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

__ hearsay. Nothing,
was known upon the subject—nothing founded upon evidence—
nothing supported by fact. The Right Hon. the Secretary for Fo-
reign Milani would not allow, in his address to the Ileum:, that
the Association at all represented the feelings of the Codudie
people. The Right Hon. the Attorney. General fur Ireland thought
they were so firmly united, it would be impossible to separ.im
them. Which of these Right Honourable Gentlemen were we to
'pet our trust in ? Upon which of their assertions were we
called upon to legislate ? Who could say that the Learned A ttorney-
Meneral is cognizant of what has been done or said in Ireland.
when we had lately seen him, in the case of Mr. O'Connell, so ill-
informed upon the state of parties as to be unable to find an Orange
Jury who would find a true Bill against a man charged with sedi-
tion 7 Every ease brought forward in support of this measure had
beet controverted ; every fact, he would say every asserted fact,
had been dented or 'disproved. The Learned Gentleman (Mr.
Brougham) had instanced the conduit pursued with regard to Ante-
ricaass a warning and example. In our prevent situation, he, too,
would take the liberty of introducing to the House a parallel case
in the transactions of America. When the King came down to the
House, in the year 1775. he recommended to Parliament, in his
speech front the throne, the propriety of taking some measures to
put down eerta;n illegal transactions at Boston, which appeared to
b:, directed against the royal authority, and subversive of the spirit
of the Constitution. Upon the discussion of the question in the
Commons, a resolution of a very rebellious tendency, said to have
been passed at a meeting in Boston, was read. A Member asked.
were they quite certain that such a Resolution was ever passed?
They had heard so—lie solemnly denied it : and although he
offered to prove at the Bar of the House that nothing of the kind
had ever been seid or any such Resolution agreed to ; a majority
of the House, at four o'clock in the morning, voted an Address
which finally produced the loss of America. The Learned Attor-
ney-General has not been able to prove in this instance either
acts or words. A Learned Gentlenian has said, that the inter-
ference with the administration of justice should be stopped at
once. Had it never been the practice of Parliament to interfere
with the administration of justice? Did Honour:biz Gentlemen
forget what had been done in the case of Iluut--did they forget
how night after night his case was discussed in this House, and
•prejudged by the very men who now object so strongly, to the acts
of the Catholic Association 7 In a case of libel, too, do not four
Judges of the land prejudge a person accused b:fore trial ? In
inques,s, does not the Coroner prejudge a criminal ? Had the
Association done any thing mare than this? He would beg to
observe, that one of the witnesses in this case had been held up to
their particular admiration by his Majesty's Attorney-General—
that he had been eulogized in no measured terms; no objec-
tion could, therefore, be made to this individual upon
the ground of respectability; but Government, it was plain,
had made up their minds to put down the Association. No
arguments, no facts could avail, else why did Lord Liverpool,
when applied to Mr. Alb Donnell, refuse to hear any explanation of
the views and objects of the Association ? Why did he refuse to
i hold any correspondence with him ? because they were already re-
' solved, and this Bill was to be the answer to all complaint. They
reminded him of Vertot, who, when a friend made game objections
to a passage in his History of the Siege of Rhodes, observed—
"ln fact, have written my history, and nothing you can say will
induce me to alter it. (Hear.) He had thought it his duty to ex.
press his sentiments to the House on this subject ; and he begged,
in conclusion, to observe, that he thought the measure thus pro-
posed to be carried into execution against this Association, fraught
with danger and ruin to the prosperity of the country. (Hear).
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL said, that his Hon. Friend op-
posite (Mr. Hobhouse) had stated his opinion that the House was
about to legislate on words. He (the Solicitor-General) would
on the contrary say, that the House was about to legislate on facts.
He would occupy the attention of those who heard him but furs
short time, and would avoid all matter that was not strictly before the
House, confining himself merely to a statement as to how far there
was sufficient evuleece on which to proceed without hearing either
argument or evidence at the bar. There were many facts in up-
0.

