would f urn i s h opportun i t i es enoug h f or remar kin g U r them. Mr. BRIGHT had been the more easy upon the time of Pi l o { senting the petition, and the thinnes of the House, b ec ause the other petitio ns w hi c h were f orwar di ng f rom every part of the country. The petition was ordered to be printed. fo Mr. ITEnittEs brought up accounts of the public income the country, which were ordered to be printed. 111 r. HERMES brought in a Bill to repeal the Usury which was read a first tune.—Ordered to be read a second tur• on Monday next.—Adjourned. LIST OF THE MAJORITY Who voted for the Introduction of the Bill to Repeal the __ Usury Laws. Althorp, Visct. Hurst, R. North, Henry_ A bercromby, Hn.J. Hodson, J. Parnell, Sir 11. Alexander, J. Holmes, W. Peel, W. Benyon, B. Lambton, J. G. Phillips, J. 0- Brogden, J. Leader, W. Phillimore, Pr. Bradshaw, R. H. Lushington, Dr. Robinson,RtlinJ' Binning, Lord Lushington, S. R. Ross, T. Brownlow, C. Lawley, F. Smith, J. Browne, D. Lopez, Sir M. Trant, W. H. ' Collett, E. J. Lamb, Hon. W. Wellesley, R. i e . Cumming, Geo. L a mb, Hon. G. Wy nn , Rt. Hn• `. c. ` Davies, Colonel Leake , Wm. Winnington, Sir."' Dogherty, George Maberly, J. Wilson, Sir R. Douglas, W. K. 3.laberly, W. L. Warde, J. T. Ellis, . Martin, J. Folkestone, Visct. Monck, J. B. TELLERS. Graham, Sandford Martin, J. Calcraft, J. Grant, A. Macdonald, J. Onslow, Serjeaur Hume, J. Maxwell, H. B. The Tavern-keepers and Confectioners availed themselves of the late frost to store their cellars with ice, none of which' however, is or apy considerable degree of thickness.