II 111111111111111111111111111

1

' \

,

what be tootsr-but what the Honeiurahle Member for West-
minster hatidemanlnsesd fraeds. He (the Solicitor-General) hid
been told that this payment of money was not forocd ; and not-
wlthstaading this black and red book, he would say it was a volun-
tary subscription. But lie would at the same time say, that the
money so raised was equally ageing the privileges of the House
and the spirit of the Constitution. lle had stated his reasons why
he would vote for putting down the Catholic Association—because
it interfered with the administration of justice, and because it be-
comes the depository of money, levied in opposition to the princi-
ples of the Constitution. lie would assure the House that he felt
little disposition to trouble them much further; he would not now
enter upou the subject of Catholic Emancipation, because he anti-
cipated that an opportunity would be given him at some future
time, and because the discussion would be irrelevant now. lle
would observe, however, that on this subject he had always been
consistent ; and as be had been uniform and consistent, he should
not be liable to the observations that had fallen from some lion.
Members opposite with respect to other Hon. Members who sat near
him. He would state his reasons why he would vote against the pe-
titibn to hear witnesses at the bar of the 11 ruse. Those witnesses could
have no facts to explain of which the House was not in possession.
But he entreated the House to consider what was proposed by this pe-
tition to be done. What was to be adduced by those witnesses at the
bar? lie would read one line of the petition, and but one line;
it was petitioried that " evidence might be heard at the bar of the
House, to show that there had been nothing in the proceedings of
the Cathd,tic Association calculated to cache alarm, or to exasperate
aninutsities." So, the House war to hear evidence to inform them
what the intentina of the Association were, and they did nut want
toexcite bad feelings. It was very probable that a witness at the
bar of the House, or.that thirty witnesses, for he understood there
were so many arrived, might say that hate means love—that ad-
juring one party to hate another was not calculated to excite ani.
mosity. The witnesses, however, were not to prove facts, but
simply to state their own opinions. He did not want any witnesses
to tell him what was the effect which the conduct of this Associa-
tion mum produce. The conclusion was matter fur moral mason-
ing, and not to be found front the information of any man. lie
would disbelieve the jesuitry of thirty witnesses, who told him that
the word hatred did not mean hate, He would put the case in
another way. Perhaps the witnesses might tell him that the sub-
scription was not in any way to oppose the law ; but lie was still
left to draw his own inference from the fee:, he had stated. Ile
knew how those facts must operate, and no witness could tell
him how he should think. He would take tile liberty of stating
to the House that many cases might occur. in which, if they
beard evidence at the bar. they would be adopting a bad pelt.
eiple. liniesses might be called at the bar to prove whether
the !louse ought to go into any inquiry into the state of
Ireland, and evidence might be brought forward to state whether
or not it would be at any time politic to allow aliens to remain in
this country. Then here was a Society, with a Committee of
Finance, of Grievances, of Education, and possessing various other
powers, and was he to call fifty or sixty witnesses to instruct him
that it was consistent with policy, with_ legality, and the spirit of
the Constitution? If there were no facts to go upon, then the
evidence might be fairly brought forward ; but as there were
facts. the case was very different. Ile was sure that he had
stated nothing as tact that had been denied by the Honourable
Gentlemen opposite. Ile regretted the absence of his Honourable
and Learned Friend (Sir James Mackintosh), who possessed the
happy art of connecting things that were not in any way connected.
That Honourable Gentleman had alluded to the delays in the
Court of Chancery ; and it had been matter of astonishment how
he had been able to introduce the Court of Chancery into a discus.
lion on the policy of putting down unconstitutional Associations in
Ireland; but he (the Solicitnr-General) would tell that Hon. 31en".cr
and the lion. Member for Lincoln, that if they were to examine fifty
or sixty witnesses at the Bar of the House, the delays in the Court of
Chancery would be trifling to the delays in the House of Commons.
He could draw no line of demarcation between those petitions : all
or none must be received, and on those grounds be should object to
,P ee t, • e eel It

* ‘

in point; nor do I think it Is necessary 1%l the House
by isolated precedents, When certainly the stream of
t against his argument, and the convenience of the
. more so. If Connael were admitted to be heard on
would atilt what future Bill could ever be introduced to
Parliament without the same indulgence being granted to the
opponents of it ? The Habeas Corpus Suspension, for instance—
a subject mast interesting to every class of his Slajesty's subjects—
should that, I say, come before the consideration of Parliament,
with what face could the House of Commons refuse Counsel at
their bar against it, if they acceded to the request of the peti-
tioners ? I sin ready to maintain that every Bill that has passed
this House within the last ten years might have been opposed by
Counsel at the bar, upon the stone grounds as it is proposed that
this should be. If we give a privilege of this kind, the time of
the House, instead of being occupied in its deliberative functions,
would be wholly taken up in hearing, I w ill admit most eloquent,
speeches of Counsel ; and I beg the House to bear in mind that
Counsel are bound to attend to the interests of their clients, and
cannot therefore take a comprehensive stew of the interests of the
country. It istheir bounden ditty to attend to the views of their
clients, and all other considerations arc involved in them. I can-
not illustrate this position more strongly than by referring to the
answer 1 received from the Honourable and Learned Gentleman
opposite, respecting her late Majesty. Be said, let the danger
be what it might to the country, he had a paramount duty
to perform to his client, and he would perform it, let the
risk be what it might. (Hear, hear, hear.) Besides. Sir,
I will ask, what would be the situation of the independent Mem-
bers of this House if the practice were to preval of admitting
Counsel to its bar on all occasions, which the reception of this peti-
tion would open the door to? They would be overawed by the
eloquence of Counsel, contending for the interests of their clients,
and would completely prevent general discussion in the House.
I well remember, during the last Session. the array of Counsel I saw
below the bar, Sir, to be heard against the Marine Insurance Com-
pang. I saw six large wigs on the Marine Insurance question, and
by the rule of three I should say, if six Counsel are nesessary to
' argue such a question as the Marine Insurance, how many trill be
accessary to argue the Catholic Question ? (A laugh.) I remember
well, too, after four of the Learned Gentlemen had been heard, how
pitifully lion. Members looked at the other two who were still to
argue their ease, and with inquiring eyes endeavouring to lied out
whether they meant to speak long or short; and it was not until the
House had heard speeches of Counsel for seven or eight hours, that
they were relieved from the formidable sight of six large wigs,
and that, too, on an uninteresting subject—the Marine Insurance.
But in the instance I have referred to, invested rights were inter-
fered with. Persons prayed to be heard by Counsel,- who had been
themselves engaged in an undertaking probably the whole of their
lives, and who felt that they would be sensibly injured in a pecu-
niary point of view by the new enactment. The lion. Clentleman
opposite had objected, and I think rightly, to the admission of 31r.
Stephens at the bar last Session, in me case of some blacks in the
West Indies. lie said, if you admit Mr. Stephens you must after-
ward. admit Counsel in behalf of the next of kin of half the blacks
in the Colonies. But observe the peculiarity of this Bill :—lt was
a Bill introduced to remove certain slaves from one island to an-
other, and a gentleman, a great philanthropist, desired to appear at
that bar to object to the Bill, but the House refused his request.
But it is upon general principles, and not upon dry reference to
precedents, that I require the House to act. I rely on the good sense
and prudence of the Catholics of Ireland, that they will be satisfied
when they know their petition militates against the usages of Parlia-
ment, and would, if agreed to, lead to a most inconvenient precedent.
I never will concur in the bad opinion of the Catholics, which those
who call themselves their friends seem to entertain of them. Thew
hold out the threat, that the Catholics would, by the rejection of
their claims, be driven to desperation, declare their independence,
and follow the example of the American provinces. No, no;
will never think so badly of the Catholics as that. If I could be-
lieve them guilty of such conduct. my opposition to their claims
would be greatly strengthened. Is there, I would ask, any reason
on the last ground, viz. In order to supply the defective evidence laid
before the House, that we should consent to the prayer of the peti-
tioners ? And now one word on the Parliamentary Papers of htst
Session. The Habeas Corpus Suspension Act was suspended with-
out any communication of papers. In 1793 the Convention Act
as me lion. Friend Mr. S. Rice is so fond of Irish nrecedents was

. o .
tight ,;.... A
..A. THE BRITISH APRES.
in t Rood ? The naly pwint of similitude between the precedent of the I free, mother—and the one wainlees it breach of the privilege of are exactly in
pea Right Hon. %mailman and the question now before the House is, Parliament than the odor,. Tbo Sergeant-at-Anna, therefore, to be guidedl
ere that the petitioners in both were equally ill-treated—both equally l ought to arrest the individual wiri proposed to violate a privilege precedents is
the slaves. (Hear, hear.) From the beginning to the end of these lof the House, by proposing a voluntary supply." lie (the Soh. House much I
vivo discossiona, the House bad proceeded on hearsay. Nothing serails cit seirdsi now take the liberty of stating to the House this Bill, Iwe
pc- was known upon the subject—nothing founded upon evidence— what be call facts—but what the Honourable Member for West- Parliament w
Lice nothing supported by fact. The Right lion. the.Seaettry for I's. minsterltirl denominated *fords. Ile (the Solicitor-General) hid opponents of 1
_ _